As the college football season has come to an end with Alabama and the SEC triumphant once again and basketball season in full swing, let’s take stock of the conference realignment landscape:
(1) Is the Big Ten expanding to 16 or 18 (or more) and if so, when? – Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune recently noted that there are some within the Big Ten that believe that the conference won’t stop expanding until it gets to 18 schools. That being said, I’m not someone that believes that further Big Ten expansion is imminent. Sure, there are schools that the Big Ten seem to be more than willing to add to create a legit superconference (e.g. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and, of course, Notre Dame), but I continue to believe that there isn’t going to be some type of impending exodus from the ACC. Look back at how much of a sales job the Big Ten needed to procure Maryland, which is a school in a state contiguous to the current Big Ten footprint, has relatively weak conference rivalries (Terps fans may care about Duke and UNC, but it’s not reciprocated), has turned into a Northern school from a cultural perspective and clearly needed more athletic department money. From my vantage point, the members of the ACC still like the league even if they’re wary about the TV contract (whereas the Big 12 is the opposite where everyone outside of Texas really isn’t a huge fan of the league per se but are happy about the latest TV deal). Are the Big Ten and SEC stronger than the ACC? Absolutely. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the ACC is a sitting duck that’s about to get picked apart.
Let’s put it this way: if the Big Ten really thought that it could obtain all of the ACC schools that I’ve seen rumored that the conference wants to add in such a quick manner (e.g. within the next year), then I highly doubt that Jim Delany would have granted an invite to Rutgers. That’s not a knock on Rutgers and what it can bring to the table in the new Big Ten setup (the school makes sense as an addition for various reasons, not the least of which is a presence in the New York City metro area), but UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and probably Duke (yes, Duke, and yes, I need to take a shower after saying that) would have all been ahead of the Scarlet Knights on the pecking order. Convincing Maryland to head to the Big Ten was tough enough and that’s nothing compared to persuading truly Southern schools such as UVA and UNC to come along (and by the same token, the SEC isn’t going to be as attractive to those same schools as it was to Texas A&M and Missouri).
As a Big Ten guy, I personally see a ton of benefits for the conference if it raids the ACC further. From an objective standpoint, though, I don’t see that happening soon. The threat of the Big Ten being on the prowl probably gives the conference more power than it does in terms of actually striking. I know this much: the Big Ten will wait for who it really wants at this point. They’re not going to force anything other than a 100% fit and to me, that would likely need to be some combo of UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and/or Notre Dame (although I’d personally want to see Florida State become a prime target). That could take awhile to come to fruition, so I believe we can put the Superconference Armageddon scenarios away for the time being as realistic (even though they’re so much fun to talk about as hypotheticals).
(2) What are the Big Ten divisions going to look like? – Greenstein’s report also intimated that the Big Ten was looking at an East/West split for divisions with the possibility of putting Northwestern in the East due to its alumni contingents in the New York and Washington, DC regions. However, the word out of Northwestern is that they would prefer to stay in the West with its closer rivals such as Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin along with enjoying a massive influx of Nebraska fans buying up tickets in Evanston every other year.
From what I’ve seen, the divisional alignment that I had proposed a couple of weeks ago with Michigan State in the West and both Indiana and Purdue in the East and every school having a protected cross division rival won’t come to fruition. If Northwestern is in the West (and I’ll be honest as an Illinois fan that I’d personally be pretty pissed if Northwestern ends up in the East on top of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State), then it would seem that Indiana would make more sense as the Hoosier State rep in the East (look at this Wall Street Journal article from a few years ago about how many East Coast students have been invading Bloomington lately) while Purdue would head to the West. That would mean the East would have Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan State and Indiana, while the West would have Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois and Purdue. In that event, I would hope that the Big Ten assigns Indiana-Purdue as the only protected cross division rivalry while everyone else goes on a regular rotation. This would allow the West schools to continue playing Michigan and Ohio State more often, especially if the Big Ten increases its conference schedule to 9 games. The Pac-12 did the right thing by only making the games between the various California-based members into annual cross division games and not trying to force any unnatural pairings. Hopefully, the Big Ten has the good sense to do the same.
(3) What’s going on with the Big East/Mountain West skirmish? – As of now, the conference realignment action is really happening outside of the scope of the five power conferences (Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12). The latest cog in the Gang of Five wheel is San Diego State, which is faced with a decision of whether to “go back” to the Mountain West Conference (which they are still a member of until July 1st) or “stay” with the Big East as football-only member (which they have committed to join on that date) and the Big West for basketball and Olympic sports. I don’t envy the decision that has to be made by the Aztecs since neither option is exactly optimal – it’s either being in the MWC, which has a new TV deal structure that will largely benefit Boise State, or the Big East whose membership is in flux and SDSU will almost certainly be the lone extreme geographic outlier.
Even though there’s a case to be made that San Diego State would make more football TV money in the Big East and actually reduce their Olympics sports travel costs in the Big West, I believe that the Aztecs will ultimately stick with the MWC. It comes down to a simple question: would San Diego State have chosen to join the Big East one year ago if it knew how the league would look today? In my opinion, it would be an emphatic “No”, as evidenced by schools in smaller markets such as UNLV and Fresno State having since rejected overtures from the Big East. It would have been one thing if the Big East still had AQ status (or the equivalent of it in the new postseason system) or could reasonably procure an outsized TV contract compared to the MWC (which is what Big East commissioner Mike Aresco has been trying to convince people will be coming down the pike even though no one outside of Big East partisans believes him), but being the sole West Coast team in a league that isn’t receiving favored treatment anymore and looks like it won’t be adding anyone else within 1500 miles of your school (which we’ll get to in a moment) is a rough thing for any university president or athletic director to sign up for.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the Big East is a bad choice for everyone. Houston and SMU, who have been rumored to be targets of the MWC, still make a lot more sense in the Big East. At worst, those schools will be in a better version of the Conference USA that they will be leaving, so the MWC doesn’t provide much upside comparatively. As much as some observers seem to want to watch conferences just pack it in and completely die off, the Big East (or whatever it will be called in the future, which is a separate issue) can still survive as an entity with the pieces that it still has left. Tulsa appears to be a Big East expansion target, which would be a solid addition for its Southwestern flank. UMass is also out there as a classic “university presidents might love it and fans will hate it” option – they have a nascent and struggling FBS program yet offer a public flagship university in the Northeast that plays football at that level (which otherwise don’t exist at all outside of the 5 power conferences plus UConn). Several other schools from Conference USA (e.g. Southern Mississippi) and the MAC (e.g. Northern Illinois) might also get a look, but my feeling is that Tulsa and UMass are the frontrunners to get the Big East up to 12 football members (assuming that San Diego State stays in the MWC) as soon as possible. The league would then do everything it can to keep Navy on board as an addition for 2015 and, if Mike Aresco is successful in doing so, would target one more school on top of that to get to 14 schools for that season.
(4) What is the TV Contract and Expansion Status for the “Catholic 7”? – The Catholic 7 defectors from the Big East (DePaul, St. John’s, Marquette, Georgetown, Seton Hall, Villanova and Providence) have upended the “football means everything and basketball means nothing” axiom of conference realignment. According to Darren Rovell of ESPN. com, Fox has offered $500 million over 12 years for the Catholic 7, with the assumption that the group adds 5 more schools to get up to 12 members. That figure will likely be larger than what the football playing schools in the Big East will receive for both football and basketball. I’ve said many times on this blog that football in and of itself isn’t what’s valuable, but rather quality content. In this case, the Catholic 7 are offering quality content in their sphere of non-FBS basketball schools with traditional schools in large urban markets. The problem with so many conferences is that they’re trying to apply the way that the Big Ten and SEC make money via football when they don’t have the assets to do it properly. It would be akin to a mom-and-pop corner store trying to run a business like Wal-Mart or Target without the requisite supply chain. Not every conference can be all things to all people in the manner of the Big Ten and SEC, so the Catholic 7 was smart enough to realize (or at least make the right decision when backed into a corner) that they can exploit a lucrative niche. They became the Trader Joe’s of college conferences as opposed to Wal-Mart, if you will. Instead of being subject to the whims of raids from the 5 more powerful football conferences as members of the hybrid Big East, the Catholic 7 have positioned themselves as arguably the most powerful non-FBS sports conference out there. The non-FBS market might be much smaller than the FBS market as a whole, but there’s something to be said to being #1 in the former with complete control of your destiny as opposed to #6 (or even #7) in the latter without any buying power.
With the Fox offer apparently contingent upon the Catholic 7 adding 5 schools, that brings into question who would be the expansion candidates. Xavier and Butler have been continuously named by several separate outlets as locks, so that takes up the first two spots. The next 2 most likely targets appear to be Dayton (great fan base) and Creighton (ditto with a top notch on-the-court program right now on top of that). All 4 of those schools should feel fairly comfortable about getting into the new league with the Catholic 7 (which may very well still end up with the Big East brand name when all is said and done) with this news about Fox wanting a 12-team league. That leaves the last spot that appears to be a battle between St. Louis and Virginia Commonwealth.
If I were running the Catholic 7, I’d definitely recommend SLU as school #12. From my vantage point, this is an opportunity for this group of schools to create a conference with branding that goes beyond athletics with like-minded institutions. Essentially, the new league can be to urban undergraduate-focused private schools in the Midwest and East Coast what the Big Ten is to large research institutions in the same region. In that regard, SLU is a perfect institutional fit with the Catholic 7 and the 4 other schools mentioned. SLU also has excellent basketball facilities and a solid history in the sport, so it’s not as if though this would be a poor on-the-court move.
VCU, on the other hand, would purely be a basketball resume addition. Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that approach, as this new league is going to need top notch hoops teams on-the-court to gain the requisite NCAA Tournament credits to pay the bills. At the same time, VCU would be an Eastern-based addition to balance out all of the other probable expansion candidates that are located in the Midwest. However, I’m wary about VCU being an addition based on short-term results as opposed to long-term institutional fit. What surprises me is that there has been zero buzz about the Catholic 7 looking at Richmond, which has a solid basketball resume itself and is a better institutional fit as a private liberal arts school located in the same market as VCU.
It’s not an accident that SLU was added by the Atlantic 10 immediately after Conference USA stopped its hybrid model after the Big East raids of 2003, while VCU and Butler were only invited this year. SLU would be a long-term move in a solid TV market that’s a great institutional fit and makes geographic sense assuming that the Catholic 7 wants to add Creighton. I have all of the respect in the world for VCU as a basketball program, but SLU would be best for the new Catholic 7 league for the long run.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from CBS Sports)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
#4 Hawks at Oklahoma State this Sunday.
LikeLike
Subscribe fail. And its #3 Iowa at #2 OkSU.
LikeLike
This is embarrassing.
LikeLike
MgoBLUE!
LikeLike
bam
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
Gotta luv dem kompewtur prograhmurs! http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21534509/notre-dame-still-1-in-one-bcs-computer-ranking Is it too late to join 8/12/16/32/64 team playoffs now?
LikeLike
Note: UMass WOULD be raiding the MAC, UMass is a FB-only member of the MAC. That status would simplify a quick add of UMass by the Big-“X”, since UMass could start as a FB-only member of the Big-“X” and then schedule an orderly transition to full member status.
Simple financial sums: at a more pessimistic valuation of the Big-“X” as Original Conference USA (media) upgraded with UConn and Temple of around $30m a year for tier1/tier2 rights, in a 12 team league that’s $2.5m for a full member, $1.75m for a FB-only member.
$1m from the MWC and the bonus for national TV (broadcast network / ESPN / ESPN2) would clearly beat $1.75m for Boise State ~ even without the $900,000 travel subsidy to the Big West.
$1m from the MWC under the CBS contract with possibly a single bonus game a year would not beat $2.5m for Houston or SMU. Especially if Tulsa is added, making for in division trips including NOLA, Houston/Dallas, Tulsa, and Memphis, all much closer than in-division games for a MWC-East.
LikeLike
So, are we saying here that G’town basketball is worth double both UConn basketball and football (not to mention women’s bball)?
Something is wrong in Frank’s analysis. First we hear that outside of BE partisans, no one thinks the BE will get much money. Not more than the MWC. Then we hear that the C7 will be making double what schools like UConn make on both football and basketball now, when the contract is still paying for Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse and Louisville.
Who knows? Maybe the world really is upside down.
LikeLike
That is being conservative ~ more middle of the road estimates are $60m-$80m for a NuBigEast contract, which would put the two on par. And as to whether they would be on part … the BB7 offers stability, which justifies investing more in the marketing of the league. UConn and Cinci together offer a good chunk of what the NuBigEast would be worth, and everyone expects both to be packing their bags and waiting by the phone if the ACC should need to restock.
LikeLike
Brands. And brands playing brands. There’s more of that in the C7.
LikeLike
ESPECIALLY brands playing brands. If you’ve got 12 teams and six or more recognizable brands, the top tier of the inventory is going to be worth something, week after week. That was the “group of princes” effect that made the Big East worth more than the sum of the separate parts.
If Fox Sport is planning on taking its 70m~80m household Speed Network to turn it into a national Fox sports network ~ and has to renegotiate carriage to keep those which have the motor sports focus specified in the contract ~ it needs interesting matchups to hold onto valuable spots in basic cable.
LikeLike
Gig’em
LikeLike
Go Mizzou, and to a lesser extent Go Blue
LikeLike
Good call on SLU. If Fox has a say on who to invite (and if I was Fox, I sure as heck would want a say, considering that my money is the lifeblood of that conference), SLU would be #3 after Xavier and Butler. Creighton and Dayton get great support, but bring small markets (Cincinnati is already covered by Xavier). If Fox wants to farm out games to FSN, they have an affiliate in RootsSports Northwest (Gonzaga) & one in Utah (though BYU is unlikely). Comcast in the Mid-Atlantic shows FSN content.
If Gonzaga and BYU aren’t viable options, I would go with Creighton over Dayton (both have great attendance and are in a small market, but Creighton has more recent NCAA success). Then, personally, I’d decide between Richmond & Dayton, but Fox may want VCU despite the ill-fit.
LikeLike
Fox certainly has a say, as they can speak with their money. But BYU and Gonazaga seem like no-gos. Gonzaga is too much of a geographic outlier. They don’t want to send other sports to the northeast. Too much in travel costs. BYU should be axed due to football. I realize BYU is currently independent in football, but there’s little reason for this conference to get caught up in other realignment. If BYU ever rejoins a conference in full, they are gone. It’s far easier to take a non-football school.
Markets don’t matter that much. Support and content do. Dayton has a long history of on the court success and strong fan support. They may be located near Xavier, but it’s not as close as you may think. Villanova and St. John’s aren’t much further apart, and Seton Hall falls in between them.
LikeLike
Two statements seem to be in direct contradiction:
if the Big Ten really thought that it could obtain all of the ACC schools that I’ve seen rumored that the conference wants to add in such a quick manner (e.g. within the next year), then I highly doubt that Jim Delany would have granted an invite to Rutgers.
…
I know this much: the Big Ten will wait for who it really wants at this point. They’re not going to force anything other than a 100% fit and to me, that would likely need to be some combo of UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and/or Notre Dame
LikeLike
That said, I do think any additions by the Big 10 will involve those schools, but I think it is far more likely than you do.
LikeLike
No, not really. The game was different before Maryland left, and the Big Ten is very patient.
The real date is 2016. That’s when the current media deal runs out.
LikeLike
How is anything different now? If they couldn’t wait until 2016 to add Maryland why wouldn’t they be aggressive now?
LikeLike
I will say that if anything is different now it is that the threshold has been lowered because because of Rutgers.
I still think that any future expansion will involve some combination of the schools Frank mentioned, but the fact remains the standard is now Rutgers and Maryland not PSU and Nebraska.
LikeLike
The difference is in the criteria. Nebraska made sense at #12 because the Big Ten was establishing a CCG at the time and needed a football “name” to help legitimize it. Maryland and Rutgers were brought in to bolster the Big Ten Network and give the conference complements to Penn State along the Northeast Corridor. The threshold hasn’t been lowered, just altered.
LikeLike
Good point, considering that a couple of those candidates would also be in the sights of the SEC. This time, they’re in competition with another conference…their main competitor and one which has the natural recruiting advantage at the current time. I think Delany understands the stakes here and why he and the B1G executive office are doing the diligence on the would-be candidates.
LikeLike
My view is a bit different than Frank’s. I agree that the B1G is patient, but I would add
“opportunistic.” If opportunities come along, Delany/B1G will act.
My view is also a bit different than many have expressed here that 2016 is some sort of deadline. I do not think Maryland and Rutgers were added (and that other schools will be added) just because the TV contracts are coming up for renegotiation.
In my view, Maryland was an “opportunity acquisition.” Think in terms of corporate raiding. Maryland’s athletic department was basically insolvent and needed a big cash infusion. Maryland’s leadership (particularly it’s President) were not Maryland partisans and could be approached with a bottom-line argument for switching conferences. Those conditions (cash-strapped and non-homer leadership) created an time-sensitive opportunity for expansion only tangentially related to the negotiations of the tv contracts. If the B1G waits, Dr. Loh might take another job or Maryland might find revenue sources. The B1G needed to act while the timing was right.
So, I think the coming end of this tv contract cycle will not either impede or prompt further expansion.
As said, in the end, I think the B1G will act opportunistically.
LikeLike
What is the direct contradiction supposed to be, there?
It surely is not that the move to 14 that guarantees Big Ten has access to growing eastern seaboard markets implies that a move to 16 or 18 would be under the same urgency. Quite the opposite: the urgent needs have been addressed, and the Big Ten can now afford to wait to get exactly who they want.
If they were sure that they could pick and choose from among UNC+Duke / UVA / GTech at any time that they wished, then there ISN’T the same urgency in taking Rutgers. They could go straight to 16 picking four among MD / UNC+Duke / UVA / GTech.
LikeLike
I read it differently. The Big Ten will be very selective from this point forward. Rutgers was already added in the past. Rutgers made some sense as a #14 to get Maryland. Maybe not the ideal add, but someone that was available and offered something. Now that the ice has been broken, you don’t need to pick-off ACC schools one by one.
LikeLike
I too doubt further Big Ten expansion is imminent, but I believe it could annex up to four ACC AAU members not named Pittsburgh by the end of the decade. Much will depend upon the revenue gap, whether the ACC football brand continues to be putrid (thus enlarging the revenue gap), and other factors.
If I’m Duke, I’d like to get this done relatively quickly for two reasons: 1) its men’s basketball brand may not flourish quite as brightly in a post-K world, thus diminishing much of its value; and 2) if Florida State gains AAU status in the next few years — and I personally don’t know whether it’s on track to get there –– FSU gets slot #18, not Duke, no matter how much UNC may whine. (And in having Big Ten exclusivity in the state, it might not.)
There’s also the slim chance the SEC could reverse its “gentlemen’s agreement” and invite FSU, perhaps with Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
UNC has leverage. They can always go to the SEC with Duke. The SEC would gladly take both.
LikeLike
The UNC-Duke tie-in is severely overrated. If I’m Slive, knowing that unlike Delany, I probably can’t expand past 16 members, would you seriously take Duke over Virginia Tech? From an SEC perspective, Virginia Tech + N.C. State > North Carolina + Duke. Easily.
LikeLike
SEC is already strong in football. Where they’re weak is academics and basketball. The UNC + Duke combo provides both. Virginia Tech provides neither.
LikeLike
The idea that UNC (or Duke for that matter) would choose the SEC over the B1G seems implausible. Not only is the Big Ten vastly superior academically, but is a much stronger basketball conference, top to bottom. They may opt not to go anywhere, but if they do, the administrators/faculty are not going to allow the ‘fans’ to dictate what’s best for the University.
The only scenario I can imagine where UNC goes to the SEC is if both NCstate and Duke go with them. Even that would be a tough sell if UVA and GT go to the Big.
LikeLike
^In the end, it’s all about athletics. Alumni, fans, and legislators could very well get involved and force some hands.
Let me put it this way, would Alabama join the Big Ten?
LikeLike
There’s more to fitting in than just academics. SEC’s academics would be perfectly good with Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, Florida, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Georgia. Basketball would be pretty good with Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt. They could make it work.
The question is, if they do chase the money and if they want $40M per year instead of $13M per year, who do they feel like they fit in more with? Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky? Or Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers?
The SEC will try to sell them and their fans on the idea that the SEC is a better fit. Will it work? I don’t know. It might.
Look at a map. North Carolina is in The South, not the Great Lakes.
LikeLike
What if UVa, UNC, GT and FSU can be connected together? That would be the combo that would win out over the SEC for the B1G.
LikeLike
So what you’re asking is, if given a choice, would UNC choose a combo of:
UNC, Duke, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida in an SEC 16
or
UNC, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Rutgers in a B1G 18
Maybe they prefer option 2. Maybe. I guess that’s the B1G’s best shot. But then they’d have to go to 18. And UNC would have to split from Duke and NCSU.
I think UNC and Duke would have to strongly consider the SEC. I think it could go either way.
LikeLike
So Frank’s Big East Basketball Conference would be:
Providence
St. John’s
Seton Hall
Villa Nova
Georgetown
Xavier
Dayton
Butler
St. Louis
DePaul
Marquette
Creighton
Wow, what a blow to the Atlantic 10 that would be. Replenish with George Mason, I suppose, and who else? Davidson?
Other random thoughts: Who would make good candidates to fill in Creighton’s spot in the MVC? UT-Arlington has been suggested. What about the University of Denver? They do have a pretty impressive overall athletic department, and only seem to have struggled to get into a more stable, well-respected mid-major conference because of geographic isolation.
LikeLike
It’ll likely be:
Big East East:
Georgetown
Villanova
Seton Hall
Providence
St. John’s
Butler
Big East West
Marquette
DePaul
Xavier
Dayton
Creighton
SLU
LikeLike
Uh, Butler’s west of the OH schools and smack dab between them and DePaul & Marquette.
LikeLike
Yeah I know, but I don’t know if they’d want to split up Xavier and Dayton. It’s kind of a bad split this way to be honest. Which would be an argument for VCU over SLU.
LikeLike
At the end of the day, there probably won’t be divisions in the Catholic 7 (just as the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Pac-12 don’t have divisions for basketball). Andy is correct that Xavier and Dayton can’t be split up. What’s more likely is that each school with have 2 or 3 protected annual rivals and then rotate through everyone else.
LikeLike
Yeah, I guess that would work too.
LikeLike
I’m curious whether they will have 16 or 18 conference games. 18 conference games with 3 protected rivals means the other 8 are played once half the time and twice half the time.
LikeLike
I initially was trying to think who who go “east” with the Big East originals. It only really works well if you bring in a Virginia school, like Richmond or VCU. SPlitting Dayton and Xavier does not make much sense.
But then I realized this is not a football conference, so there’s no need for divisions. I was overthinking it.
LikeLike
Agreed that there won’t be divisions – the east schools carry most of the “Big East” cachet, and the western schools are going to want to have Georgetown and Villanova visit as much as possible.
Good for the C7 to be nailing down such a big deal. I think it might be an overpay based on Fox Sports One’s need to grab programming. Ironically, this type of overpay is what the BE was banking on in terms of getting a huge football deal, only as Frank says, you have to have quality programming to sell.
Can anyone enlighten me as to why it has to be 12 teams? I keep hearing the word “inventory,” but assuming that not every single C7 game is going to be televised, it seems to me that you dilute the bankable matchups by grabbing two more teams. Why not stick with 10 and ensure home-and-homes for every possible bankable matchup?
LikeLike
Extra markets still matter. Plus, #11 & #12 for the Catholic-12 likely will not dilute the product & may strengthen it; they are almost certainly going to be stronger on the court than Providence & DePaul. Maybe StJ as well.
LikeLike
Better than Seton Hall as well.
LikeLike
Add Gonzaga and BYU and you get:
East:
Georgetown
Villanova
Seton Hall
Providence
St. John’s
Xavier
Dayton
Big East West
Marquette
DePaul
Creighton
SLU
Butler
BYU
Gonzaga
LikeLike
I think the idea that the Catholic 7 could get $5M/year on average over the life of a 12-year, $500 million contract from Fox is not possible in a 12-team conference, which apparently is the size that Fox is seeking in order to pay such a high figure.
$500M divided by 12 years is $41.67M/year, on average, for the conference. I emphasize on average because the contract is bound to have escalation clauses where the payouts start lower that $41.67M but end higher. Each of the 12 schools would receive $3.47M/year, on average ($41.67M divided by 12 schools). If the Catholic 7 were to get $5M/year, the remaining 5 new members would get only $1.334M a year.
$5 million a year for seven “original” members, who technically would be just as new to this brand new league as any of the other five, vs. $1.334M a year for the other five? That’s just not going to fly. It’s possible there won’t be equal payments, but the five other schools ought to have use their leverage to get closer to the amount the Catholic 7 would get. Xavier and Butler, especially, would add more television value than Providence, Seton Hall, and, probably, DePaul.
It’s true, the league cannot exist at all without the Catholic 7, but that does not mean the other five schools should just say, “Okay, we’ll accept anything. Just please let us in!” Certainly the athletic departments at Xavier, Butler, & company would have better negotiators than that!
LikeLike
Fans of Big East football schools like myself (RU), are feeling pretty vindicated now that our long term feeling that the BE bb-only schools were the real problem has been proven correct.
Given the clean slate of creating a new conference (w/o the football schools they always say ruined their precious Big East) one of the first ideas these clowns have is to try to set it up with unequal revenue sharing to screw over their new members.
LikeLike
To be fair, my understanding of the intent of the unequal revenue distribution in favor of the Catholic 7 is that it would be on a temporary basis for the first couple of years to reflect the fact that the schools that broke off from the Big East incurred all of the costs and risk in starting up the new league. (This isn’t reflected in the ESPN.com article, which makes it sounds like that the Catholic 7 simply believes that they’re worth more and they’ll have unequal revenue distributions for the entire contract, which almost certainly won’t be the case.) The Catholic 7 is the group that is paying the lawyers and consultants, dealing with the exit fees and conference name issue with the Big East, and took the risk in the first place in forming an entirely separate conference. So, there is the notion that the Catholic 7 have both financial and sweat equity in the new league that Xavier, Butler and others won’t have invested when they get invited. In that respect, it’s not much different than the reduced payouts initially from the Big Ten to Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland (even though it’s otherwise an equal revenue sharing league).
LikeLike
I don’t see it as comparable to RU and MD at all. B1G current members need to be compensated for the fact their equity share in the BTN is being diluted by the additions and the B1G doesn’t want to open up their ABC/ESPN deal before it runs out and they can get to market.
On the other hand, the new additions will be joining the C7 either the same year or one year after the conference starts, but they will be named in time to be considered and fully valued in whatever new TV deals the new conference signs. There should be no “dilution” because of the additions.
As far as risk goes, the C7 will be walking with $10’s of millions in exit fees and bb credits, as well as an automatic bid (due to their continuity in playing each other), so where’s their big risk in starting a conference that justifies keeping extra millions from their new partners?
This whole thing reeks of trying to establish a hierarchy in the conference so they can run things like they did in the Big East, and deflect from the fact that if you were starting a conference completely from scratch, some of the C7 are not nearly as attractive as some of the new additions (I’m talking to you Seton Hall and Providence).
LikeLike
The value of current C7 NCAA credits can be justified as a buyin since the 5 schools added will be leaving their credits with their current conferences. That value would decline every year and be $0 after 6 years.
LikeLike
I think the original point is apt however. The Catholic schools could have left the BE at any time, and only stayed on because of $$$. That is, the NCAA basketball credits largely earned from the advance of FBS schools in the tournament. So, they leave the BE now and blame the instability of the league when the league has been unstable for a very long time (largely because of the shortsightedness of the basketball schools when it came to admitting Penn State and Maryland). So what kept them? $$$
LikeLike
B1G current members need to be compensated for the fact their equity share in the BTN is being diluted by the additions and the B1G doesn’t want to open up their ABC/ESPN deal before it runs out and they can get to market.
Utah and TCU both had buy-ins to their new conferences despite the fact that neither conference had a network at the time.
LikeLike
Frug:
I believe Utah got a bump from providing a CCG. The much ballyhooed Fox/ESPN contract didn’t start until this year. My understanding was that Utah received a reduced amount, perhaps equal to what they would have received playing 9 OOC games against the PAC until the new contract began? Not the case for Colorado.
LikeLike
Also, as NCAA tournament units accumulate over the first six years, total league revenue will grow, which can be used to equalize conference payout over six years without having to reduce payout to the original 7.
LikeLike
I don’t think this at all supports the basketball schools having been a problem in the Big East. They were an anchor and like everyone else, when they saw a better opportunity they took. Before that though, they agreed to a lot of expansion that didn’t benefit them but would cost them (starting TCU which added nothing basketball but did another basketball mouth and a long road trip in all sports).
LikeLike
You are only dividing direct TV revenue ~ you are leaving out indirect TV revenue from NCAA Championship units.
LikeLike
So, would that basically leave the A-10 as being to the CAA what the NuBigEast is to Conference USA? Who would even be left?
Denver’s biggest problem has been the lack of an FBS football program; were it not for that they’d be in the Mountain West yesterday. Or Conference USA, or even the NuBigEast. As is, hard to see them climbing much higher than the Valley.
LikeLike
I think with the ACC schools making, what, $12M? $15M? per year, they’re going to feel a lot of pressure in the next few years as the SEC and B1G start making more and more money. I wouldn’t be surprised to see both making upwards of $40M per year per school as the Big Ten Network and SEC Network grow. ACC schools will want a piece of that action.
I think the SEC is pushing hard for UNC and Duke and will settle for nothing less unless those two are off the market.
I really hope nobody goes past 16. Once you get to 18 it’s not really much of a conference anymore. If the dream scenario many of you are drooling about actually happens and the B1G picks up UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT, then what?
Basically you’d have your old Big Ten on one side and then Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech on the other. What is that? It’s not even the Big Ten anymore. It’s a merger. It’s the Big Ten/ACC combo conference. How do you even integrate all that as one conference? It would almost be like that B1G/Pac 12 partnership that didn’t pan out.
I hope the powers that be think long and hard about how that is supposed to work before moving ahead with it.
I think optimally you give the state of Virginia to the B1G and the state of North Carolina to the SEC. UVA/VT to the B1G, UNC/Duke to the SEC. Then you draw the line there, have to 16 school power leagues, North and South, and those two leagues can be big rival leagues. You could even set up permanent B1G/SEC rivals, although I doubt it would ever happen. But if it did, maybe something like this:
Ohio State-Florida
Michigan-Alabama
Penn State-Tennessee
Nebraska-LSU
Wisconsin-Georgia
Michigan State-Auburn
Iowa-Arkansas
Northwestern-Duke
Minnesota-Mississippi
Illinois-Missouri
Indiana-Kentucky
Purdue-Mississippi State
Rutgers-Vanderbilt
Maryland-South Carolina
Virginia-North Carolina
Virginia Tech-Texas A&M
Now tell me that wouldn’t be fun as hell?
LikeLike
Virginia Tech is improving academically, but it’s not quite AAU caliber yet, and after Nebraska’s post-invite loss of AAU status, Big Ten presidents will not let that academic embarrassment happen again. As of now, the only Tech qualified for the conference is in Georgia.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood how Nebraska’s loss of AAU status was an embarrassment to the Big Ten. I highly doubt the Big Ten was embarrassed at Nebraska’s removal vote because:
1) The Big Ten had to know it was coming since it was Big Ten schools who were leading the removal vote.
2) Had the Big Ten schools actually voted to keep Nebraska in (Nebraska was only a few votes short of staying) there would have been no “embarrassment.”
LikeLike
Not only were B10 schools well aware that Nebraska was on the outs, but Wisconsin and Michigan lead the charge to oust Nebraska from the AAU. In fact, long before negotiations to bring Nebraska to the B1G, Mich and Wisky tried to chuck Nebraska but fell short of the votes needed in committee, so instead of holding the official vote, they never brought the issue to the fore, then over the next year reconvened the committee with new members who were more in favor of the ouster of Nebraska.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I’ve never understood how Nebraska’s loss of AAU status was an embarrassment to the Big Ten.”
I think embarrassed is the wrong word. NE was the kid that went to UMass from a family of Harvard alumni. The B10 used to be able to claim to be one of 2 conferences, and the only I-A conference, that was 100% AAU members. NE took away that claim. Now the B10 can only talk about the percentage of members that are AAU to distinguish themselves from other conferences.
LikeLike
It was Wisconsin and Michigan that got Nebraska kicked out of the AAU, so I’m sure the B10 can be said to regret that decision.
LikeLike
The B1G conference office may regret it, but MI and WI do not. NE would not have been booted if all the B1G schools had voted to keep NE in the AAU. The XII schools voted to keep NE in the AAU. The AAU vote occurred after the B1G offer to NE had been made and accepted.
LikeLike
No, a bunch of AAU schools got them kicked out. Objectively, NE had fallen well behind the the other members on their preferred metrics, so I don’t blame MI and WI for voting their consciences. I’d rather they stand on principles than play politics.
LikeLike
The thing is, however, that the initial vote on Nebraska’s AAU membership was scheduled long before Nebraska became a B10 candidate. After Michigan and Wisconsin determined in committee that it did not have the votes to oust Nebraska, they postponed the vote until the committee reformed with more likeminded members a year later. This literally means that these two schools at least did not mind a non-AAU member joining the B1G, and indeed the Wisky Pres. at the time, now the President of Amherst College, said that Nebraska’s AAU status was not a major factor in its B1G admission. What else could she say?
LikeLike
Schools can be integrated in an 18-school conference with 6 pods of 3. You’d play 3 schools almost never in my setup (though Michigan, MSU, and Illinois pretty much never played UNC, Duke, and UVa anyway, etc.), but you’d play the vast majority of schools some of the time, 4 schools annually, and 4 other schools most of the time.
BTW, at 16 without pods, the SEC would essentially be 2 conferences sharing a TV contract anyway.
LikeLike
Richard, I’ve read your 6 pods of 3 theories. It just seems way too complicated. It would turn off the fans.
Yes, the SEC would have to be 4 pods. Probably:
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Duke
Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri
LikeLike
Frankly, four pods of five schools (20) in an annual nine game conference schedule works better than however you divide 18. Play the other four in your pod and the five in another pod. Simple. Play everyone at least twice in six years.
LikeLike
In the B10, without crossover rivals, you’d break up rivalries with 4 pods of 5.
Not sure if you could make it work in the SEC. I doubt it. I think either the Oldest Rivalry in the Deep South or the Third Saturday in October would have to be sacrificed.
LikeLike
If we’re going to go down that crazy road of mega-20-school-conferences, I assume the dream scenario for the B1G is something like this:
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana
Notre Dame, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Which would leave the SEC’s best scenario as something like this:
Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech
Florida, Miami, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri
or maybe more realistically:
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland
Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
with the SEC taking:
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, NC State, Duke
Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
really, I don’t see any 20 school conferences as realistic. 18 is pushing it. I really hope they have the good sense to stick to 16.
LikeLike
wow, the formatting of that post came out horribly.
LikeLike
Andy, I am thinking almost the same thing. Although I think that the “old Big Ten” would try to sprinkle in more of the ACC rather than giving them their own pod.
For example, keep FSU/GaTech together…but put them in a pod with Ohio State/Indiana/Rutgers. And keep UNC/UVA/Duke/UMD together and add PSU.
The crossover games would be tricky…but I suppose simply assuring one protected crossover per school and then rotating the other 14 teams through your 4 other games (4 pod plus 1 crossover rival = five…which leaves four other games in a 9-game schedule). Give ND FSU…Give OSU Michigan….Give Nebraska PSU…keep your blockbuster teams on the schedule and national radar every year.
LikeLike
I’ve had this thought too. Instead of permanent rivals, a rotating series would be better – sort of like the Big Ten/ACC challenge. You’d have to get the majors to give up a out of conference game though, and the thought of Alabama at Iowa or Michigan at Vandy isn’t too palatable for administrators.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think they’d probably need to set up appropriate match-ups. LSU-Indiana and OSU-Ole Miss don’t make a whole lot of sense.
LikeLike
You see, once you start going down that road you’re tacitly admitting that only certain schools matter. That goes against the idea held strongly by academic types that schools associated with each other have a collegial relationship. So under a scheduling agreement mentioned above, while they may try to organize best fits, ultimately, some match-ups like a LSU-Indiana would have to be allowed so that certain schools won’t feel left out or be second-class citizens.
LikeLike
Transic,
The B10/ACC challenge plays like against like. Why couldn’t FB do the same?
LikeLike
“You see, once you start going down that road you’re tacitly admitting that only certain schools matter. That goes against the idea held strongly by academic types that schools associated with each other have a collegial relationship.”
The Big 12 threw that idea out the window with regard to Texas, and ditto the Mountain West with Boise State. If we’re not going to adopt pro/rel for college football, we may have to kill it to save it from itself. At the very least, we may want to divorce national TV contracts from conferences, either by going back to the NCAA or a CFA-like organization controlling everything, or having individual schools sell contracts. Neither is likely to help the little guy very much short of finding a way around the NCAA anti-trust decision (I personally think sports leagues are natural monopolies that only compete with other sports and usually work against the monopoly power of teams rather than flexing their own), but revenue sharing is very much in jeopardy right now anyway in all but the most balanced conferences. (Which pretty much means the Big 10 and SEC, maybe the Pac-12.)
A 20-team conference almost borders on one organization controlling the TV rights for two conferences. Anymore, conference realignment has become about choosing your TV contract more than choosing a conference, and the Catholic 7 news underscores that (and shows that it applies even to basketball). The worst chaos may still be to come.
LikeLike
metatron,
Certainly they could work in 4 tiers of 4, or even 2 tiers of 8.
LikeLike
Andy,
“I think with the ACC schools making, what, $12M? $15M? per year,”
Right now, something like that. But they have a lot of other revenue sources like NCAA tourney credits, and the ACC does very well there. It doesn’t eliminate the difference, but it reduces it to a smaller percentage of the total. $15M versus $30M is very different from $50M versus $65M.
“they’re going to feel a lot of pressure in the next few years as the SEC and B1G start making more and more money. I wouldn’t be surprised to see both making upwards of $40M per year per school as the Big Ten Network and SEC Network grow. ACC schools will want a piece of that action.”
As always, it will come down to money versus intangibles. How much do rivalries, comfort, and culture mean to the various ACC schools? Are their ADs in the black? Everyone will have a different tipping point.
“I really hope nobody goes past 16. Once you get to 18 it’s not really much of a conference anymore.”
Is 16 really a conference? It’s never lasted more than 3 years in modern times. Heck, 14 is new. I know MO is thrilled to be in the SEC, but do you care that you’ll play some teams almost never? It’s probably not a huge deal to MO since they aren’t your rivals, but the old SEC schools have to be a little uncomfortable. Would you rather be in an SEC of 12 schools so you could play everyone more often? Would that feel more like a conference?
LikeLike
“Is 16 really a conference? It’s never lasted more than 3 years in modern times.
The WAC is the only conference that tried 16 teams. That’s hardly enough of a sample size to support generalities. It didn’t work on that occasion, but for a combination of reasons, not solely (or even mainly) because 16 was too many.
LikeLike
Brian, I think 10 is the optimal number and 16 is the upper limit. I see little difference between 14 and 16.
LikeLike
I largely agree. The biggest difference from 14 to 16 is the frequency of play, but neither one is great for that.
LikeLike
14 is much netter (or at least easier) for divisions. There really isn’t much difference between a 12 team conference with an 8 game schedule and 14 team conference with a 9 game schedule (the difference is playing interdivisional teams 3 years out of 6 vs 3 years out of 7)
LikeLike
frug,
I agree, except for that lost OOC game. That’s especially important to schools that have locked OOC rivals.
LikeLike
Which for the B1G is pretty much irrelevant. Purdue and Michigan St. can’t care that much.
Bigger issue for SEC/ACC schools where their biggest (or near biggest) game is ooc.
LikeLike
@bullet
Purdue would care a lot. ND is their most valuable game of the year and unlike MSU (who has Alabama, Oregon and Miami on the future schedule), Purdue doesn’t have the pull to replace them. The only way that game goes away is if ND ends the series (the contract does 2014).
Iowa probably wouldn’t mind dumping ISU but the state pols. might step in and force them to play.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Which for the B1G is pretty much irrelevant. Purdue and Michigan St. can’t care that much.”
ND means a ton to PU and quite a bit to MSU. Also, IA has to play ISU whether they like it or not. The point is, those teams go down to 2 OOC games to achieve variety and 7 home games (6 for PU is OK). That’s a definite downside.
LikeLike
Purdue doesn’t schedule 7 home games every year, so they’d still have an open slot. MSU takes a break from ND 1/3rd of the time already, so they’d have openings as well.
Iowa may have the biggest issue, as they (say they) need 7 home games and may be forced to play ISU every year. 9 conference games would mean no more trips out west or to TX.
Still, they got UNL as a rivalry game. They can’t complain too much about the recent round of B10 expansion.
LikeLike
I hope noone goes past 14. I’d really like to see the ACC survive, but if they could toss off a far western Florida school to the Big 12, that would be nice. FSU + 1 other and the ACC could go back to 12.5.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is more likely to join a 12 or 14 team ACC eventually than a 16 team one. The ACC could do a division only schedule for ND, meaning they only had 5 (with 12) or 6 (with 14) conference games. They already play 5 (or have agreed to-remains to be seen if they follow through-they never did with BE).
LikeLike
@Andy, I don’t think that B1G or SEC would ever be motivated to drawing a figurative conference line in the sand between VA and NC, particularly when considering their revenue streams. The BTN (and presumably the upcoming SECN) revenue model encourages adding markets to increase carriage fees, so lopping off the market of a new state strictly to create a distinct border would be counterproductive to both conferences. I always wonder how much dialogue there is between Slive and Delany to discuss what markets each conference is targeting.
The bigger question you touched on is whether there is appetite within the conference for creating an 18 team league instead of a conference. If it’s done properly, i.e. current member institutions maintaining most of their existing rivalry games, I think the appetite is there among B1G fans for this type of shift. The B1G-P12 alliance “pseudo-league” was met with wide acceptance by B1G members and fans. Conceptually, I don’t see a lot of resistance to the concept of a B1G league.
LikeLike
Quacs, Slive is currently recruiting UNC and Duke heavily, so he’s already decided this is the path the SEC wants to go down. It seems the SEC has decided getting UNC and Duke is worth more than getting into the state of Virginia.
As for 18 team leagues like you’re talking about, you’re right it would be like the B1G/Pac 12 partnership. It would effectivley be a B1G/ACC merger. A couple of B1G schools would have to move east.
Maybe:
West: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia Tech
Teams play their half to maximize the preservation of rivalries (except Indiana and Purdue, who lose all rivalries), then they play one crossover game per year. Ohio State would see Penn State in Columbus once every 18 years.
Either that or divide into 6 clumsy pods and forfeit a whole bunch of rivalries.
16 schools is messy. 18 schools is extremely messy. Hopefully they don’t do it.
LikeLike
@ Andy, I read that too, but I have to believe that to Slive and his new SEC Network, UVA(or VT)+UNC > UNC+Duke. Slive may have been courting Duke and NC for other reasons – perhaps he feels they’re more likely to join the SEC? Also, talking to UNC + Duke doesn’t necessarily preclude Slive from having discussions with other Mid Atlantic universities.
I guess what I’m saying is that if I’m in Slive’s shoes right now, priority #1 has to be establishing the success of SECN, so I’m looking to expand markets for the SECN. Why not shoot higher than just NC (and maybe he is)?
LikeLike
Slive is pursuing UNC+Duke for two reasons, 1) they’ve been told that NCSU doesn’t really deliver the state of North Carolina, and 2) the UNC+Duke combo shores up the SEC’s biggest weaknesses: academics and basketball. By taking those two then suddenly the SEC doesn’t have any glaring weaknesses. That’s worth losing out on Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
Take that East/West in a heartbeat over most of the 14 team divisions with the Buckeyes in the East.
LikeLike
Andy:
“Either that or divide into 6 clumsy pods and forfeit a whole bunch of rivalries.”
Actually, the point of setting up the 6 pods of 3 is that all major (and even most minor) rivalries would be played no less than 2/3rds of the time, with the most major rivalries played annually.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“I always wonder how much dialogue there is between Slive and Delany to discuss what markets each conference is targeting.”
I doubt there is much discussion on that topic. The world frowns on collusion like that.
“The bigger question you touched on is whether there is appetite within the conference for creating an 18 team league instead of a conference. If it’s done properly, i.e. current member institutions maintaining most of their existing rivalry games, I think the appetite is there among B1G fans for this type of shift.”
1. It’s hard to keep most rivalries with 18 teams. Richard has his 6 pods of 3 plan, but most fans would find that very convoluted and confusing. It’s hard at 16. Even 14 poses challenges.
2. Maybe the internet fans would support it, but the vast majority of fans and alumni aren’t on the internet discussing expansion. I doubt a high percentage of alumni in their 50s – 90s are enthusiastic about it. RU and MD hardly got an enthusiastic welcome, and other ACC schools would get the same cold shoulder.
“The B1G-P12 alliance “pseudo-league” was met with wide acceptance by B1G members and fans.”
Not every school was thrilled with it, nor were all the fans. Some fans accepted it only because it’s the P12 and the long historic ties make it have value. The B10 has no football ties with the ACC and fans wouldn’t be as accepting of an alliance with them.
LikeLike
Do I think there’s any collusion? No, but my inner conspiracy theorist always wonders if those backroom discussions between conference and university involve more than just these parties. Given the billions of dollars at play in college football, the hundreds of “Tech Problem” e-mails that have surfaced through FOIA during this latest expansion era, and the ever-communistic NCAA lurking in the background, no back-room deals or “gentlemen’s agreements” would ever surprise me.
I agree it’s difficult to keep all rivalries under an 18 team conference and still play every team. That was my earlier point about B1G becoming a league instead of a conference. While I accept that you and many others may not want this (and to a certain extent I agree), I don’t think there’s been much of a backlash from anyone regarding the addition of Rutgers or Maryland that would dissuade Delany and the COP/C from further expansion, even past 16. Perhaps this is merely semantic, but I’m surprised the discourse has defaulted to the term “superconference” instead of “league” when discussing consolidation, because that’s what these superconferences will ulitmately be. In my opinion, if B1G expands beyond 16, it will cease being a conference and its structure will have to be more similar to the NFL than the Big Ten from 20 years ago.
LikeLike
Yes, and I think a lot of people wouldn’t like that.
LikeLike
Basically “superconference” allows people to keep deluding themselves that this is still the same sport living up to the same ideal of the amateur student-athlete as it was 100 years ago, and not a money-making TV enterprise.
The “league” terminology, however, does point to a solution: why do we have different “leagues” for different parts of the country? Why do we need to “carry” big markets with middling schools alongside the big-name schools people come to see? Why do we need two to four 20-team “leagues” including a bunch of schools no one cares about to fill out the number? The “league” analogy suggests one of two things: pro/rel for college football, or 24-32 schools leaving the NCAA to form a single, unified “league” of the top college football programs. If that results in an anti-trust action from the schools left out, it could lead to both.
LikeLike
morganwick,
“The “league” terminology, however, does point to a solution: why do we have different “leagues” for different parts of the country?”
Because these aren’t solely athletic conferences.
“Why do we need to “carry” big markets with middling schools alongside the big-name schools people come to see?”
Because every school brings a different kind of value to the collective.
“Why do we need two to four 20-team “leagues” including a bunch of schools no one cares about to fill out the number?”
We don’t.
“The “league” analogy suggests one of two things: pro/rel for college football,”
No matter how much you try to promote it, relegation will never be an option. Americans have never embraced the concept and none of our athletics are set up in a way that it could work financially.
“or 24-32 schools leaving the NCAA to form a single, unified “league” of the top college football programs.”
Why so few? The split is much more likely to be bigger and include some “lesser” schools. Otherwise, all the top programs will just beat each other up. Their fans don’t want to watch 6-6 seasons, they want 11-1 seasons.
LikeLike
@morganwick ~ why do we have different football minor leagues in different parts of the country? Same basic reason why we have different baseball minor leagues in different parts of the country. You can only develop players for the major leagues by having them play competitive ball on a regular basis. You need to have more players in the minor leagues than you are actually going to give a shot in the majors. And to save on travel costs, which becomes of increasing importance the lower down in the minor leagues you go.
LikeLike
Regarding different awareness of the Pac-8/10/12 and the ACC ~ I grew up in the countryside east of Columbus, and knew about it when the Arizona schools joined the Pac-8 to make it the Pac-10, which was the late 70’s. I also vaguely knew that Clemson was a school down in the southeast somewhere, but couldn’t have pinned it to one of the Carolinas until after I’d moved to Knoxville to go to grad school.
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Congrats to Bama. Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Go Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Does Dayton increase the TV value of a conference with Xavier?
LikeLike
Dayton is a near brand, just like Xavier. Dayton and Cincinnati are separate markets in every way except both love the Reds.
LikeLike
I would be surprised if Xavier, Butler and Dayton weren’t in. As Frank says, Creighton and SLU are getting a lot of mentions. But they might be looking for a 6th eastern team instead of 7 midwest. Duquesne got mentioned and they have been terrible. My guess is that they pick either Creighton or SLU for #11 and go east for #12. And they probably will consider institutional fit and not take VCU. What do Old Dominion, UAB, South Alabama, Charlotte, USF and VCU have in common? Urban commuter schools in the Sun Belt who didn’t play football. The first 5 are in FBS or on their way. Jacksonville added football, but not FBS. WKU moved from FCS to FBS. So out of 8 old Sun Belt schools, 6 added football, the 5 public schools moved to FBS, the one with football moved to FBS and only VCU hasn’t done anything with football.
I’ve never seen any indication VCU will, but they have that potential. They look a lot like Charlotte and ODU except for having Richmond in the same city. Just don’t think BE schools will want another school that’s a risk to add fb and leave them.
LikeLike
And Columbus did not triple in size over the past half century without inmigration from the rest of Ohio ~ X and Dayton will attract more eyeballs in Columbus than X alone.
LikeLike
Frank,
Regarding if and when on expansion
There are several key points here.
1. Who?
Unless something changes, expect the B10 to only go after AAU schools. They are taking a P12 or SEC school, and I doubt B12 schools are in play either (KU has a KSU problem, plus the GOR). That leaves the usual ACC schools (UVA, UNC, Duke, GT). The question becomes how much value any of those 4 schools provide. They all expand the footprint, UNC and Duke are hoops kings, but none are football powers. They would also give the B10 more schools in a quickly growing part of the country, good for recruiting players and students, but MD and RU already provided some of that. There are diminishing returns from adding more schools for the same reason. Delany and company presumably have a lot of data to help them process the values of these schools, but we mostly have to guess.
Another issue is whether the interest is reciprocated. MD and RU were desperate for money and more northern than the schools under discussion here. As core ACC schools, many expect UNC, Duke and UVA to hold on as long as it’s feasible. They are well off schools with strong ties and southern roots (Duke has a lot of northeast to it, of course). They are also attractive to the SEC, which will play up their southern commonalities. GT isn’t wanted by the SEC, but they are also the most removed from B10 territory. GT has some financial issues in their AD, but they also have strong ties to the ACC.
Many have speculated the B10 might make academic exceptions for VT and/or FSU. These schools would have to have an AAU partner to have a chance (UVA/VT, GT/FSU). VT wanted into the ACC for years before they finally got in, so prying them out might be difficult. FSU has the weakest ACC ties of the group, and would provide access to the great state of FL, but their academics will be a tough sell to the COP/C.
2. How many?
A related question is how big the B10 wants to get. Many think of 16 as a natural end point, mostly because it leads to 4 pods of 4. That may not fit the COP/C’s plans though. Larger sizes have also been discussed frequently (18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24). 18 would allow for all 4 ACC AAU schools, and it can theoretically keep the old rivalries. 20 would mean no crossover games and old rivalries dying. It would also require 9 B10 games. 22 and 24 are essentially two separate conferences with a CCG and a joint TV deal.
The problem is that with increasing size comes a decreasing frequency of games against old B10 foes. The schools will lose cohesion and become more of a loose confederation. Old ties will weaken while new ones form. How much money is enough? How big can a conference get and still be a conference? How great is the risk of the conference fracturing in the future? How many schools in growing states do you need to ease population concerns? These are thorny issues the COP/C have to consider although we tend to gloss over them.
3. How?
The real question is how this would happen. The ACC likely needs to weaken to get UVA and UNC to leave. The problem is, those seem to be among the key targets for the B10 and SEC. The SEC doesn’t seem to want any ACC school from Clemson to Miami, preferring UNC and Duke apparently. Politics in NC may make it hard for UNC to leave without NCSU being taken care of. The same could apply to UVA and VT in VA.
One path would be for the B12 to get FSU and Clemson. The ACC’s TV deal would probably get cut even if they refilled with UC and UConn. With their southern partners gone, GT might be more willing to leave. Miami might be available too (an academic reach like FSU, but smaller).
Another path would be for the TV money differences to get so large that the ACC’s ties weaken on their own. The B10 told UMD to expect each school to get over $40M per year with the new TV deal. We don’t know what all went into that number, but that’s huge compared to the ACC’s $19M per year average (was $17.1M before ND, so I’m being generous) until 2027. That’s $20M+ per year for 10 years, so over $200M more. Can the ACC ties withstand that?
4. When?
If the B10 had willing candidates right now, they’d be announcing it. It’s better to expand to 16 (or 18) all at once than to go to 14 for 1-2 years then go to 16 and maybe to 18 2 years later. That way you only have to redo the divisions once. That tells me there aren’t an even number of schools that the B10 wants and that have told the B10 they want to join. So what future events might control the timing?
The ACC sued Maryland to get their full $52M exit fee. They will settle before it goes to court, likely this spring or summer I’d think. If the number gets greatly reduced, that may open the doors for other ACC schools to consider leaving. Of course, the ACC may try to word the settlement in a way to make it only apply to UMD to discourage others. They can point out that UMD voted against the raised exit fee (only FSU also voted no) and left within 2 months of that vote, which is as soon as can practically be expected (FSU would have waited much longer).
The SEC’s new/adjusted TV deal will be official soon. Slive said by the end of the year, but I’ll assume by spring now.
The end of the current fiscal year is 6/30/2013.
The ACC’s deadline for announcing a plan to exit for 2014 is 8/15/2013.
The SECN is supposed to start in 8/2014. That means money rolling in to the SEC.
The new playoff money starts with the 2014 season.
The B10’s next TV deal will start in 2017-2018. It should be the biggest yet by far. Negotiations should happen in 2015-2016. Presumably the B10 would rather expand before signing the new deal and not right afterwards.
That means the window is basically the next three years. If the B10 hasn’t announced expansion by then, it’s unlikely to happen in the following 5-10 years.
5. Why?
I saved the most important for last.
“As a Big Ten guy, I personally see a ton of benefits for the conference if it raids the ACC further.”
This is another issue where the COP/C has to make some tough decisions. What are the goals behind expansion? Starting from 10, they’ve added 2 football powerhouses and 2 large markets in growing states. What concerns are left, and what do they need to assuage them? Does the B10 need more growing states? More hoops for the BTN? More football power? Something else? Are the needs worth sacrificing their academic standards? Are they worth losing the camaraderie of the conference?
What are the tons of benefits you see, Frank, and are you talking gross or net benefits? How are you weighing the intangible downsides? Are there diminishing returns from expansion, or should the B10 just attempt to grow forever?
Divisions
We’ve discussed this a lot, so I’ll just hit a few key points.
1. We’ve heard almost as many division rumors as we have expansion rumors. We really have no idea what will happen until they are announced. It’s not like Greenstein got them right last time ahead of the announcement, IIRC.
2. The schedule (8 games versus 9) hasn’t been talked about enough by TPTB. More teams should mean more games in order to preserve rivalries. 9 games makes a lot more options available in terms of acceptable divisions.
3. Reducing locked rivals is a good idea for preserving rivalries, but at the cost of losing certain valuable TV games. They’ll have to think about that. I’m not sure they’ll like the implications of saying PU and IN should play each other so others don’t have to play them. Historically, the B10 has been more evenhanded than that. However, times are changing and something has to give in the divisions and scheduling.
4. The B10 needs to be careful. There are both short and long term consequences to divisions. They need to balance fairness, rivalries, fans’ interests, money and TV concerns among other things.
5. Change the damn names, no matter what.
LikeLike
As far as divisions go, it’s not so much Greenstein getting them right as it is that Northwestern was explicitly asked whether it would consider moving East with Michigan/MIchigan State.
I think that’s the key point that signals the direction of the Big Ten’s current thinking.
That doesn’t imply that pen has been put to paper and anything is definite, but the Big Ten would have to be focused on an East-West split to breach the notion of Northwestern moving to the East.
LikeLike
Rutgers might well have gotten chosen ahead of UVA for non-athletic reasons. B1G schools appearing in the NYC suburbs. CIC having that base near a bunch of decision makers in NYC. And UVA’s advantages over Rutgers academically have more to do with their undergraduate rankings.
Athletically, Rutgers is a project.
LikeLike
The Rutgers/Maryland move was a home run for institutional fit. Virginia’s 21,000 students and 15,000 undergrad doesn’t compare well to Maryland’s 38k/27k and Rutgers’ 57k/42k. Both schools easily beat Virginia by ARWU rankings (Maryland 28, Rutgers 40, Virginia 56) . The move was more about CIC and research and fit than athletics.
LikeLike
zeek,
“As far as divisions go, it’s not so much Greenstein getting them right as it is that Northwestern was explicitly asked whether it would consider moving East with Michigan/MIchigan State.”
He had sources before and didn’t know the truth. All we know is that he said NW was asked about going east. The tweet said nothing about who else would go east with them. It didn’t indicate whether it was a brainstorming question or indicative of the wishes of the other 13. All of a sudden it’s being treated like Delany practically ordered NW to go east. His source could have lied to him for all we know.
“I think that’s the key point that signals the direction of the Big Ten’s current thinking.”
Is every question they ask indicative of their current thinking, or are they allowed to investigate a range of options by asking questions?
“That doesn’t imply that pen has been put to paper and anything is definite, but the Big Ten would have to be focused on an East-West split to breach the notion of Northwestern moving to the East.”
No, they wouldn’t. They would have to have considered one or more options where NW went east. There are multiple plans that could do that. Or maybe they assumed NW wanted to go east and asked the question because they wanted to send NW west instead. We weren’t there. We have no context, tone of voice, body language or any other clues necessary to know what that question meant.
LikeLike
Brian’s post didn’t extensively discuss the CIC angle. Most fans know very little about the CIC, but it’s worth billions, all by itself. If it could get the four remaining AAU plums in the ACC, it would take them in a heartbeat.
But I do think Frank is onto a valid point about Rutgers. If Delany had thought that the break-up of the ACC were imminent, he would not have taken Rutgers. Even Delany has insinuated that Rutgers is “a project.” Anyone who thinks Rutgers would have gotten the nod above UNC or UVA, assuming those two schools were available, is kidding themselves.
So although Delany wants more ACC schools, he must have believed that it’ll take a while to pry them loose, assuming it can be done at all. On the other hand, multiple Big Ten sources are on record that they don’t think the conference is done at 14. The four ACC schools are the only plausible expansion candidates anyone in the Big Ten could possibly be thinking of.
I am not necessarily agitating for expansion, but I don’t see the parade of horribles either. Conferences generally lose members for financial reasons. As long as the Big Ten remains the wealthiest and most financially stable conference (or tied for first, with the SEC), Illinois isn’t going to pull out because they face Ohio State in football every two years, instead of every year. [That’s just an example.]
And of course, that’s just football: the schools would keep playing each other annually in a dozen or more other sports, to say nothing of the research synergies. I wouldn’t worry about the Big Ten fracturing, unless it starts making financially stupid decisions, which is the one thing Jim Delany has not done.
On the divisional alignment: I am surprised that Brian keeps agitating for 9 conference games, which is a terrible idea. As an Ohio State guy, he should want 8, desperately. The more games that Gene Smith controls, the more Ohio State can massage the schedule for its own benefit.
LikeLike
The CIC is not worth billions……research $s are not shared through the CIC……there are a ton of misconceptions about it. It’s effect is grossly overstated on these boards.
I do think it has the potential to be more than it is at present….as much in lobbying as anything else.
LikeLike
And that lobbying is why Maryland and Rutgers make a lot of sense to the CIC.
LikeLike
I know that the CIC does not pool research dollars, but they pool efforts in many other ways. It’s hard to measure exactly the value it would have, above the baseline if it didn’t exist, but “billions” doesn’t sound wrong to me. I have seen that figure bandied around.
I don’t think the effect of the CIC is “grossly overstated” on these boards. If anything, it’s grossly understated, as most of the discussion here is about sports, without taking account of the factors university presidents actually care about.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
The number I saw for the most recent year was that the CIC saved member schools about $7M per year. It has other, less tangible value of course (educational opportunities, sharing resources, etc), but that’s the fiscal value they quote.
LikeLike
Many have said here the CIC money dwarfs the conference payouts, and $7 million (while a big number) doesn’t do that. So it is somewhat overstated, perhaps not ‘grossly overstated’.
LikeLike
I thought it was more than that (the amount I remember is $25M, for some reason). Plus, there are the intangible benefits (it would be interesting to compare PSU’s research dollars before and after they joined the B10/CIC, for instance; my impression is that it increased a lot).
Still, I’ve always been in the camp that the B10 is primarily an athletics conference.
LikeLike
@ Richard:
The top eight current B1G schools in research + the other two large research schools in Pennsylvania (Federal research grants rather than total but it gives a rough idea):
1990
Tier 1 (1-25)
#6 TSUN $357.9M
#7 Wisconsin $354.8M
#12 Minnesota $285.2M
#13 U Penn $265.3M
#16 PSU $238.5M
#23 Chicago $191.1M
Tier 2 (26-50)
#28 Pitt $179.9M
#31 Iowa $156.8M
#32 Ohio State $156.5M
#46 Northwestern $123.4M
1994
Tier 1 (1-25)
#6 TSUN $452.8M
#7 Wisconsin $385.5M
#11 U Penn $318.8M
#12 Minnesota $309.6M
#18 Pitt $254.8M
#19 PSU $253.9M
Tier 2 (26-50)
#27 Ohio State $193.6M
#30 Chicago $175.4M
#31 Iowa $170.2M
#42 Northwestern $143.1M
1999
Tier 1 (1-25)
#4 TSUN $493.7M
#7 U Penn $412.1M
#10 Wisconsin $368.1M
#14 Minnesota $306.9M
#17 Pitt $287.5M
#23 PSU $258.8M
Tier 2 (26-50)
#31 Chicago $200.5M
#32 Ohio State $199.7M
#35 Northwestern $195.9M
#38 Iowa $181.1M
2004
Tier 1 (1-25)
#4 TSUN $628.4M
#7 U Penn $524.8M
#8 Wisconsin $523.7M
#12 Pitt $475.8M
#16 PSU $377.5M
#18 Minnesota $370.9M
#20 Ohio State $343.1M
Tier 2 (26-50)
#31 Northwestern $277.9M
#32 Chicago $276.2M
#37 Iowa $252.9M
2009
Tier 1 (1-25)
#2 TSUN $636.2M
#6 Wisconsin $507.9M
#7 U Penn $499.5M
#11 Pitt $463.2M
#15 Minnesota $390.6M
#16 PSU $385.6M
#20 Ohio State $339.8M
Tier 2 (26-50)
#26 Chicago $301.2M
#27 Northwestern $300.6M
#38 Iowa $252.3M
Although these numbers don’t really show it, sometime back I ran the numbers on CIC members vs everyone else which suggested that there is a correlation between CIC membership & outperforming the norm in research funding over the past 20 years.
LikeLike
OK, thanks, Scarlet.
LikeLike
I personally don’t want to see the Big Ten expand beyond 18 for the simple reason that if it got any larger, it’s realistically impossible for men’s and women’s basketball teams to play everyone in the conference. (Save for a few isolated cases, such as the Northeast Conference some years back, leagues have not gone beyond 18-game basketball schedules, and the NEC probably did that because its gyms are so small it makes it difficult to schedule non-conference home games against Division I opponents.) For TV purposes, I believe the 16-team Big East has had schedules where you didn’t play a few of your rivals at all during the regular season; I consider that absurd. With 18 members, you can play one team home-and-home, then alternate home and away for the other 16 opponents.
LikeLike
I personally don’t want to see the Big Ten expand beyond 12.
LikeLike
I personally kind of liked 11 🙂
LikeLike
The only number worse than 11 is 13. 11 is too few for a ccg and too many for a rr.
LikeLike
Fairly well thought out post. One point. You say “the ACC may try to word the settlement in a way to make it only apply to UMD to discourage others”. Note that settlements are not binding precedent. They really don’t have to word anything.
That’s why I don’t get the idea that UVA or GT are simply waiting out the resolution of the Maryland suit. Unless this goes to court and gets a verdict (which could then be appealed and bounce through the courts for some time), there is no binding precedent. Sure, if Maryland settles for a lower amount, it is likely true that another school could settle for a similar amount. But its not like it has any magic, automatic power.
LikeLike
Jericho,
“Fairly well thought out post.”
Thanks.
” One point. You say “the ACC may try to word the settlement in a way to make it only apply to UMD to discourage others”. Note that settlements are not binding precedent. They really don’t have to word anything.”
I know they aren’t binding, but it would be the first step in the PR campaign to stop others from leaving. Explain why MD could get a good deal but nobody else could. That sets the tone for the next school that tries it and might get the public on the ACC’s side if they are tough negotiators the second time around. Otherwise, the next school will quote MD’s exit fee and say they should get the same deal. In that sense, these deals do set precedent.
“That’s why I don’t get the idea that UVA or GT are simply waiting out the resolution of the Maryland suit. Unless this goes to court and gets a verdict (which could then be appealed and bounce through the courts for some time), there is no binding precedent. Sure, if Maryland settles for a lower amount, it is likely true that another school could settle for a similar amount. But its not like it has any magic, automatic power.”
It sets the bar. If MD only pays $10M, others will expect a big discount too. That matters if you’re looking at the books and wondering how to pay the exit fee. Financing $20M is a lot easier than $50M for a cash strapped AD. Also, I’d imagine it’s much easier to sell to your BoT or other PTB if you can put a hard number to the cost as opposed to hand-waving.
LikeLike
Maryland could get a better deal since the ACC has a viable replacement in Louisville. The next school(s) to leave could really set the dominos in action. Not only does it likely trigger more teams leaving, but little to no viable replacements.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Colley Matrix still ranks Notre Dame #1.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/one-bcs-computer-still-ranks-notre-dame-no-185628284–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
Colley disregards margin of victory (as the BCS requires). But even allowing for that, it’s gotta be the dumbest poll in history. Sagarin has Notre Dame 5th, which I think is a lot closer to reality.
LikeLike
If you exclude margin of victory/loss, Notre Dame has got to be pretty high. The list of wins is impressive.
LikeLike
I don’t quarrel with Notre Dame being “pretty high,” but it’s hard to justify ranking them above Alabama, as Colley did.
LikeLike
OK. I agree then. Without margin of victory in consideration I see good arguments up through #2.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t quarrel with Notre Dame being “pretty high,” but it’s hard to justify ranking them above Alabama, as Colley did.”
For a computer, it makes some sense depending on the algorithm.
Which was the better loss – neutral site versus AL or home versus TAMU?
edge – ND
Better wins – ND, UGA, LSU, MI or Stanford, OU, MI?
edge – AL (Colley has Stanford > UGA, and LSU and OU next to each other)
So it comes down to AL > ND and TAMU > AL. I could see an algorithm saying ND wins that.
I’m not saying it’s a good algorithm, but it’s got some logic to it when you can’t consider MOV.
LikeLike
@Brian: Sure, as a computer programmer by training, I can envision the algorithm that led to ND being ranked above Alabama. On the other hand, it fails the smell test so badly that, if I were the programmer, I would feel like I’d failed. Computers are good at sifting through vast mountains of data and sifting out the emotion. But sometimes, the answer is simply wrong.
Some may recall that, in the early days of the BCS, the ranking formula kept failing, because there was some special case they hadn’t considered. That is probably what happened here. If you’d handed Colley this exact scenario before he wrote his algorithm, it’s doubtful this is the outcome he would’ve wanted. As I mentioned, no other computer came up with that result, which is why the BCS does not rely on just one computer.
The early chess-playing computers had a similar problem: there was always logic to what they did, but sometimes they just uncorked a weird move that any competent human knew instantly was wrong.
LikeLike
http://www.colleyrankings.com/advan.html
Colley stresses SOS and only uses Ws and Ls. He ranks what a team has accomplished, not how good they are.
SOS:
ND = 8
AL = 21
Top 50 Ws:
ND = AL = 6
Top 25 Ws:
ND = 3
AL = 4
Outside Top 100 Ws:
ND = 1
AL = 2
The problem for AL was the bottom of their schedule.
Most of their wins balanced out (AL/ND):
FAU/BC, AU/WF, WKU/Pitt, TN/PU, MO/Navy, MS/USC, MSU/other MSU, MI/MI, LSU/OU, UGA/Stanford, TAMU/AL
The unbalanced Ws:
AL – #122 I-AA WCU, #72 AR, #1 ND
ND – #55 BYU, #48 Miami
That WCU games really hurt AL’s SOS in comparison to ND’s. AL might have been #1 if they didn’t play WCU.
LikeLike
@Brian: There are six BCS computers, all of them forbidden to consider margin of victory, and ND was 1st in only one of them. I understand mathematically that it is possible to concoct an algorithm that would spit out that result. But all of the other computers following BCS rules rated ND lower, and I think practically all humans would agree that that is the correct result.
Heck, I doubt even Irish fans (who are not noted for objectivity) would argue that they’re #1.
LikeLike
That’s why FSU was so low. Even at the end of the season with the ccg, they ranked lower than Clemson. They were something like 17th before the bowls. They had 2 FCS, including a horrible Savannah St. squad (WVU cancelled on short notice after moving to the Big 12 and that was the best FSU could do).
LikeLike
“@Brian: Sure, as a computer programmer by training, I can envision the algorithm that led to ND being ranked above Alabama. On the other hand, it fails the smell test so badly that, if I were the programmer, I would feel like I’d failed.”
“Wait, this totally smells. Well, the BCS keeps meddling in what formulae I can use, of course it smells.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There are six BCS computers, all of them forbidden to consider margin of victory, and ND was 1st in only one of them.”
That’s the whole point of the system. If all the computers agreed, they’d only need 1. You want different ways of looking at things to see what the consensus is.
I’ve heard plenty of fans say MOV is overvalued and that SOS is ignored (usually when their team wins lots of close games). Colley’s system is the result of that approach. It has an unusual result this time, but it normally matches the human polls pretty well (see his site for the stats). That’s pretty impressive for such a simplistic approach. Most computers agree that humans overvalue head to head results. This time it just happens to show up at the top.
What you fail to understand is that his results are not supposed to be an end-all, be-all ranking. They are not intended to be predictive, but to measure each teams accomplishments.
If ND didn’t play AL and AL didn’t play TAMU, Colley would have ND way ahead of AL.
Actual:
ND – 0.974
AL – 0.961
With changes:
ND – 1.013
AL – 0.963
If AL just didn’t play FAU, it would have been a near dead heat:
ND – 0.975
AL – 0.974
If AL hadn’t played WCU at all, Colley would have put them #1.
If you believe in SOS and don’t look at MOV, his results make sense.
“But all of the other computers following BCS rules rated ND lower, and I think practically all humans would agree that that is the correct result.”
Humans can’t ignore MOV and aren’t objective about SOS. It’s pointless to compare their opinions on this to the computers.
What if AL beat ND 24-23 with a shaky call on the winning score but TAMU had beaten AL 42-14? Most humans would still put AL #1 but I’d say they were wrong. The final game shouldn’t be that much more important than the season.
LikeLike
FWIW I have Bama’s schedule rating materially higher than Notre Dame’s ( http://cfn.scout.com/2/1257046.html ). I also looked at Sagarin ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt12.htm ) and he had Bama a bit higher.
IMO it’s a bit of an outlier to have Notre Dame showing a substantially tougher schedule than Bama. They were SUPPOSED to have a brutal schedule, but almost every opponent they faced was either bad or at least disappointing (I think Stanford was the only real exception).
LikeLike
He had their SOS at ND – 8, AL – 21.
LikeLike
By the way, all the other BCS computers had Notre Dame 3rd. Colley really is an outlier.
LikeLike
The media complained and complained that MOV encourages running up the score, resulting in MOV being removed from the calculations. Now the media calls it a flaw in the system.
LikeLike
Actually, I think it was the AQ conferences that were worried that a Boise type team would get high up in the rankings. The elimination of MOV killed their chances as their conference schedule would never be strong enough.
LikeLike
I think @bullet’s recollection is accurate. I believe there was also some grousing that certain teams (e.g., Spurrier’s Florida) seemed to be deliberately running up the score, late in games where they led by a ton, and had no other apparent reason for doing so.
Of course, there was media commentary on this, but “the media” is not monolithic. Just about any viewpoint is advocated by someone in the media. But yeah, the removal of MOV from the calculation is now widely considered a mistake.
LikeLike
Of course, Spurrier and his proteges still do that. Had nothing to do with rankings.
LikeLike
Agree that Spurrier did that cuz he is a jerk, not to impact rankings. Hasn’t slowed down Bielema.
The computer rankings that do use MOV top it out after 21 or so points, so running up the score in a blowout has no impact. Making a 10 point game a 17 point game would have a small impact.
LikeLike
@greg
No BCS computer rankings incorporate any MOV. It is expressly forbidden.
That said, setting a cap is the best way to do it.
LikeLike
“No BCS computer rankings incorporate any MOV. It is expressly forbidden.”
I know. That is the basis of this discussion.
There are computer rankings that exist that are not used by the BCS.
LikeLike
Misinterpreted what you said.
However, I will add that not all computer rankings use the 21 point cap. Some use higher and at I least one I know only counts half of all points after 28 (i.e. a 48 point win would be calculated as 38)
LikeLike
I think it may have been the Nebraska/Colorado/Oregon incident that was the proximate cause of the banning of MOV.
Another way to limit the impact of RUTS is to use a formula that causes diminishing returns as the MOV increases, rather than setting an arbitrary hard cap where it doesn’t count or an arbitrary soft cap where anything past this is halved. Perhaps the impact of doubling MOV is constant, for example, so that, say, scoring a touchdown and PAT when you’re already up by 49 is the same as scoring a field goal when you’re up by 21. If you’re lucky, you can create a formula where you can reach a point where running up the score more actually hurts your strength of schedule component more than it helps your MoV component.
LikeLike
The 2001 situation was the proximate cause, which is actually kind of hilarious given that MOV was the specific cause of the controversy (i.e. people didn’t want to see a Nebraska team that got badly blown out make it to the title game).
LikeLike
National Title for Notre Dame (or at least one based on how schools, including Alabama, count National titles)!
LikeLike
Let’s go Lions!
LikeLike
Mr. SEC chimes in with part 4 of thoughts on super-conferences (links to the first three parts are provided): http://www.mrsec.com/2013/01/big-bang-theories-the-countdown-to-super-conferences-part-4
LikeLike
Mr. SEC is way off on the P12. The P10 presidents were willing to make the P16 moves to get Texas and because they thought expansion was required to get the money. Once they got the big TV contract it was easy to turn down Okllahoma (w/Oklahoma State). P12 expansion is unlikely in the next 10 years even if B1G and SEC both go to 16 or more. BSU, SDSU, HI, BYU, and UNLV are not happening.
LikeLike
That read to me as grasping at straws. Unless Texas and Oklahoma can be wooed into a second try at a Pac-16 with brethren Texas Tech and Okie State (and I’m not even certain this could be done under Big 12 by-laws), any Pac expansion isn’t happening.
LikeLike
It takes six to dissolve the GOR.
LikeLike
That is why I said for PAC expansion in next 10 years is unlikely. After 10 years it will be near the end of the current B12 GOR, and the PAC TV deal. The PAC will probably get estimates on what the TX/OK 4 would add to a renewal at that time to see if this is worth pursuing.
With the XII GOR, a possible big move before expiration is a merge of the best of the XII and ACC schools (or the best of what is left after B1G/SEC raids). The GOR and the exit fees get eliminated by both old conferences being dissolved. Not likely, but technically possible.
LikeLike
Yeah, Mr. SEC lost a lot of credibility when he started talking about UNLV, Hawaii, SMU and Houston in the PAC.
LikeLike
Has any league EVER done something totally idiotic just to “keep up with the Joneses”? No? Then why in the world would ANYONE expect the Pac-12 to add four crap programs to keep up with the size of other leagues? Especially if he doesn’t even project all the other leagues to go 16+? Dumb.
LikeLike
Yes, this seems like a case of getting caught in his own talking points ~ (1) argue that market pressures are pushing the “big conferences” to 16 (or maybe beyond), focusing on the SEC and Big Ten, then (2) repeat the conclusion often enough that you start thinking its some kind of universal law and then (3) mechanically apply it to the Pac-12, where the small population of the Mountain time zone makes for a substantially different market landscape. Indeed, the population of Colorado and Utah taken together is less than the population of the LA – Long Beach Urban Area (never mind the greater LA statistical metropolitan area). Indeed, the Arizona schools and Colorado would seem to suffice, with the Utes being a “best of the rest” add to even up the numbers.
In my view, the only remaining school west of the Big 12 that looks interesting as a Pac-12 add from a media market standpoint would be BYU, and they are a very poor institutional fit.
LikeLike
The P12 will never consider BYU. That is why Utah is in despite BYU having twice the football attendance. The B12 does not object to having religious sponsored schools, but did not get anywhere negotiating with BYU. BYU wanted more in media rights than what Texas is provided with the LHN. The P12 will also not agree to the no play of any sport on Sunday requirement of BYU.
Since the P12 is unlikely to expand past 12, there is no reason for the B12 to go past 12. If the B1G and SEC take the 8 best ACC schools (NC, VA, GT, VT, NCSt, FSU, Duke, Clemson) B12 expansion will be limited. Mr. SEC’s SEC and B1G expansion prospects was realistic, so it is worth the read.
LikeLike
I don’t see either the SEC or B10 taking Clemson. FSU to the B10 is a possibility only if the SEC takes UNC & NCSU. It’s very likely that the B10 takes 4 & the SEC takes only 2. the B12 could very well take FSU & Miami (making expansion palatable to the KS schools and ISU, as, if they’re going to lose their TX pipeline, visiting FL regularly is better for them for recruiting purposes than visiting SC). Clemson could very well be left out with the ACC castoffs.
LikeLike
Clemson will have the opportunity to join when the B12 expands to 12, but could turn it down if they still think the ACC is viable, the SEC will call, etc. It will take a fumble by Clemson to get left out. If the B12 picked up FSU going to 12 there is a good chance it will never go to 14 unless a school like VT or NCSt is available to pair with Clemson.
LikeLike
Clemson will have the opportunity to join when the B12 expands to 12, but could turn it down if they still think the ACC is viable, the SEC will call, etc. It will take a fumble by Clemson to get left out. If the B12 picked up FSU going to 12 there is a good chance it will never go to 14 unless a school like VT or NCSt is available to pair with Clemson.
NCSU would only be available to the Big 12 if UNC went SEC with either UVa or Duke.
LikeLike
Mack:
Again, I don’t see either the SEC or B10 taking Clemson in a million years. The SEC because they’re redundant in a small state. The B10 because Clemson’s way too far from academic acceptability (and are in a small state). That leaves the B12, and as I stated before, I believe that Miami as a partner for FSU will be looked upon more favorably than Clemson as a partner. That’s because FSU+Miami means an annual trip to FL, which makes getting cut off from their TX talent pipeline a little easier to swallow for the KS schools and ISU (and remember that some of those schools have to approve expansion for the B12 to expand). Also, if FSU has any voice in the matter, they would push for Miami over Clemson. Is that “fair”? No, but many things in conference alignment are not “fair”.
Your contention that the B12 has little reason to expand to 14 once they pick up FSU actually supports my reasoning that Clemson very well might be left out in the cold by the B12.
LikeLike
The Kansas schools and ISU will not be driving the expansion decisions in the B12. It will be Texas and Oklahoma. Miami only gets in if none of the other top ACC schools (including Clemson) is willing to move to the B12 with FSU. Every 4 years KS, KSU, and ISU will play 5 games in TX/FL vs. 6 games in TX now. If these schools forced the issue, Texas will blow up the B12 by dissolving the conference with the other 6 schools. It will never come to that since scheduling OOC games with new BE members SF, CFU, SMU, and Houston for more exposure is better than having those as conference games. .
I agree that Clemson has no shot at the SEC or B1G.
LikeLike
It’s like the marriage market (well, in a universe with only 3 realistic eligible bachelors).
Everyone may be in agreement that Girl A is hotter than Girl B, but if they’re looking to marry, it ultimately doesn’t matter which girl has more boys thinking she’s hotter. What does matter is that a girl has at least one boy willing to tie the knot with her, and Girl B will marry & Girl A won’t if some guy prefers Girl B to Girl A because of some other attribute of hers (and the other guys stay away from Girl A because of their own reasons).
LikeLike
Mack:
“The Kansas schools and ISU will not be driving the expansion decisions in the B12. It will be Texas and Oklahoma.”
Texas is against expansion. I fail to see how/why OU would favor Clemson over Miami. If the KS schools and ISU provide the votes to admit Miami but don’t provide the votes to admit Clemson, how exactly is Clemson going to get in?
“Every 4 years KS, KSU, and ISU will play 5 games in TX/FL vs. 6 games in TX now.”
Uh, they currently play 8 games in TX every 4 years. 12 games in TX in 6 years.
Assuming a 9 game conference slate, they would play 11 games in TX/FL in 6 years if Clemson is admitted but 14 games in TX/FL in 6 years if Miami is admitted with FSU instead.
“If these schools forced the issue, Texas will blow up the B12 by dissolving the conference with the other 6 schools.”
Texas will do no such thing as there is that thing called a GOR that Texas agreed to. Nor would the other 6 schools go along. In any case, why would Texas (or anyone else besides maybe WVU) prefer Clemson over Miami so much that (according to you), they would blow up the GOR (when there are far bigger things they care about and haven’t threatened the GOR)? Texas (and the other southern schools) would prefer recruiting in FL more just as much as the northern schools.
LikeLike
@Mack
To add to what Richard said, you clearly haven’t even come close to considering the ramifications of what you are saying.
Even if Texas came around and supported expansion, they would never get the votes to dissolve the Big XII for one simple reason; no one trusts anyone (and rightfully so).
Assuming KU, KSU and ISU were all opposed, Texas would still need to convince all but 1 of OU, OSU, TTU, TCU, Tech, Baylor and WVU to support dissolving the conference, something none of those but maybe OU would do. The reason? Because they have nothing to go back to if the conference doesn’t reform.
Sure pledge that they will immediately reform the conference, but what if they don’t? UT has lied before regarding this stuff (something they are not alone in). Or what if after they dissolve the conference UT says they will only return if they are allowed to show high school content on the LHN?
And if Texas keeps its pledge, what happens if the PAC realizes they screwed the pooch by turning down the Oklahoma schools last year? This would be the PAC’s last best chance to for decent expansion and they wouldn’t pass it up.
And even if the Oklahoma schools didn’t defect immediately what about the Kansas schools? A KU-KSU package kicks the crap out of any combination of New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV and Boise St. and the Kansas schools would jump at the chance to go west. Sure Oklahoma and Texas could try and rebuild, but they wouldn’t. A Big XII without Nebraska, Kansas, K-State, Missouri, Colorado and A&M just wouldn’t be acceptable (and even if they did rebuild they would make less money than they do now).
The simple fact is this; with the exception of Oklahoma and Texas the number 1 priority of every Big XII team is guaranteeing a home in a power conference and for every school besides OU and Texas that means Big XII and only the Big XII. There is just no reward that would justify the risk being of relegated to the neo-Big East.
LikeLike
“The simple fact is this; with the exception of Oklahoma and Texas the number 1 priority of every Big XII team is guaranteeing a home in a power conference and for every school besides OU and Texas that means Big XII and only the Big XII. There is just no reward that would justify the risk being of relegated to the neo-Big East.”
That is my point. There is not going to be expansion in the B12 without Texas and Oklahoma approving. KU/KSU/ISU may try to convince these schools that Miami is a good choice, but will not cram it through. If Texas said in a closed door meeting that it might leave the conference (at GOR expiration) if a school was invited that might change votes. .
The primary concern of TX and OK is that expansion improve the product without decreasing the payout. An extra game in FL for KS/KSU/ISU every 2 years will not elevate Miami over schools that provide a better fit and more $$. Will Miami do that if the B12 already has FSU, especially since the Miami brand has been damaged? The best way for Miami to get in the B12 is as a package deal that FSU requires.
Any combination of KS/KSU/ISU will decrease the payout of the P12. Unless Kansas is #14 (to Notre Dame?) it is not happening. The P12 will just stay at 12. No need to take anyone. As you stated,without Texas and Oklahoma the conference choices for KS, KSU, ISU are the neo-Big East or the MWC.
LikeLike
@Richard
The problem with Miami is they may be looking at near PSU level sanctions in the next few months and that would probably make them unacceptable to anyone (recruiting hot bed or not, the Big XII isn’t about to add more dead weight), and with no promise of an annual game in Florida the Northern Schools could any expansion (of course they might do that even if they were promised an annual game in Florida, but that is for another post)
LikeLike
Frug:
I agree. If Miami gets nuked with the death penalty or something similar, Clemson goes in front of them as the partner with FSU.
If they get only USC-level sanctions, though, I think they have the inside track on Clemson.
LikeLike
@Mack
I think what is most likely if the conference couldn’t agree on a 12th is that it would just stay at 10. No one has sufficient leverage to force the others unless it is 9-1 (like everyone but UT supporting expanding or a 16 team proposal that puts ISU in an Eastern division)
LikeLike
When I first heard the “Northwestern was asked to move East” line, my thought was that they wanted to go East/West, but put MSU and Michigan in the west. This would split up the Kings and bring a little more competitive balance to the divisions. The west would still be a little stronger via the eye test, though.
West
Michigan
Nebraska
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illlinois
East
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Rutgers
Maryland
LikeLike
Yes, do this.
LikeLike
That is worst case scenario for me. It keeps Michigan out of divisions, puts OSU with both newbies, ends the Illibuck, and requires crossovers. I’d take any set-up (even the current divisions), other that set-up.
LikeLike
OSU will be go west before Michigan. I know U of M. They will demand to go East.
LikeLike
Just like UM demanded to go East in the current divisions?
LikeLike
The current divisions didn’t include playing next door to NYC and next door to DC.
LikeLike
Agreed GLS. This is a no brainer. Michigan, the U, longs for an “eastern” identity.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Friday’s are always the best days for cliff-hangers in soap operas…
– Will SDSU go back like ex to the MWC?
– What happens in Dallas with the nBE meetings? Does it stay in Dallas?
– Who will the C7 choose as life partners?
Tune in Monday for answers to these and other exciting story lines!
LikeLike
And who shot JR? The meetings ARE in Dallas.
LikeLike
And Larry Hagman’s actually dead now!
Too soon?
LikeLike
According to the WV people, all the answers come out on Tuesdays.
LikeLike
Confused? You won’t be after this episode of SOAP!
LikeLike
Could Frank or someone explain the rationale for why the bigEast would want to go to 14 members?
It seems like all you’d be doing is diluting value.
Why Tulsa? small school, low attendance, no name recognition, good football. What happens when the football gets bad for an extended stretch?
Why wouldn’t the bigEast just stay at 11 for football and 9 all sport? (assuming SDSU leaves)
Does a FB championship game really provide financial value in a conference not in the big4?
I could maybe see adding UMass. It would be an asset for bball. If uconn/umass could agree to have their conference game annually in foxborough, and umass/temple could agree to have their conference game annually in yankee stadium, you could argue that adding UMass for football may not be too negative. UMass could expand their campus stadium slightly and stop trying to play all home games in foxborough.
The 10 team bball league would have 5 “names” (UConn, UMass, Temple, Cinci, Memphis),
and 5 others.
What other all sport school provides enough value on the football side to make up for their diluting effect on the bball side?
Maybe you could add 2 more FB only to get to 14 on the FB side, but why?
(improve rivalries maybe)
and who? SouthernMiss or UTSA?
LikeLike
Or save a FB-only add for 2015 and Navy?
LikeLike
You’d think there’d be some value in the bigEast
waiting a couple of years and seeing what bubbles to the top of C-USA
instead of making a move now.
Will UTSA’s football attendance be sustained?
Will all sports Charlotte and Old Dominion thrive or languish?
LikeLike
Whether they are at 10 or 11, there is at the very least a case for going to 12 and having a CCG.
However, best case for the Big-“X” they only end up losing the FB-only western schools, and the ACC stays stable until it is time for Navy to enter the Big-“X”. In that scenario, either play as 10, then add a pair with Navy to go back to a CCG, or else add to reach 12, and then add a air with Navy to have two 7-team divisions.
Second best case for the Big-“X”, the ACC is ripped to shreds and the remnants merge with the Big-“X” to form a “best of the rest” 5th conference. Adding more programs than necessary for the competition in the meantime only complicates things then.
Worst case, the ACC is raided in dribs and drabs, with the ACC reloading out of the Big-“X” in dribs and drabs. Time enough to add the additional programs then.
LikeLike
@dtwphx: I don’t know how much value a conference championship game provides, but the Big East needs value wherever it can get it. Even if it’s only a couple of million, it’s still revenue foregone if they stay at 11 teams.
After you get past 12, I think Aresco is just chasing after markets, and trying to maximize his TV contract. You have to assume that his TV partners, or potential partners, are giving him feedback on what he needs to do, to make the league more attractive. Presumably, he also has member schools in his ear. When so many of them have no long-term commitment, and would leave at the slightest provocation, he probably feels compelled to appease them.
At this point, the Big East has made so many mistakes that one is entirely justified in being skeptical about anything they do. I can certainly see the merits of getting to 12. I am not sure about the additional schools, especially when Tulane and East Carolina are two of them.
LikeLike
I’m not sure even the networks know what’s best for their contracts, given the money Fox is paying the Catholic 7, even if it is an overpay, and given that Fox is demanding a 12-team conference despite the lack of football.
Honestly, Fox and the Catholic 7 seem a really weird fit. An ESPN-CBS alliance would make a lot more sense, given the history of the schools involved.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Now would be the time to strike for the B1G if they wanted a bunch of ACC schools. Why? If you get Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Duke on board and you have the SEC willing to take Virginia Tech and NC State, all of a sudden you have a majority of players that could then reverse the $50 million buyout clause for the ACC. Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville don’t have a vote yet.
LikeLike
The Big Ten can’t “strike” unilaterally. Most of those schools you named want to be in the ACC, and want it to survive. They adopted the $50 million exit fee for precisely that purpose. Maryland had a unique problem that the rest of its conference-mates don’t share.
The more plausible scenario is that the $50 million exit fee is not upheld in court, and then a couple of less committed ACC members are pried loose, which then paves the way for the next two, and so on.
Even the Big East, which at its height was never as strong as the ACC, suffered most of its losses in ones and twos, not in big chunks. The Catholic 7 changed that, but only after the conference had suffered a lot of small pinpricks, each of which, in isolation, it seemed to have recovered from.
LikeLike
The more plausible scenario is that the $50 million exit fee is not upheld in court, and then a couple of less committed ACC members are pried loose, which then paves the way for the next two, and so on.
This case will never see a courtroom.
Plus, exit fees aren’t a deterrent for schools leaving. The money is so high now that even $50 million isn’t a prohibitive amount.
LikeLike
You might need more than a simple majority. Would need to check the bylaws. Oh, and what Marc Shepherd said
LikeLike
Definitely need to check rules. Think about the Big East. 12 of the current 15 full members (ones who count for voting generally speaking) would be better off if the league dissolved. Since members can’t vote after they decide to leave though, only South Florida, Cincinnati, and UConn essentially have votes.
LikeLike
You need 2 votes from basketball schools and 2 votes from football schools to dissolve.
LikeLike
If the Big East dissolved, who gets rights to the name? That might lead to neither faction being able to claim it…which, considering that conference’s ridiculously near-continuous revolving door of recent years, might be just as well. Its value has been severely tarnished, the legacy of its silly hybrid, inept commissioners, that stupid insistence upon referring to it as ALL CAPS when it’s not an acronym…hey, that might be why Fox, itself a non-acronym that prefers the all-caps routine, is so interested in this new league.
LikeLike
They are negotiating the name, so it depends on how much the Catholic side wants to pay for it. I don’t blame the commissioners, personally, since it was always the membership that made the errors. To give but one example, the article below says “Big Mistake by the Big East” as though it was the commissioner’s idea to turn down $13m+ from ESPN. But it wasn’t. Pitt was the big mover behind that. Indeed, Pitt has had a big hand in some of the biggest screwups ever made by the BE (voting against Penn State and Maryland admission). To say that the BE shouldn’t have been a hybrid conference is to say that the BE should have never existed in the first place, since 3 of the 9 initial members played D1 football. The Catholic schools almost left in the early 1990s when the football schools were added (i.e. WV, Miami, Rutgers, etc.). Mike Tranghese is on record as saying the BE was almost dissolved then until UConn’s President (UConn was non-football at the time) and AD brought everyone together and saved the conference. This is per Tranghese’s recent interview. If it didn’t go hybrid then, it wouldn’t have even existed.
The name as of now belongs to UConn, Cincy and USF, but through Aresco they are giving it up, for a price. There are also nearly $100 million in NCAA credits and exit fees tied up in the coffers in addition to this year’s $18m BCS take.
LikeLike
Which section of the by-laws says that? I only saw a 2/3 majority. There was a time, prior to Rutgers and Louisville turning in their notice and after the ACC bound schools had turned in their notice, when getting to 2/3 required 2 FB schools (8 and a fraction votes, but its a voting threshold, so that made it 9) … but all I saw in the by-laws was the 2/3.
LikeLike
After a 2/3 dissolution vote, asset distribution is majority vote, although that turns out to be the same 2 out of 3 schools as required to dissolve, assuming that the C7 have already turned in their notice as a block.
LikeLike
@Bruce
The Catholic schools could vote to dissolve the league. However, they would need 2/3 majority, and although they have seven votes, at least two votes in the majority must come from football-playing schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2012/12/13/big-east-conference-basketball-split-catholic-member-schools/1767387/
Without the support of at least 2 FB schools all the Catholic schools are entitled to do is leave without paying an exit fee it they wait 27 months.
LikeLike
To give but one example, the article below says “Big Mistake by the Big East” as though it was the commissioner’s idea to turn down $13m+ from ESPN. But it wasn’t. Pitt was the big mover behind that. Indeed, Pitt has had a big hand in some of the biggest screwups ever made by the BE (voting against Penn State and Maryland admission).
Uh, I’m a Maryland fan and have followed university athletics for decades, and I don’t believe at any time Maryland was formally interested in joining the Big East. Had the Eastern all-sports conference Penn State championed for years ever materialized, College Park might — and, I repeat, might – have had interest in joining. But Big East as has existed over its history held no appeal for Maryland, especially since in virtually all those years it would have resulted in lower revenue than it was making in the ACC. The Big Ten was the only conference Maryland would leave the ACC for, especially after Wallace Loh made the many academic, athletic and financial benefits evident to skeptical university officials.
LikeLike
Joe Paterno is on record as saying that Maryland and Penn State approached in the late 1980s as the league was forming with Miami, and FSU was looking on. That was the deal presented, and it was rejected. http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/66059-why-pitt-still-irks-paterno
LikeLike
@frug Yes, that’s the kind of thing I’m talking to. Reading the bylaws themselves, I did not see any specific provision in the dissolution section referring to BB-only or all-sports schools, I just saw the 2/3 requirement. I also saw that schools lose their vote on that (among other things) when they put in their formal notice of leaving.
As a practical matter, with the C7, UConn, UC, one of the UxF’s, Louisville, Rutgers and Temple, that’s 13, and 2/3 of 13 is 8.667, which means hitting the 2/3 threshold required during that period the C7 “plus 2 FB schools”.
LikeLike
I’m sorry I’m not going to be able to pull this up for you because the post is gone on another board, but the rules were amended 3 years ago when the football schools temporarily had the upper hand. There is a new document in place on this issue regarding the by-laws. And it requires 2 from either side for dissolution, as it was initially put in place to protect the bball schools at a time when dissolution meant a total split of exit fees and NCAA credits.
LikeLike
Aha, so it was amended since the WV departure. Thanks.
LikeLike
This is interesting
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4719
The meeting in Dallas produced no hard decisions, but the general consensus after the meeting was that San Diego State would be remaining with the Mountain West in all sports.
If that plays itself out in the next few weeks, than two more Big East members, Cincinnati and Connecticut, are also ready to depart.
According to sources at Connecticut, UConn officials were pursuing a plan which would keep the Huskies with the Catholic 7–Marquette, DePaul, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Villanova and Providence, as well as Cincinnati.
The plan would be then to increase the group to 12 with the addition of such schools as Butler, Xavier and Saint Louis the front runners.
In order to do that, however, UConn officials must find a place for football. And while nothing officially has been offered, a plan in which the Huskies and Cincinnati would join the Mountain West was being considered as part of an overall expansion plan for the MWC which would expand from 10 teams to 12, 14 or 16 teams, if the schools currently committed to the Big East such as Houston, SMU, Memphis, Central Florida and South Florida find themselves in a crumbling football conference and switch to the MWC
LikeLike
Wow, I didn’t expect that.
LikeLike
Jersey Guy has come up with some off the wall stuff lately.
Cincy and UConn to C7 not out of the realm of possibility, but why would MWC want them?
LikeLike
And let me say, I don’t believe the Cincy & UConn bit, just that its not totally unrealistic. Don’t see how it helps them get in ACC eventually, which is certainly their goal.
LikeLike
It keeps them in a top basketball conference with a best of the rest football conference. It is probably the best they could do on both fronts.
LikeLike
If they perceive that Cincy and UConn are using them as a stopover until the ACC comes calling, the Catholic 7 will not give them the time of day.
LikeLike
According to the report, it’s the reverse. This was a Catholic school proposal and UConn wanted no part of it. I thought from the beginning that once the Catholic schools saw that UConn was vulnerable, they thought they could be pressured into joining the Catholic schools for basketball, abandoning USF and the like. Except UConn didn’t bite. Now we hear Fox is offering $5million per school for basketball, right before the BE meetings, and again, UConn isn’t biting.
LikeLike
Weird. I would have figured it was the other way around.
Not sure why the C-7 really feel the need to mix with UConn and Cincy. Sure, they’re good programs. And there is at least some history with UConn (Cincy hasn’t been in the league that long). But everyone knows those two schools would leave as soon as they can. And it’s not like the C-7 can’t get good programs. None are UConn good, at least not Calhoun level UConn. There’s an open question if UConn can maintain that level post-Calhoun. But Creighton, Butler, Xavier. Those schools go a long ways to replacing the on the court talent.
I’d also wonder what would happen to UConn and Cincy football? The Big east could basically say screw you and tell them its all or nothing. Then what? Go Con-USA or Sun Belt? Mountain West seems far fetched.
LikeLike
Jericho:
The Catholic 7 probably believes that they can add any non-football school they want if UConn (and Cincy) leave.
Also, Fox may be pressuring them to explore adding at least UConn.
LikeLike
If Fox is pressuring them to look at adding UConn and maybe UC, that would be incentive to leak the concept in hopes of it getting shot down.
LikeLike
Or the TV rights $$$ being floated could be dependent on UCONN/Cinn. Will FOX pay the same for any 5 schools added? I do not believe the C7 will just go for the money, but it will be a factor in who gets invited.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’ll happen, but it doesn’t sound crazy to me. I can understand why the MWC would like a bit of eastern media exposure. Of course, they know that Cincy and UConn would bolt for the ACC as soon as they can, but the MWC might be willing to gamble that that’ll take a while.
From Cincy and UConn’s perspective, the new Big East is shaping up to be pretty weak at football, and certainly weaker at basketball than the new C7 conference. The MWC (for football) and the C7 (for basketball) would certainly be no worse, and it might be a lot better.
LikeLike
UConn, Memphis, Cincy and Temple are AT LEAST as good basketball schools as G’Town, Butler, Villanova and Marquette, and I would argue they are better and have more eyeballs as well. Temple recently brought about 10,000 fans to an away game at NYC. After years of watching teams like Providence, DePaul and Seton Hall lose to the likes of Bryant and Brown U., etc., I would not argue that these teams are any better than SMU, Houston and USF. I think the two possible conferences are comparable in basketball.
LikeLike
As good as G’Town, ‘Nova, Marquette, Butler, Xavier, Creighton, and Dayton?
LikeLike
UConn > G’town
Memphis = Nova
Cincy = Marquette
Temple = Xavier
Butler is an interesting school, they could put the Catholics over the top, but we’re talking about a short reign under a hot coach. What’s the longterm for them?
Creighton never does much in the tourney.
LikeLike
@danallen2 – I think this is a fair comparison among the top 4 teams, but I think you’re underestimating Butler (as Richard has said, they’ve had success under multiple coaches and they’re in a legit basketball hotbed) and Creighton (a school that can sell 17,000-plus tickets every single night playing a MVC schedule is going to have the financial resources to compete at the highest level in the long-term). Once you get past Temple, Butler and Creighton far outweigh anyone else in the new Big East hoops-wise and even the current dregs of the Catholic 7 (DePaul, Providence, Seton Hall) at least bring history and a major market/recruiting territory. At least in terms of perceived media value, it’s really not that close between the Catholic 7 and new Big East – the Catholic 7 has a major edge and the new Fox offer to the new league reflects that.
To be sure, it doesn’t give me any great pleasure to state that from UConn’s perspective. Your school deserves a better home and frankly, the short-term choices will hopefully just be temporary until one of the 5 power conferences calls you up. In the meantime, though, I think new Big East fans are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think that they’re equal or greater than the Catholic 7 from a media deal viewpoint (at least for basketball). UConn itself has a very strong brand name, but most Big East fans that I’ve seen appear to overestimate the basketball TV value of Memphis, Cincinnati and Temple as compared to the Catholic 7 and then fail to recognize that the depth of the proposed 12 members of the Catholic 7 league beyond just the top 4 teams is vastly superior.
LikeLike
I think in my initial post I allowed Butler may be something special, but under Stevens. I also think it’s hard to tell how good teams are from midmajors such as the MVC. Teams like Creighton and Utah St always get pumped up for great regular seasons, only to lose early in the tourney. I’m skeptical of them. Frankly, I stir all these teams in the same pot, and even if you look at a team with no bball history whatsoever, like USF, they more than held their own against the likes of Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul. I just don’t think much differentiates these schools.
One thing about the media money is that it’s rumored, first of all, and secondly it’s coming from Fox. There has always been a premium paid for schools willing to break with ESPN. This is the entire reason the ACC has smaller contract than the Pac10. The ACC likes the exposure, and it trades dollars for exposure. It’s a smart move for them. A lot of this also depends on the tiers. Will the Catholic schools give up all tiers to Fox? Because if so, then I can understand why the deal is so good. If UConn were to do that, it would take a big hit, because its Tier 3 rights are tied up with SNY $5-$7 million, but an additional $10 million for licensing coach’s shows through IMG on SNY. Total licensing for UConn is about $25 million. In other words, it all depends on the breakdown.
I do think UConn, Cincy, Memphis have a lot more fans than the top of the Catholic schools, by the way. Marquette and Georgetown are probably the most popular of the Catholics.
LikeLike
You must not follow Butler very closely. 3 coaches ago, they made the NCAA tournament 3 times in 4 years. 2 coaches ago, they made the second round. Last coach before Brad Stevens, they made the Sweet 16 twice.
In the past 10 years, they’ve been to more Final Fours than Memphis, Cincy, or Temple & more Sweet Sixteens than Cincy or Temple (tied with Memphis) under multiple coaches.
LikeLike
Their success has come under Stevens. Making the tourney out of mid-major conferences is good, but not really impressive. Most of those teams are no better than the Providences, etc., who constantly lose to the top of their conference and therefore never make a tourney. The truly elite teams are the ones that get to F8s, F4s, win championships. Butler has a good start with Stevens, he’s been to 2, but winning one game in the tourney is not going to cut it. 32 teams do it every year.
If Stevens leaves, I have very little faith in Butler, especially in a stronger conference than they’ve been in.
Lastly, this new conference has no team like Uconn in it.
LikeLike
Frankly, I don’t think UConn will amount to much after Calhoun given their resources. They’ll be closer to a Temple than a G’Town or Pitt.
Also, if you’re going to play that game, Butler has made 2 Sweet Sixteens and 3 2nd rounds in the past 20 years without Stevens as coach. Memphis has made 2 Sweet Sixteens (and of course 2 2nd rounds) the last 20 years without Calipari as coach. Temple has made 1 Sweet Sixteen (and of course the 2nd round) without Chaney as coach. Cincy has made 1 Sweet Sixteen and 2 2nd rounds in the past 20 years without Huggins as coach.
If anything, Butler has shown that it will do better than Temple or Cincy and about as well as Memphis without a legendary coach.
LikeLike
@Richard
Now I know this isn’t a serious discussion. You seem not to be aware of Uconn’s resources. Pitt and G’town? You serious?
LikeLike
I do know UConn’s basketball revenues. Granted, it has jumped in recent years, but previously, it was not impressive at all.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight. The school with the highest revenues in the BE for 2 decades until last year (Louisville past them) is not impressive, but Pitt and G’town are? UConn, in case you didn’t notice, aggregates licensing and donations under the ADs line, but I assure you it’s BBall driving the licensing revenues which are double everyone else’s in the BE. Look it up. UConn is at $65m revenues with only $3m coming from the deal with ESPN.
LikeLike
“I do think UConn, Cincy, Memphis have a lot more fans than the top of the Catholic schools, by the way. Marquette and Georgetown are probably the most popular of the Catholics.”
Creighton has a higher attendance than Memphis. Marquette has a higher attendance than UConn. G’Town, Xavier, Dayton, Villanova, and St. John’s all have a higher attendance than either Cincy or Temple.
LikeLike
I said fans, not attendance. TV sets count too.
LikeLike
There’s a pretty tight correlation between fans and attendance. Other than in the case of UConn (located in the sticks), the vast majority of the fans of the rest of these schools all live in the same metropolitan area as the school itself, so there’s no excuse for them not showing up if they’re actually fans.
Look, I’ll grant you that UConn almost certainly has more fans than the rest of the schools mentioned. Memphis also has impressive support. The depth of the leftover-BE is no match for the depth of the Catholic League, however.
LikeLike
I disagree entirely with your latest. You have to look at the tier 3 and licensing rights. That’s where the real money is made. UConn makes $25 million there. That’s from marketing TV to its fans. Ticket sales are small compared to that. I mean, there isn’t even a 17,000 seat arena in the entire state of Conn. Gampel is barely 10k. You can’t apply that test across the country, not when places like Cameron only hold 9,000 people. The number of Duke fans is almost assuredly 50x the number of people who buy tickets to Duke games. Regardless, both schools sell out, but they don’t have 17k arenas.
LikeLike
@dan
I know Syracuse for one has brought in more MBB revenue (and total revenue for that matter) than UConn for years. In fact it isn’t even close.
LikeLike
Syracuse isn’t required to report federally. Here are the stats: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
N doubt, Syracuse gets more in tix because of the Carrier dome, but look at UConn’s licensing rights compared to everyone in the BE.
LikeLike
OK, but we’re not talking about UConn or Duke (or even Memphis). Where is all this licensing revenue that Cincy and Temple (and USF, UCF, SMU, & Tulane) have brought in?
LikeLike
Or Seton Hall or Creighton or any of these other schools. They are all the same. Limited. That’s my point.
LikeLike
@dan
Well if you are only comparing UConn to the Big East’s public schools that report then their only competition is Rutgers, Cincy, USF and WVU. Not exactly a murderers row.
Also, all schools that take Title IV funding (which is all of them) have to file with the Department of Education on their spending on sports. If you look at the numbers Syracuse has been bringing in more money than UConn for years.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx
LikeLike
The public schools play football. Other than Cuse, then of course the public schools are the ones making the most money. I assure you that the schools you mention as not being a murderer’s row (i.e. WV and Louisville and UConn) are making more than G’town and the rest. Only Cuse as a private plays football.
LikeLike
I will say that I think UConn is more likely to remain a BB power than Richard does (at least if they can get back into a major conference). I understand Richards concerns (a triple whammy of the retirement of a legendary coach, NCAA sanctions and potential loss of power conference affiliation) but Arizona has managed to rebuild since Olson’s retirement with no more BB revenue than UConn and while they didn’t face the NCAA sanctions that UConn does, that is countered by the fact that UConn probably has more local talent.
Really, as long as UConn can find a new home I think they will be fine.
LikeLike
My best guess the MWC might be doing this as a way to ensure the destruction of the Big East. It would leave them as the undisputed “Best of the Rest” and make it easier for them to grab Houston and SMU. Then if UConn and Cincy bolt in a few years it won’t have a huge impact.
LikeLike
Ugh. Before West Virginia joined the Big 12 I would have instinctively retched; as is I still feel oogy. This would be the baldest pure-money move imaginable to join the Mountain West for football, and it wouldn’t exactly be “mountain” or “west”.
Is the NuBigEast putting down an all-or-nothing stance? UConn may be a geographic outlier in the NuBigEast outside Temple, but it would seem to make more sense than the Mountain West geographically and football-strength-wise. The Mountain West and NuBigEast are pretty close in terms of top-to-bottom football strength, with Boise, Nevada, and maybe Fresno or San Diego State on the one hand and the Florida schools, SMU, Houston, and potentially East Carolina on the other.
LikeLike
Why does everyone think UConn is below these schools in football? UConn has a winning record against Pitt 5-3, is 6-3 against Syracuse, is even 4-4 with Louisville after staring 0-3, and has a winning record against USF. Against all the BE schools going to the B1G and ACC, Uconn has a winning record.
LikeLike
I think best case for MWC and Big East looks like this:
MWC:
Boise State
Wyoming
San Diego State
Fresno State
San Jose State
Hawaii
Nevada
UNLV
BYU*
Utah State
UConn*
Cincinatti*
Memphis*
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force
*football only
Big East:
UConn
Cincinatti
Memphis
Georgetown
Villanova
St. John’s
Seton Hall
Providence
Marquette
Depaul
Xavier
Butler
LikeLike
The only consideration is would the new Big East want UConn and Cinci knowing that both want in the ACC? I say yes. They can always replace them with SLU and Creighton or Temple or whever when the time comes, if it comes.
LikeLike
UConn’s AD already shot this rumor down: “Nothing we would ever consider.”
Sounds like someone put a bug in the reporter’s ear to undercut the BE meetings.
LikeLike
danallen, interesting that the rumor is false. Seems like a good setup for UConn. Now they’ll be in a league with:
UConn
Cinci
South Florida
Memphis
Central Florida
ECU
Tulane
SMU
Houston
Navy
Tulsa(?)
Not exactly a great basketball league, which is their focus.
LikeLike
We’ll agree to disagree. UConn fans already know what we have with the Catholic schools, and frankly we’re not impressed. I tend to think that outside of G’town, this is going to be a bust of a league (Butler excepted). Memphis, Cincy, UConn, Temple are at least as formidable and the lower part of the current BE (DePaul, PC, Seton Hall) regularly lose to scrubs. But that’s not even the most important point. The big point is that UConn needs to keep football alive for 5 years until the possibility of an invite comes.
I do believe that eventually the football schools will split into their own association for sports, and being left with the Catholics is certain doom.
LikeLike
“We are a proud member of the ____ ____ Conference” (until we aren’t).”
LikeLike
“I do believe that eventually the football schools will split into their own association for sports, and being left with the Catholics is certain doom.”
Psst. Mark Emmert. Undercut this before it happens and split football into a separate association that’s not held to the same conference scheme. Maybe one willing to adopt pro/rel?
(I know I’ve been harping on pro/rel more than usual lately, but conference realignment has gotten so depressing.)
LikeLike
So you want a system that can effectively move any school out of the conference of there choice, over one that only a few feel they really don’t have a choice (other than independence, and that’s always available, too)?
LikeLike
Well, in this particular comment I was calling only for divorcing the football conference structure from that of other sports with pro/rel as a potential added bonus, but if conference realignment has proven anything it’s that schools will leave each other in a heartbeat if they can get more money with someone else, even the most traditional of rivalries be damned. In a vacuum, I think the top football schools would rush to form a single conference in a heartbeat and lock as many other schools out as they can; pro/rel is just a way of protecting that against antitrust lawsuits (and another way would be to enact an exchange of one good team outside the system for one bad team inside it, similar to how England’s Football League used to work). There are a lot of similarities between conference realignment now (and specifically the prospect of a split from the NCAA) and the formation of the English Premier League 20 years ago, namely the conflict between big-name teams looking to maximize their TV revenue and the little guys wanting a piece of the pie.
LikeLike
They are not slated to be in a BB league with Navy, Navy is slated to be FB-only.
LikeLike
Why would BYU go FB only?
LikeLike
Maybe they like the Big West? Seems like they do. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
BYU is WCC not Big West.
That said, outside of TV considerations I can’t imagine any reason that BYU would chose WCC or MWC. The Mountain West is stronger, more high profile and has more of their rivals.
LikeLike
And they left it for FB independence, as well as haveing passed on BE (when still big) and B12.
LikeLike
well alright then. I just threw them in there as a hypothetical. I don’t follow BYU at all.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Big East learn anything from the WAC? Don’t mess with MWC commissioner Craig Thomsen. The MWC might end up killing off two football conferences if this happens.
Brigham Young University will leave the Mountain West Conference for the 2011-12 season…
BYU had originally agreed to go to the Western Athletic Conference in all sports and go independent in football before the MWC squelched the move by inviting WAC members Fresno State and Nevada two weeks ago.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5517305
LikeLike
Oops. Craig Thompson
LikeLike
Would Missouri have gotten in over Rutgers?
LikeLike
Well, considering how things have turned out: no.
Which is a damn shame, as I really wish the Tigers could join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
re: “Well, considering how things have turned out: no.”
That doesn’t really prove anything. The question Jack was asking is had Missouri not joined the SEC, would they have gotten in over Rutgers, and the answer to that question is probably yes.
LikeLike
Since you would have been under a GOR, the answer is definitely no.
LikeLike
true, which is likely one of the reasons Missouri joined the SEC rather than waiting around for a Big Ten invite.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 was planning on sticking at 14 for the long term then probably. But, I think it is far more likely the Big 10 is looking at further expansion, which means East Coast, so I’m guessing they would have taken Rutgers as part of an Eastern strategy.
LikeLike
jackdinkins,
“Would Missouri have gotten in over Rutgers?”
Maybe. It depends on the end game the B10 has in mind. MO is a safer pick than RU but has less upside. MO would have solidified the western flank of the B10, but RU brings a bigger state and a shot at NYC. RU also helps more with PSU than MO would have helped anybody (IL and IA have plenty of other rivals and neighbors to play).
Frankly, I would have preferred MD and MO. The east/west balance is nice. It would let the B10 focus on cracking DC for a while. That would leave RU for a #16 slot if needed (UVA/RU if UNC says no?). That would keep the B10 contiguous instead of adding GT, too.
LikeLike
I agree with that; I was originally pushing Maryland/Missouri as the strongest alternative to 14 without ND, but I gradually came around to Maryland/Rutgers given the strategy being pursued.
I think the Big Ten has always had its eyes on the East though after the Pac-16 scenario popped up, which means that Missouri was likely not a part of any of the plans thereafter…
Missouri probably only really had a role in Big Ten expansion as a bridge to Texas.
LikeLike
Well, I know plenty of you don’t believe me, but Missouri curators have said privately that the Big Ten was seriously interested in Missouri as a #13 or #14, but then they didn’t expand that far so Missouri took the SEC offer instead.
LikeLike
And of course there was also the issue of the SEC offering full revenue from day 1, while the Big Ten was offering about half as much for 5 or 6 years.
LikeLike
BTN is owned by the universities of the B10 and Fox. B10 required Nebraska and Missouri to ‘buy-in’ into the equity of the BTN before they profited from it. Missouri obviously would’ve received an equal share of everyone else in every other payouts (ABC, ESPN media, bowl payouts, NCAA tourney, etc.)
LikeLike
I don’t know all the specifics but right now Nebraska is making roughly half as much as the rest of the B1G. Really all I have are a few details, but it sounds like Mizzou saw full revenue from day one as a positive factor when choosing to accept the SEC invite rather than wait on the B1G. Another factor, as bullet noted, was the impending grant of rights in the Big 12. Mizzou couldn’t sign those and then leave for the B1G. Then there was the difference in the way Mizzou was treated by the SEC vs B1G. The SEC actively pursued Mizzou, campaigned for them to join, while the B1G didn’t go to trouble of doing that. In the end I think it was a matter of timing more than anything. If the B1G had Maryland ready to go before the Big 12 signed their GOR then maybe they could have taken Mizzou and Maryland together a year ago.
LikeLike
They could have refused to sign the GOR. Would the B12 have then kicked them out?
LikeLike
Good question.
LikeLike
Andy,
Nobody doubts the B10 was considering MO as a #14. What we don’t believe is that the B10 considered MO for #12 after NE said they were available.
Whether MO could have been a #13 is debatable. RU was available at the time, so the B10 could have added MO and RU then but they chose not to do it. I think the MO/MD pair would have been workable but MD didn’t want out yet.
Most likely what happened is the B10 got NE and wanted to wait to see what opportunities the turmoil might present. If the B12 crumbled, the B10 would have had several options to chase. Given that, they weren’t prepared to offer MO a spot at that time.
LikeLike
MU was a candidate for 12, but in the end NU got that spot. I don’t know the details of how that went down and neither do you. I’ve heard conflicting stories.
As for spot #13, yes, Missouri was to be #13 if they could get a good #14, but at the time they could not, and by the time Maryland was ready Mizzou was already in the SEC, so that was that.
LikeLike
Andy,
Everyone has already agreed that you’re delusional about MO’s candidacy for #12. No need to rehash it yet again.
“As for spot #13, yes, Missouri was to be #13 if they could get a good #14,”
That’s not how it works. If MO needed a good #14, then they were the #14 and the B10 were looking for a #13.
LikeLike
not necessarily. They could be looking for two co-13s. Mizzou didn’t necessarily have to be a junior partner, just needed a worthy partner. Mizzou wouldn’t have been a junior partner to Maryland for example. They’re about the same. Mizzou’s stronger in sports, Maryland is stronger in athletics, both states are about the same population.
LikeLike
*should read Maryland is stronger in academics.
LikeLike
Andy,
“not necessarily. They could be looking for two co-13s.”
No, they couldn’t.
“Mizzou didn’t necessarily have to be a junior partner, just needed a worthy partner.”
RU was a good enough partner for MD, but not for MO. That says MD was worth more to the B10 when it was added than MO was when NE was added.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Remember that after only Notre Dame joined the ACC did the Big Ten decided to make a move on Rutgers. Look, I don’t know how it all played out. All I know is that Missouri was very much in the mix, but then for whatever reason the Big Ten put a freeze on expansion for a couple of years, and then Notre Dame joined the ACC and shortly thereafter Maryland and Rutgers joined the Big Ten. Missouri was not an option at that point because they had already moved to the SEC.
LikeLike
@Andy: I don’t believe Missouri was ever a serious candidate to be #12. Were they considered? I’m sure even Rutgers was considered. Delany probably had a dossier with about 15 schools in it. Every AAU school within or contiguous to the Big Ten footprint was at least looked at. Missouri was a candidate in that sense.
Given the Big Ten’s known strategy (NYC/D.C./southern), it is hard to believe that Missouri ever came anywhere near an actual opportunity to join. If Delany were only adding one, it needed to be sexy, a requirement Nebraska filled, but Missouri did not. Since Delany knew he could have Rutgers any day he wanted, we can also conclude that MU/RU as #13/14 was not appealing to the Big Ten.
After Maryland shook loose, would Missouri (if it were still available) have received the nod above Rutgers? That’s a much tougher call, but I think Rutgers still gets in. The Big Ten has made clear that it sees better opportunities for growth to its east and to its south, than to its west.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Frank is right about his, “Why would they settle for Maryland and Rutgers if they could get anyone else?”
Nebraska is a king and an obvious improvement to national TV contracts and competitiveness.
But when you look at the ACC, there are only 6 AAU schools. Pitt is nothing but filler, since the B1G already has PSU. Duke is a relatively small private school. Its hard to imagine any major conference taking them except as a package deal with UNC or NCSU.
Georgia Tech is a long way off and less like the B1G schools than Maryland or Rutgers. UVA, again, is less of an institutional fit, while not offering anything over MD but better football attendance athletically. And they really don’t offer enough to add much value over Rutgers and Rutgers has more potential. The SEC might value different things, but who in the ACC would the B1G prefer over those two other than UNC?
I think the B1G got pretty much who they wanted. They probably preferred UNC, but they also would have preferred Notre Dame or Texas.
LikeLike
Of course, you have to remember the saying, “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.”
LikeLike
Delany is never going to be wholly forthcoming, so we can only guess as to his thought process. I think he saw MD/RU as: 1) Financially accretive, if that’s all he gets; 2) Available now; 3) Potentially a stepping stone to more desirable schools farther south.
There was no scenario where UVA/UNC would be available without the ACC being further undermined, and in the meantime Delany needed to take what he could get.
LikeLike
Marc, you’re free to your opinion, bu they’re based on nothing but your own guesses.
I’m very confident, based on what I’ve been told and who told me, that MIssouri was in very serious talks about joining the Big Ten, maybe at 12, but definitely at 13 if the right partner joined as well.
LikeLike
@Andy: Although Delany hasn’t shared his thinking with me personally, there are many public comments (by him and other Big Ten insiders) that are consistent with the view I’ve articulated. I am not just tossing out a wild guess.
The fact that some private Missouri source thinks they were close to getting an invite, does not mean they were close to getting an invite. If a Big Ten source said that, it would be more credible, because they were clearly the ones holding the cards, not Missouri.
LikeLike
Marc, Missouri leadership has talked publicly about their talks with Delany. Whatever he’s said publicly doesn’t jibe with what he’s said in private.
LikeLike
gah, more typos. Meant to say Missouri leadership has spoken privately about what Delaney said privately with them.
Point is what I’m referring to isn’t public record, but there are some people who know about it and talk about it. I don’t have every detail, but the most important detail I have is that Missouri joining the Big Ten went pretty far before it was scuttled, and when Nebraska got spot 12 it was understood that Missouri was still in line for a spot with future expansion. But then that future expansion stalled and Missouri joined the SEC instead.
LikeLike
Like Louisville telling recruits they were in the Big 12.
There’s no doubt Missouri was seriously considered. When the B1G got turned down by ND the last time around 1999, they publically said their candidates for 12 to 14 were Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers, clearly indicating that Missouri was 1st on the list (2 west, 1 east). But nothing has come out this time other than people talking on Missouri boards, the sources I suspect were trying to make themselves look better after nearly being left in the Big East in 2010, when their bluff was called in the Big 12 meetings. A lot of people with connections in WV thought they were a lock for the SEC when Missouri got that slot. Don’t think there is any more credibility to the Missouri stories. Missouri is just more of the same of what the B1G already has. Others fill their needs better-new markets, large populations, above average growing areas, football recruiting areas.
LikeLike
bullet, again, all your guesses. you’re free to believe what you want but your beliefs aren’t based on any evidence at all. Missouri is a state of 6.2M people, AAU Research 1 University, 35k students, top 25 attendance in football and basketball, decent tv ratings, two large metro areas with strong fan followings, ready-made rivalries with Iowa and Illinois, strong cultural fit. The SEC chose Missouri over WVU and Louisville, among others, so obviously Missouri is a stronger candidate than those two. There were actual negotiations about Mizzou joining the Big Ten. Terms were drawn up. Leaders in MU’s athletic department sincerely thought it was imminent, either as #12 or as #13/14. But then Nebraska ended up getting the spot and the Big Ten stopped at 12, so Missouri went to one of the other offers they had on the table, the SEC. At the time Missouri had been approached by the Big Ten, Pac 12, Big East, and SEC. All would take Missouri with the right partner(s). The B1G obviously didn’t think Mizzou and Rutgers was a good combo for them at the time. They preferred a stronger partner for Mizzou like Notre Dame, Texas, or Maryland. The Pac 12 talked about a combination along the lines of Missouri/Kansas/Oklahoma plus one more. The Big East was eager to take Missouri/Kansas/whoever. Missouri elected to combine with A&M to make the move to the SEC.
LikeLike
@Andy
Your beliefs are based on some message board or other source of Missouri insiders. Everyone else has beliefs based on what actually publically happened and reports from everywhere but Missouri. You are free to believe your sources. But noone other than Missouri fans believes any of that. That should raise questions about how reliable your sources are (whether they are making things up, spreading gossip instead of fact or simply don’t know the full story). It sounds so much like the mass hysteria on some of the WVU boards that had them in the SEC or the Louisville boards that they had too much integrity to leave the BE in 1 year, so the Big 12 took WVU instead.
Missouri obviously thought they had an invite somewhere, otherwise they would have committed to the Big 12 when UNL and CU refused to in that Big 12 meeting when Texas said they would if 2 out of UNL/CU/MU did. But Missouri offered their share of the exit fees to Texas, OU and A&M to get them to stay instead of going to the Pac 12 after UNL decided to leave. That says they had no good alternatives. The rumors at the time were Big East. Missouri’s President was the leader to hold the Big 12 together until OU threatened to leave again. The insider stories you have heard are just not consistent with the actions. That’s why noone outside Missouri believes them.
LikeLike
bullet, nothing of public record has ever contradicted anything I’ve said.
Missouri message boards typically don’t believe what I’m talking about either. This isn’t like the WVU stuff where we have a blogger like “the dude” spouting this stuff. What I’m talking about is only coming from missouri curators, athletic department staff, and coaches and what they’ve told a few boosters behind closed doors.
but outside of that, you stumbled on it yourself, why would Missouri refuse to commit to the Big 12 if they didn’t think they had a spot elsewhere? CU, NU, and MU were the only three schools who refused to commit. Those were the three schools in talks to go elsewhere. They didn’t think they might later be in talks. They were in talks. And when the situation changed, then and only then did Missouri commit to the Big 12, and that was a few months later. So actually the publicly available info corroborates my story, it doesn’t contradict it.
Shortly after that the SEC started pursuing Missouri and A&M. The SEC approached Missouri very shortly after approaching A&M. Long before the actual move was made. Missouri was at first reluctant but were later won over and made the move.
LikeLike
I don’t know if already linked (maybe yesterday in the previous thread).
Excellent SI article by Mandel re: bowl system. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130110/college-football-bowl-system-changes/
article is long, but worth your attention imho.
relevant to our discussions of tv, ratings, worth of actual live people sitting in the stadium, etc.
found this most telling:
“Even its lowest-tier bowls (Beef ‘O’ Brady’s, GoDaddy.com, etc.) garner decent enough ratings to support a 35-bowl system. In a telling example, the network’s Dec. 15 Arizona-Nevada New Mexico Bowl broadcast drew a higher rating (1.9) than Butler’s overtime upset of No. 1 Indiana on CBS during the same time window (1.5). It doesn’t affect ESPN, which owns and operates the New Mexico Bowl, that only 24,610 fans attended the game in person.”
methinks Fox Network may soon start sponsoring bowl games?
LikeLike
I’d be shocked if FS1 (and NBCSN) doesn’t make a serious run at a number of bowls. Considering it already has both “semifinals”, it’s surprising enough Fox didn’t nab the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Fox ever had a chance. Like the conference contracts, I have a feeling ESPN has both an exclusive negotiating window with a Bowl and potentially a right to match any offer. I don’t think the Rose Bowl rights hit the open market.
LikeLike
Quite a few lower tier bowls that have shaky finances. FOX could buy these and get the TV rights. That is how ESPN got most of the bowls it owns. Probably a better strategy than trying to take away just the TV contract from ESPN, or to try to create a new bowl. The number of bowls is not likely to increase from 35 and ESPN could buy up all the failed bowls on the cheap if FOX does not bid.
LikeLike
I think most those bowls probably have better value to ESPN though. My guess is most people aren’t turning in specially for most the lower bowls so much as turning onto ESPN for bowl season in general. Fox Sports 1 would have to a lot of those bowls before I think they’d start to have the same effect and I just don’t think they can probably buy that many. (although I don’t expect ESPN to keep as big a majority of them as it as now).
LikeLike
That is why FOX will be better off trying to buy current bowl games vs. TV rights. There are 35 bowl games with no room to expand unless the required 6 wins is lowered to 5. At least 40% (14) of bowls are financially sound, including the all bowls in the new playoff system ESPN will broadcast. ESPN has already bought 7 bowls (20%) on the cheap. That leaves about 14 bowls. Up to half of these may be available for sale. Worst case is FOX can force ESPN to pay more for these bowls.
LikeLike
Another look at divisions:
14 teams makes for 1716 possible combinations. 120 of those combine all 4 kings in one division, so those can be dropped leaving 1596. That’s still a lot of options.
If you lock the western 4 together – 120 options
Taking that as likely to happen, let’s work from there. Obviously 1 combo puts the western 4 and eastern 3 together. Otherwise, only 35 options don’t include 1 of the eastern 3. 10 of those choices would put OSU and MSU on one side with MI on the other, so they don’t work (25). Another 5 would put OSU and MI in the west, and that won’t happen (20).
NE, WI, IA, MN + ???
0. PSU, RU, MD
1-4. 3 IN/IL schools
5-10. MSU + 2 IN/IL schools
11-16. OSU + 2 IN/IL schools
17-20. MI, MSU + 1 IN/IL school
That gets us to 21 choices. We can reduce those even further by picking the most likely combos within each subgroup.
PSU, RU, MD – inner/outer
IL, IN, PU – all about the east
NW, IL, PU – all about the kings in the east
NW, IL, IN – all about the kings in the east
MSU, NW, IL – attempt to balance the 3 kings
OSU, PU, IN – geographical pods
OSU, NW, IL – balance and rivalries
MI, MSU, NW – similar to now but with WI moved west
So if you believe the western 4 will be together, those 8 choices seem like the most likely outcomes (some more likely than others, obviously).
I just find it interesting how quickly 1 or 2 constraints reduce the options to a manageable number.
LikeLike
Well done, sir.
LikeLike
Is there an iPhone app for that?
LikeLike
That’s a hell of a post.
LikeLike
You can do the same analysis locking just the eastern 3, but that starts with 330 options. About the only extra likely options are a few with WI in the east, basically variants of the current divisions.
Add PSU, RU, MD, OSU, WI + 2 IN/IL schools
That’s 6 more choices. Of those, 4 seem most likely:
PU, IN – keeps in state rivals together
NW, IL – keeps in state rivals together
IL, PU – keeps Illibuck and provides IL access to newbies
IL, IN – keeps Illibuck and provides IL access to newbies
That gets us to 12 total options. Otherwise, the B10 will have to split the eastern 3 or divide the western 4 oddly.
Of these 12 options:
0 crossovers needed – 1
NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, MD vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
1 crossover needed – 9
PU/IN:
NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, PU, PSU, RU, MD
NW/IL:
NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, IN, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, PSU, RU, MD
NE, WI, IA, MN, MI, MSU, NW vs OSU, IL, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
MI/MSU:
NE, WI, IA, MN, MSU, NW, IL vs OSU, MI, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
OSU/MI:
NE, WI, IA, MN, OSU, PU, IN vs MI, MSU, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD
NE, WI, IA, MN, OSU, NW, IL vs MI, MSU, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, PU, IN vs OSU, WI, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD
NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, NW, IL vs OSU, WI, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
3 crossovers needed – 2
NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, IL, PU vs OSU, WI, NW, IN, PSU, RU, MD
NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, IL, IN vs OSU, WI, NW, PU, PSU, RU, MD
There may be a few other options, but I think these 12 cover the likely outcome. I think we all agree that minimizing the number of crossovers is a good thing, especially if the B10 stays with 8 games. That makes the last 2 choices unlikely, bringing us down to 10.
The choice will come down to priorities (no crossovers, splitting OSU and MI, kings in the east, etc).
LikeLike
Tell Indiana & Purdue they can play OOC whenever they want, at Lucas Oil Field if they please and split those two. West looks obviously weaker but that would help programs like NW, Iowa, Illinois become competitive…
Long-term I worry more about competitive balance than in the short-term, I’m not sure Nebraska is a king on the same level as Michigan or Ohio. Or PSU, after PSU recovers from sanctions. These divisions can be revised if the east wins every B10 CG and dominates in OOD play.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“Tell Indiana & Purdue they can play OOC whenever they want, at Lucas Oil Field if they please and split those two.”
That’s certainly one option. I’m sure those two would object, but I don’t know if any plan would truly get unanimous consent. We can do a small scale experiment here. I’ll post it below.
“West looks obviously weaker but that would help programs like NW, Iowa, Illinois become competitive…”
I’ve seen this point before, and it always raises several questions for me.
1. Is it the B10’s role to intentionally help some programs at the expense of others? If they’re helping those schools get better, it’s at the cost of hurting all the eastern schools. Why should IN (or PU), MD, RU, MSU, etc suffer to help NW, IA and IL? Isn’t that the sort of conspiracy many fan bases complain about with the B10 helping others at their expense?
2. If you artificially promote some schools by moving them west, won’t that hurt the B10 in the postseason when teams with inflated records get beaten by better opponents in bowls? Won’t it also diminish the CCG? Don’t we really want a true meritocracy so teams get the rewards they deserve based on their skill level and not based on their division?
3. To go along with that, does it hurt the B10 to group many of the top team together so they beat each other up and result in worse records than they would have in balanced divisions? Unless SOS becomes really important, extra losses mean fewer B10 teams in the playoffs. That hurts the B10 pocketbook and reputation.
4. In sum, why is it a net good to “help programs like NW, Iowa, Illinois become competitive?” Shouldn’t the B10’s goal be to help everyone become more competitive, especially nationally?
__
“Long-term I worry more about competitive balance than in the short-term, I’m not sure Nebraska is a king on the same level as Michigan or Ohio. Or PSU, after PSU recovers from sanctions. These divisions can be revised if the east wins every B10 CG and dominates in OOD play.”
No offense, but can we be better than the childish name games? I don’t think we want this blog to turn into ESPN/Rivals/Scout where it’s always Ohio and Scum or other such nonsense.
Moving on…
I realize one of the key drivers for this alignment is TV/money with the east coast media centers getting the king teams more often. The downside is the risk of a lack of competitive balance.
20 Year Conference W%
E – 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14
W – 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12
E has 3 of top 4
10 Year Conference W%
E – 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14
W – 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13
E has 3 of top 4
5 Year Conference W%
E – 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 14
W – 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13
E has top 3, and that’s with the RichRod era at UM
I agree that the B10 can tolerate a lack of balance in the short term. My concern is that when you build in a lack of balance intentionally, you’re asking for trouble. Mathematically, the divisions will tend towards more balance as someone in the west has to win the division games. However, equal records doesn’t mean equal skill when the divisions aren’t balanced.
Other related considerations:
a. Population
E – 52.8M (62.2%)
W – 32.2M (37.8%)
b. Recruits
E – 327 (73.3%)
W – 119 (26.7%)
c. Major media markets (Top 50 MSAs)
E (10) – 1, 6, 7, 13, 20, 22, 27, 28, 32, 35
W (5) – 3, 16, 19, 35, 39
These advantages tell me that the east should only gain in relative power. Teams in the west may get better records, but the teams in the east should continue to get better. How long can the B10 tolerate it when they know there is an easy fix? That’s the question.
LikeLike
I tip my cap to Brian’s research prowess. The data’s not a secret, but it takes a lot of work to pull it all together…and he did. Now, to wmwolverine’s points:
“Tell Indiana & Purdue they can play OOC whenever they want, at Lucas Oil Field if they please and split those two.”
The Big Ten has never screwed any of its members like that. I mean, why should Indiana and Purdue’s instate rivalry have a lower priority than those in Michigan and Illinois? If you were going to push a rivalry OOC (not that they would), why UM-MSU, since Michigan is the only school claiming two high-priority rivalry games. I’m not advocating that, only pointing out the absurdity of your position.
“West looks obviously weaker but that would help programs like NW, Iowa, Illinois become competitive…”
I agree with Brian that conferences shouldn’t be in the business of helping mediocre programs get better. Let them figure that out for themselves.
But the schedule sometimes has that effect coincidentally. In the current system, Michigan and Michigan State have locked rivalries with Ohio State and Indiana respectively. That’s certainly a boon for the Spartans, but the Big Ten didn’t do that to make Michigan State better. It was just a side-effect of meeting other needs.
“Long-term I worry more about competitive balance than in the short-term, I’m not sure Nebraska is a king on the same level as Michigan or Ohio. Or PSU, after PSU recovers from sanctions.”
Nebraska is a king by any definition. Since 1970, they have more AP titles than Michigan and Ohio State put together. (I realize some of those titles are contested.) But that still gives the east a 2-1 advantage, before Penn State is taken into consideration.
Penn State is likely to recover, though. Kings practically return after a down period. They have permanent structural advantages that NCAA sanctions can’t erase. So that would give the east a 3-1 advantage, even before you consider the other factors that Brian mentioned.
What’s interesting is that, the last time they did this, the Big Ten elevated competitive balance over almost any other factor, and given the rumors we’re hearing, it now seems to have fallen pretty far down the priority list. On the other hand…
“To go along with that, does it hurt the B10 to group many of the top team together so they beat each other up and result in worse records than they would have in balanced divisions?”
The B10 does that now anyway, with Michigan and Ohio State having a protected cross-divisional game. So each of them always plays at least two kings, and some years (when the schedule aligns just right) all three. But at least, in the alignment that is now (apparently) under consideration, once someone wins The Game, they’ll never have to go out and do it again the following week.
LikeLike
I would argue the Pac 12 south has a “permanent” competitive advantage over the Pac 12 north. Yet it hasn’t worked that way. If you look long run, USC, UCLA, Colorado and Washington are the top 4 programs. 3 in the south. WSU, Oregon St. and Cal are probably the bottom 3, all in the north.
Now the Pac, other than USC, isn’t as stratified as the B1G. They probably have the bottom rise to the top more than any other conference. But in the SEC, the population balance has been in the east, but the west has been stronger in recent years. In the Big 12, the north dominated in the early years. The north faded when the top 2 northern teams, Nebraska and Colorado slumped and the top 2 southern teams, Texas and OU rose. Yet it wasn’t all the south powers rising. A&M was a .500 team over the last 10 years of the Big 12.
Divisions can be too stacked, but chasing competitive balance is like a cat chasing his tail. Make it reasonable, but you can’t make it exact. Focus on rivalries more than competitive precision.
LikeLike
I agree with bullet.
In and case, Brian,
1. You seem to take it as a given that 3 kings in the east would lead to the top schools “beating each other up”, which presumably you think is bad because it would lead to less national titles, yet I look at the SEC West, which is absolutely stacked with ‘Bama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, and now TAMU and I see a division that has won the last 4 national titles (and 5 of the last 6). Beating each other up didn’t seem to hurt the SEC West any.
2. As you showed, the east will have more on the top but also more on the bottom. I actually don’t see going 10-2 as being harder in the east than in the west.
3. Objections raised by an OSU partisan seem even more peculiar. Currently, OSU has to play both Michigan and PSU. In any realistic divisional scenario, OSU will have to play both Michigan and PSU. An E/W split actually makes OSU’s SoS easier.
LikeLike
With the four west, three east split the B10 has geographically; there are no simple solutions to splitting the divisions. I just offered one possibility. There is going to be compromises, rivalries lost (we lost some going to 12, 14 is even harder) as there isn’t any solutions that satisfies everyone.
What I’ve said all along is what team in the ‘west’ (NW, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue) most willing to go to the East imo gets it. I see the Illinois schools more tied to the four western schools, which gives them a strong block of six…
Ohio State in the west (Brian’s preferred solution I believe) is an intriguing idea that satisfies most everyone though the OSU fans I know (I know a lot) absolutely hate it, I don’t think Ohio would support it at all. It would require M & Ohio to play a cross-division game every season, hurting everyone else in the conference that would like them on the schedule.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. You seem to take it as a given that 3 kings in the east would lead to the top schools “beating each other up”, which presumably you think is bad because it would lead to less national titles,”
Yes, I do assume they would beat each other up. That’s what usually happens when several top teams are grouped together in sports. As for fewer national titles, the B10 can’t do much worse than they have lately so that may be a bad metric. I do think extra losses would mean fewer playoff appearances (the equivalent of not getting 2 BCS teams now).
“yet I look at the SEC West, which is absolutely stacked with ‘Bama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, and now TAMU and I see a division that has won the last 4 national titles (and 5 of the last 6). Beating each other up didn’t seem to hurt the SEC West any.”
Several things:
1. The SEC East also has power teams with UF, UGA and SC, and maybe UT if they ever come back. All you can ask is to split the power up, not eliminate all competition.
2. LSU fans aren’t thrilled about also playing UF annually because it’s a disadvantage. AR might have actually won something if they didn’t have to go through AL and LSU. AU almost blew their title run against AL. AL was 7-1, LSU and TAMU 6-2 this year. By most opinions, those teams were better than their records.
3. SEC teams can afford losses that nobody else can due to their reputation. B10 teams need to be undefeated to get treated like a 1 loss SEC team. That makes extra losses more important in the B10.
4. Every year, one or more of those teams gets beaten into submission in their division. That hurts their reputation long term.
“2. As you showed, the east will have more on the top but also more on the bottom. I actually don’t see going 10-2 as being harder in the east than in the west.”
Nobody cares about the bottom in terms of reputation and you know that. And while 10-2 is nice, it will never make the playoffs for the B10. 13-0, 12-1 and maybe 11-1 are the records that matter.
“3. Objections raised by an OSU partisan seem even more peculiar. Currently, OSU has to play both Michigan and PSU. In any realistic divisional scenario, OSU will have to play both Michigan and PSU. An E/W split actually makes OSU’s SoS easier.”
So maybe I’m not being provincial but am actually concerned about the general concept of fairness. Did that ever enter your mind?
As for SOS:
in the E – MI, PSU, MSU, RU, MD, IN + 2 of NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU
now – MI, PSU, WI, PU, IL, IN + 2 of NE, IA, MN, NW, MSU
That’s 3 games that are the same and 4 of the same teams in the crossover pool. That’s more than half of the schedule. Let’s look at the differences:
MSU, RU, MD vs WI, PU, IL – not much difference
That makes over 7 games that are equivalent (7.3 in the E vs 7.6 now).
2/7 (NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU) vs 2/5 (NE, IA, MN, NW, MSU)
2/7 (WI, IL, PU) vs 2/5 (MSU) + 4/35 (NE, IA, MN, NW) – now is a little harder
So now is a little harder, but mostly in the crossover games. The division games would be harder in the East.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“With the four west, three east split the B10 has geographically; there are no simple solutions to splitting the divisions. I just offered one possibility. There is going to be compromises, rivalries lost (we lost some going to 12, 14 is even harder) as there isn’t any solutions that satisfies everyone.”
It will definitely be a tough choice. All the alignments have problems.
“Ohio State in the west (Brian’s preferred solution I believe)”
I don’t have a preferred solution yet. OSU going west is one I’ve considered, as is inner vs outer. I think I’ll have different favorites depending on whether the B10 stays at 8 games or goes to 9.
“[OSU going west] is an intriguing idea that satisfies most everyone though the OSU fans I know (I know a lot) absolutely hate it, I don’t think Ohio would support it at all.”
Many OSU fans hate many options at first glance. Once they’ve studied the options and the downsides of each plan, then their opinions carry more value. I also find their opinions to vary based on age and where in OH they lived (if they did live there). There is no real consensus amongst OSU fans because every plan has drawbacks for them. Those same fans that don’t want to go west also don’t want to host RU and MD.
“It would require M & Ohio to play a cross-division game every season, hurting everyone else in the conference that would like them on the schedule.”
That wouldn’t stop OSU fans from liking it.
LikeLike
“3. SEC teams can afford losses that nobody else can due to their reputation. B10 teams need to be undefeated to get treated like a 1 loss SEC team. That makes extra losses more important in the B10.”
There an incongruity here. You’re saying that E/W would make the East too difficult, yet it would not boost the reputation of the East schools (enough) to put them on par with the SEC. That presumes stupidity on the part of fans/selection panel. I believe people are not as stupid as you think, Brian.
LikeLike
Richard,
“There an incongruity here. You’re saying that E/W would make the East too difficult, yet it would not boost the reputation of the East schools (enough) to put them on par with the SEC. That presumes stupidity on the part of fans/selection panel. I believe people are not as stupid as you think, Brian.”
Maybe. I’m saying that E/W would make the two sides differently difficult which I think is bad. Being “too” difficult is a relative term that I wouldn’t use.
As for boosting reputation, that’s different. B10 fans can know that other B10 teams are good, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the country agrees. Until the B10 wins a NCG or two, any loss to a B10 team will be considered a bad loss. The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt, the B10 gets the opposite.
You don’t have to be stupid to think that way, although it may help. It is a bias built in by media coverage and game results from the past few years. Humans aren’t good at making objective evaluations of a team’s strength, especially when a large group of people are telling them they are wrong.
LikeLike
“I do think extra losses would mean fewer playoff appearances (the equivalent of not getting 2 BCS teams now).”
However, at least during the BCS era, it was much better to finish second in a division than to lose a conference title game for getting picked as a 2nd BCS team, all else being equal.
I’ve decided to run the numbers comparing E/W with, say, Inner/Outer.
Assume that OSU/Michigan have a 50/50 chance of beating each other, 75% odds of beating PSU or UNL (or substitute Wisconsin for UNL), and will beat the rest in their division 100% of the time (if OSU/Michigan don’t have those odds, they’re not national title contender material anyway).
In E/W (assuming a sweep over the west 90% of the time & 1 loss in interdivisional play 10% of the time), OSU has a 33.75% chance of finishing the regular season unbeaten & a 48.75% chance of finishing with 1 loss. There’s a chance of OSU finishing on top of the division with 1 loss. Say it’s 11.25% to get the title odds to an even 45% (37.5% chance of finishing with 1 loss and not playing for the conference title). Assume 87.5% odds on beating the western conference champ (UNL wins the division half the time). If history holds, OSU almost certainly will not make the playoffs with a conference loss. Say there’s a 50/50 chance of making the playoffs with 1 (non-title-game) loss. Odds of making the playoffs are 39.375% + 18.75% = 58.125%.
In I/O, I believe OSU-PSU will still be kept. Still roughly 33.75% chance of finishing the regular season unbeaten & a 48.75% chance of finishing with 1 loss. 50/50 chance of making the title game (32.5% chance of finishing with 1 loss and not playing for the conference title). 83.33% odds of beating the western champ (lower now because both PSU and UNL are in the opposite division). Again, a 50/50 chance of making the playoffs with 1 (non-title-game) loss. Odds of making the playoffs are 41.67% + 16.25% = 57.917%.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Assume that OSU/Michigan have a 50/50 chance of beating each other, 75% odds of beating PSU or UNL (or substitute Wisconsin for UNL), and will beat the rest in their division 100% of the time (if OSU/Michigan don’t have those odds, they’re not national title contender material anyway).”
It’s not great analysis to just make up the odds of things happening. OSU/MI being 50/50 is reasonable, but not the others.
I’d suggest these for OSU/MI based on history:
MI/OSU – 0.50
PSU, NE, WI, MSU – 0.65
other – 0.90
I’m also going to do a different analysis.
E/W:
OSU plays MI, PSU, MSU, RU, MD, IN + 2 of (NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU)
OSU = 0.5 + 2(0.65) + 3(0.90) + 2/7[2(0.65) + 5(0.90)] = 6.1 Ws expected
OSU, MI – 6.1
NE, WI – 5.1
PSU, MSU – 3.7
Are PSU and MSU fans OK with that?
In/Out:
OSU plays MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN + 2 of (NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, MD)
OSU = 0.5 + 0.65 + 4(0.9) + 2/7[3(0.65) + 4(0.9)] = 6.3 Ws expected
OSU, MI – 6.3
MSU – 4.7
PSU, NE, WI – 4.9
While marginally better for OSU and MI and marginally worse for NE and WI, that’s a lot better for PSU and MSU. It spreads out wins evenly among the tiers based on the odds above. That seems more fair to me.
In addition, In/Out yields more total wins for the top 6 teams (32 to 29.8). That means better odds of teams making the playoffs.
As a note, I didn’t keep OSU/PSU like you did. If I did, OSU would drop to 6.2 Ws and PSU would drop to 4.8 Ws. The others would rise slightly. The point is, it makes very little difference.
Now, as to your analysis:
“In E/W (assuming a sweep over the west 90% of the time & 1 loss in interdivisional play 10% of the time), … Odds of making the playoffs are 39.375% + 18.75% = 58.125%.
In I/O, I believe OSU-PSU will still be kept. … Odds of making the playoffs are 41.67% + 16.25% = 57.917%.”
You computed odds for OSU, but not the B10 in general as far as I can tell. I agree the two work out about the same for OSU, but there are 13 other teams to consider.
LikeLike
Based on history, shouldn’t PSU and UNL be above MSU and Wisconsin and Iowa and Northwestern be above the others?
LikeLike
Richard,
You set the basic concept of tiering. I just used actual results to make the odds more accurate. Based on OSU’s past results, those 3 tiers work. MI has been the toughest competition. PSU and WI have been the second hardest. I bumped up MSU to account for their recent success (their past with OSU isn’t good). I lumped in NE with PSU because you did and it seems reasonable.
IA has a horrible history with OSU, and so does NW. PU and IL would actually deserve better odds than them, but I chose to lump them all together to make life easier.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Latest News and Rumors « College Football Expansion & Realignment
Is it me or do you really want to hear the words “The Big Ten Conference is announcing that it is issuing invitations to ________” just about now?
LikeLike
Transic,
Is it me or do you really want to hear the words “The Big Ten Conference is announcing that it is issuing invitations to ________” just about now?
1. If you mean am I ready for this to all just be over for 20+ years, then yes. Other conferences can entertain me by expanding.
2. If you mean the question as written, I definitely don’t want to hear it. 14 is bad enough, diluting to 16 with more eastern schools is not an improvement. I’d be intrigued if a stealth candidate was announced (UT, ND, etc), though, I must admit.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I don’t know if this is old news, but this is the first I’ve heard of it.
LikeLike
Just found more
FOX wants the game on a Friday because it has the B1G on Saturday. But there is no such conflict with ESPN, and the contract allows for broadcast on either Friday or Saturday so long as both the league and network agree. They initially discussed playing the ’13 game on a Saturday early this past season. Over time, the coaches made it abundantly clear that they wanted Saturday (for the extra day to prepare), and ESPN decided it preferred Saturday, as well. The final decision was made after the ’12 season. Did the attendance at Stanford Stadium play a role in ESPN’s thinking? I’ve been told it was taken into consideration but was not the determining factor in playing on Saturday.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/01/11/pac-12-football-ranking-the-2013-non-conference-schedules/
LikeLike
frug,
I’m not surprised ESPN wants it on Saturday. Friday is a terrible choice, especially out west where the game starts at 5pm. However, it’s not as simple as he makes it sound.
2012 CCG weekend games:
Friday
7:00
MAC CCG – ESPN2
8:00
P12 CCG – Fox
Saturday
12:00
CUSA CCG – ESPN2
B12 – ESPN
B12 – FX
2:30
B12 – FSN
P12 – PTN
3:30
MWC – ABC/ESPN GP
BE – ABC/ESPN GP
4:00
SEC CCG – CBS
I-AA – ESPN GP
7:00
BE – ESPN2
I-AA – ESPN GP
8:00
B10 CCG – Fox
ACC CCG – ESPN
B12 – ABC
So if ESPN wants to show the P12 CCG on Saturday, when do they show it? It can’t be before 3:30. 4:00 has the SEC CCG which is really tough competition. At 8 they had 2 other games. So do they move the ACC CCG to 4:00 to get killed by the SEC and put the P12 against the B10?
LikeLike
The Big 12 slot is not a CCG, but a regular-season finale. That’s what you substitute, moving Big 12 action to the afternoon..
LikeLike
So they show 2 CCGs at the same time and compete against themselves (ABC vs ESPN)? That’s one option, but it seems like an odd business decision.
LikeLike
Why can’t the ACC title game be in the early slot (where I believe it has been many times in the past)? It’s not as if the ACC has fans outside the eastern time zone (except for maybe a part of the FL panhandle).
CUSA game can be moved down to be killed by the SEC.
LikeLike
As far as I know it could be at 12:00 with CUSA at 3:30.
My main point was that it’s not really true to say ESPN has no conflicts on that Saturday.
LikeLike
That seems to be the best option. Put the ACC game on at 12 ET and be the big morning game, with the Pac 12 title game opposite the Big Ten at night.
LikeLike
Note that there’s no reason why the Pac title game has to be at 8PM. ESPN very well could start it after 9M EST (which is still pretty early on the West Coast)
Noon: ACC title game
3:30PM: B12 game
6:30PM: B12 game
9:30PM: Pac title game
Noon & 6:30 games on ABC; 3:30 and 9:30 games on ESPN.
LikeLike
No reason except wanting the 47% of the country that lives in the eastern time zone to watch, that is.
LikeLike
How many people there watch Pac games anyway?
Also, note that ESPN frequently schedules SEC games for 9PM or later, so they clearly have reason to think that people (at least on the East Coast) stay up late on Saturdays to watch football.
LikeLike
Richard,
“How many people there watch Pac games anyway?”
ESPN hopes that a lot will. It’s not just any P12 game, it’s the CCG.
“Also, note that ESPN frequently schedules SEC games for 9PM or later, so they clearly have reason to think that people (at least on the East Coast) stay up late on Saturdays to watch football.”
TX @ MS – 9:15, ESPN/LHN
MS @ AL – 9:15, ESPN
TN @ MS St – 9:00, ESPN2
That’s it for the entire season. That’s not frequent and there isn’t a decent game in the group. It’s certainly not evidence they want a CCG on in that slot.
LikeLike
“ESPN hopes that a lot will. It’s not just any P12 game, it’s the CCG.”
ESPN hopes to maximize their total ratings for the stuff they show. If that means ACC CCG at noon followed by 2 straight B12 games & the Pac CCG at 9:15, that’s what they’ll do.
They’re not going to try to “grow the Pac brand” or whatever at the expense of less advertising revenue.
LikeLike
Above I showed how a few constraints reduce the possible division alignments from 1716 total options to the 12 most likely.
1. NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, MD vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
2. NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
3. NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, PU, PSU, RU, MD
4. NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, IN, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, PSU, RU, MD
5. NE, WI, IA, MN, MI, MSU, NW vs OSU, IL, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
6. NE, WI, IA, MN, MSU, NW, IL vs OSU, MI, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
7. NE, WI, IA, MN, OSU, PU, IN vs MI, MSU, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD
8. NE, WI, IA, MN, OSU, NW, IL vs MI, MSU, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
9. NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, PU, IN vs OSU, WI, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD
10. NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, NW, IL vs OSU, WI, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
11. NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, IL, PU vs OSU, WI, NW, IN, PSU, RU, MD
12. NE, IA, MN, MI, MSU, IL, IN vs OSU, WI, NW, PU, PSU, RU, MD
To which of these would individual schools object?
These are my guesses, feel free to add or correct
IL – 4-5 + 11-12 (split from NW means they play everyone else less often)
IN – 2-3 + 11-12 (split from PU means they play everyone else less often)
IA – 1 (travel), 9-12 (no WI)
MD – 1 (travel)
MI – 6 (split from MSU), 5 + 7-12 (split from OSU)
MSU – 6 (split from MI)
MN – 1 (travel)
NE – 1 (travel)
NW – 4-5 + 11-12 (split from IL means they play everyone else less often)
OSU – 5 (schedule), maybe 1-4 + 6 (with MI)
PSU – 1 (travel)
PU – 2-3 + 11-12 (split from IU means they play everyone else less often)
RU – 1 (travel)
WI – 1 (travel), 9-12 (split them from the western block)
B10 in general – 11-12 (3 crossovers needed)
All that said, here is a quick poll:
1. Which B10 school, if any, is your favorite?
2. Which of those 12 options (or other – please specify) would you prefer?
3. Which of those 12 options (or other – please specify) do you think your school would prefer?
LikeLike
Brian-
Not to be flippant about your survey, but unless you can put a dollar figure to them, you leave out an important part of the analysis.
We can breakdown competitive advantages, see how many rivalries are sustained or lost, etc. I’m not discounting any of those factors in this, but you also have to look at the bottom line.
For example, you have two options where Ohio State is in the west (7 & 8) where the four “kings” as you call them are split. When the B1G does its revenue projections for that sort of lineup in terms of the future television negotiations, BTN revenue streams and overall conference distributions, how does that compare to the options which place OSU in the east with Michigan and Penn State?
Would the schools with the smaller budgets be willing to take a couple of million out of their overall revenue in order to satisfy some of the other factors we’ve talked about in the past. What about Maryland, who is counting on that funding to returns its athletic department to basic solvency? There are B1G schools who rely on student fees to fund the athletic department–would they pass on a higher conference distribution if they’re in that situation?
Clearly, if one option produced future conference distributions of $45M and another gave a figure of $35M, I suspect the school leadership would gravitate towards Option A and set aside the other considerations.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Not to be flippant about your survey, but unless you can put a dollar figure to them, you leave out an important part of the analysis.”
1. You know we can’t put a dollar figure to them. Maybe the B10 can, but we don’t have the data.
2. It’s a survey. The point was to not do analysis but ask peoples’ opinions. I tried to reduce it to a workable number of options, but you can always choose “Other.”
3. It’s just seeking opinions, not predicting the future. It’s OK for fans to disagree with the final decision because the B10 has different goals and more information.
“For example, you have two options where Ohio State is in the west (7 & 8) where the four “kings” as you call them are split. When the B1G does its revenue projections for that sort of lineup in terms of the future television negotiations, BTN revenue streams and overall conference distributions, how does that compare to the options which place OSU in the east with Michigan and Penn State?”
We’ll never know, so why wait to ask what people would prefer?
LikeLike
cutter,
To be clear, I agree totally with your fundamental point. The financial side of this is huge and could be the main deciding factor. I’m just not aware of any way we can put a fair valuation on the different plans. So rather than try to do that and get shouted down for making stuff up, I leave it to the individual.
Here are a few potentially relevant lessons we’ve learned over the years:
1. TV contracts are based primarily on the premier games. Inventory is important, but the money comes from the big games.
2. A CCG needs 2 elite teams to be a surefire success.
3. The B10 has passed on more money to follow their principles before (no night November games, academics keeping an OU out, etc).
4. The B10 likes money and wants to make a lot of it. (I didn’t want this to seem biased after #3)
LikeLike
Yeah cutter, we’d need someone (Frank’s TV guy from a couple years ago?) to analyze the TV markets and numbers.
We’re all just guessing here that putting Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State with Rutgers/Maryland can maximize the TV dollars for the conference.
It makes sense intuitively:
Biggest games for NJ/D.C.:
1) Penn State
2-3) Ohio State/Michigan
4) Nebraska
5) Michigan State
6) Wisconsin
7) Iowa
8-12) Pretty much interchangeable
If you’re talking TV value for games, it has to be that order for East Coast markets. I’d guess Michigan State resonates better in D.C. and NYC than Wisconsin or Iowa given that it’s got a larger East Coast alumni base, but that’s just my personal guess.
LikeLike
zeek,
“We’re all just guessing here that putting Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State with Rutgers/Maryland can maximize the TV dollars for the conference.”
I’d say we’re guessing at a lot of smaller things that add up to that, but that’s the gist of it. I think there are several significant countervailing concerns, but others disagree about their importance.
LikeLike
1. Ohio State
2. #1. I think inner outer is far and away best because of no locked crossovers. On a personal fan level, I also don’t care about playing the newbies so them being in the other division is preferable (although obviously isn’t a reason the conference should choose this direction)
3. #5 It puts Michigan, Penn State, and Illinois in division. I don’t think they’d be totally opposed to being in a western division if a split from Michigan was going to occur though.
LikeLike
1. Maryland
2. My preferred option: #3
3. School’s preferred option: #2
LikeLike
Protect Old Oaken Bucket game, and one other crossover for each team (Little Brown Jug, Illiniwek, Michigan State-Northwestern, Penn State-Nebraska, Rutgers-Iowa, Maryland-Wisconsin).
LikeLike
1. Buckeye born and bred
2. Preferences ~ the OSU/MI divisions sorted from best to worst:
#4. NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, IN, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, PSU, RU, MD
#1. NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, MD vs OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
#3. NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, IN vs OSU, MI, MSU, PU, PSU, RU, MD
#2. NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
#6. NE, WI, IA, MN, MSU, NW, IL vs OSU, MI, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
3. DamnedifIknow.
LikeLike
1. Northwestern.
2. #2 (NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PSU, RU, MD)
3. #5 (NE, WI, IA, MN, MI, MSU, NW vs OSU, IL, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD) with cross-over with Illinois
though #2 or #3 are probably OK as well.
LikeLike
Brian, just made this the topic of my latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry:
http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/1988.html
LikeLike
Here’s hoping you get lots of votes.
LikeLike
1. PSU
2. I prefer #3 (#2 is fine too), #6 is my third choice.
3. I think they’d prefer #2 or #3, but would probably be fine with any option that puts PSU with UMD/RU and Ohio St (i.e. not #1, 7 or 8). I think PSU would go along with #1 as long as their is cross division rivals and they were fixed with Ohio St (which defeats the point of #1).
LikeLike
Not a fan of a Big Ten school, but I think Inner/Outer is the best for the conference as it allows the teams to visit everyone else more often, whether or not you go to 9 conference games.
LikeLike
No more so than E/W.
PSU-OSU would still be a protected cross-over (and certainly can not be played OOC part of the time).
If anything, E/W may allow for getting rid of protected cross-overs if IU & PU agree to play OOC some times.
LikeLike
Richard,
“PSU-OSU would still be a protected cross-over”
Or not. You’re guessing it will be.
“(and certainly can not be played OOC part of the time).”
Why not? If people are willing to ask IN/PU or IL/NW to go OOC, why not OSU/PSU? Sure, neither team would actually schedule it on a regular basis, but asking them to do it is no more offensive than asking it of others.
“If anything, E/W may allow for getting rid of protected cross-overs if IU & PU agree to play OOC some times.”
My point entirely. Somehow it’s fine to do it to them, but not OSU/PSU.
LikeLike
Life ain’t fair.
I’m looking forward to our annual season-ending rivalry game with Rice.
LikeLike
To follow up:
Let’s look at PSU’s schedule in Inner/Outer.
Given – NE, WI, IA, MN, RU, MD
With 8 games:
PSU-OSU locked:
OSU – 100%
MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN – 17% each
2.17 king games per year
2.17 princes
Not locked:
All 7 – 29% each
1.58 kings
2.29 princes
Difference with locking OSU = + 0.6 kings – 0.12 princes
So PSU misses out on about 1 big game every other year.
But that’s only part of the story. How are the other 13 teams affected?
MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN – play PSU 17% versus 29%, or barely half as often
NE, WI, IA, MN, RU, MD – play OSU 17% versus 29%, or barely half as often
OSU – plays NE, WI, IA, MN, RU, MD 17% versus 29%, or barely half as often
17% = once in 6 years (some players would never play the other team)
29% = twice in 7 years (every player would get to play every team and play in most stadiums)
The difference is about 1 game every 8 years (12 games in 42 years vs 7 games in 42 years).
Total king/king games:
OSU/MI, PSU/NE – 100%
OSU/PSU – 100% or 29%
OSU/NE, MI/PSU, NE/MI – 17% or 29%
2+1+3(1/6) = 3.5
2+4(2/7) = 3.14
That’s roughly 1 less game every 3 years, so there’s a measure of the potential financial cost. As I pointed out, though, the king/prince games will increase which would slightly reduce the blow.
Conclusions
Yes, PSU would play what they consider a rival less often. But they’d gain games against MI and MSU to reduce their loss. The B10 would also lose a few king/king games, but gain some king/prince games.
LikeLike
“If people are willing to ask IN/PU or IL/NW to go OOC, why not OSU/PSU?”
I haven’t heard any Big Ten source suggesting that these games would be forced out-of-conference. It has been brought up on message boards like this one, but tons of things are mentioned on message boards that have zero chance of happening.
The Indiana/Purdue game has been contested 115 times, the most of any rivalry in the conference except Minnesota/Wisconsin. I don’t envision any scenario where they throw that away, or relegate it to non-conference status.
The Northwestern/Illinois game has a few more gaps, but it has been anual since 1922. In contrast, the Michigan/MSU game is a mere pup, having been played for the first time in 1953.
LikeLike
I think we’re going a little overboard here in terms of what we think the Big Ten is willing to do. While tradition doesn’t mean as much as it used to with conference realignment, I can’t imagine any scenario where the Big Ten would force any school’s *primary* rivalry to be anything less than an annual conference game. Illinois-Northwestern and Indiana-Purdue would certainly qualify as being a primary rivalries for the respective schools (even if the hostility might not be quite there for Illinois-Northwestern). Also, I can’t understate how important the conference considers the Ohio State-Penn State game to be. They’re king programs in border states that happen to be the two most important football recruiting grounds in the conference and provide the most clear link between the the “old” Big Ten and the “new” side of the conference. That game isn’t going away as an annual game – every single realistic divisional alignment MUST account for that specific game to be played annually whether it’s a divisional game or a cross-divisional rivalry (not 75% of the time – it needs to be 100% of the time). I understand some old line Big Ten fans, such as Ohio State fans, claiming that it doesn’t have to be an annual game and trying to rationalize all types of other combinations, but in the eyes of the Big Ten conference overall, it’s as much of an absolute must as the Michigan-Ohio State game. It’s *that* important.
Once again, I believe that there are 3 hard and fast rules in any divisional alignment:
(1) Michigan-Ohio State is an annual game
(2) Penn State-Ohio State is an annual game
(3) Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers are all in the same division
I think that we can add a 4th rule that every school’s primary rivalry must be an annual game, as well. (As you’ll see, Michigan and Ohio State have 2 primary rivals each.) On top of Michigan-OSU and PSU-OSU, those would be Wisconsin-Minnesota, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Iowa-Nebraska and Michigan-Michigan State.
LikeLike
@Frank
Having 3 (or 4) ooc games is not as important to some schools as it is to Michigan and Ohio St. If the most important game could be played no more than every other year as an ooc, in the time frame they chose, I could see those schools being convinced to do it. Rammed down their throat no, but if reluctantly accepted, yes.
LikeLike
@bullet: “Having 3 (or 4) ooc games is not as important to some schools as it is to Michigan and Ohio St. If the most important game could be played no more than every other year as an ooc, in the time frame they chose, I could see those schools being convinced to do it. Rammed down their throat no, but if reluctantly accepted, yes.”
That’s unrealistic for a whole bunch of reasons. First of all, it sends a clear message that those schools are second-class members of the league. Why, of all the conference members, should they have to use an OOC game to schedule what every other school gets as part of the conference slate? The Big Ten has never screwed one of its members in this way.
On top of that, most proposed alignments have Penn State gaining two new annual rivalries (MD, RU), on top of keeping their annual rivalry with Ohio State. And most alignments have all four of the western schools (or at least, three of four) staying together. When you’re giving Penn State and Wisconsin three games apiece that they really want, how do you explain not giving Indiana the ONE game they want?
Bear in mind that Purdue has an annual home-and-home with Notre Dame that is extremely important to them. (It’s the only Purdue game that is always, without fail, televised nationally.) If you tell Purdue, “We’re going to play 9 conference games, and you’ve got to play Indiana OOC,” then you add Notre Dame, and they’re down to just one OOC game they control.
I would add that OOC games are (normally) scheduled many more years in advance than the Big Ten conference schedule, which is a further problem for these schools being able to plan their seasons.
It’s not as if this is an unsolvable problem. There are plenty of available, plausible alignments that preserve all of the key rivalries. It’s only a question of which one to choose.
LikeLike
Frank,
While I don’t you to be, I’m sure you are probably right about that Ohio State-Penn State is a game they inist will be locked.
My question is, what do you think would happen if they expanded to 16? I’ve been playing through it in mind, and I’m not sure of the answer.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I haven’t heard any Big Ten source suggesting that these games would be forced out-of-conference. It has been brought up on message boards like this one, but tons of things are mentioned on message boards that have zero chance of happening.”
Very true. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. I also don’t believe OSU/PSU is sacrosanct, unlike Frank. It’s a big game, and means a lot to PSU, but it’s not a historic game. If they stick with 8 games and OSU and PSU aren’t in the same division, I’m not sure they lock that game and cost everyone else almost half their games with OSU and PSU.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Also, I can’t understate how important the conference considers the Ohio State-Penn State game to be.”
We’ll never know, you’ve never tried to understate it.
“That game isn’t going away as an annual game – every single realistic divisional alignment MUST account for that specific game to be played annually whether it’s a divisional game or a cross-divisional rivalry (not 75% of the time – it needs to be 100% of the time).”
Show me a quote or it in writing somewhere. Or give me a reliable source that has said it’s true. Since the east is the focus, PSU/MI would be a better game to have anyway.
“but in the eyes of the Big Ten conference overall,”
Who is that? Fans? ADs? The COP/C? Delany and his minions? Who makes up the B10 conference overall?
“it’s as much of an absolute must as the Michigan-Ohio State game. It’s *that* important.”
No. It isn’t. No game is.
“Once again, I believe that there are 3 hard and fast rules in any divisional alignment:
(1) Michigan-Ohio State is an annual game
(2) Penn State-Ohio State is an annual game”
You believing it doesn’t automatically make it true. You’ve never backed it up with anything.
“I think that we can add a 4th rule that every school’s primary rivalry must be an annual game, as well. (As you’ll see, Michigan and Ohio State have 2 primary rivals each.)”
No, OSU doesn’t. Nothing you or the B10 says or does will change that. OSU will always have 1 primary rival.
LikeLike
I’m a Michigan man. My preference is:
2. NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU vs OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PSU, RU, MD
This puts Michigan in the same division as its two main rivals and maximizes East-coast access. I assume that if this alignment were chosen, no other schools but PU and IN would have locked crossovers, which I believe is desirable, regardless of whether 8 or 9 conference games are played. Among the options that achieve these goals, #2 is best because the school that moves east is the weakest one, Indiana.
I suspect the the Michigan athletic department would have the same preference, but would cheerfully accept just about any alignment that puts them in the same division as Ohio State. Michigan probably won’t have to lobby for East-coast access, because the conference wants that anyway.
LikeLike
Just re-reading Brian’s list again. Brian, are you suggesting that you believe Ohio State would rather NOT be in the same division as Michigan? I cannot imagine why they would find that advantageous, given that they clearly intend to play Michigan every year, no matter what.
I think travel is MUCH exaggerated as a disadvantage in Brian’s list, given that teams on the eastern and western flanks are probably going to be flying to most games anyway. But I figure that #1 is less likely to be chosen because they’re going to want more Michigan and Ohio State games featured on the east coast. If that weren’t a priority, #1 would be the best option for all concerned.
It’s interesting that in Brian’s list, OSU is the only school that would dislike an option (#5) purely for schedule reasons. That might be a clue that this isn’t exactly a dispassionate list of pros and cons.
LikeLike
Brian’s entitled to his opinions.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Just re-reading Brian’s list again. Brian, are you suggesting that you believe Ohio State would rather NOT be in the same division as Michigan?”
I indicated that, yes. I’ve heard some things from people that make me think some of the people that matter think that way. It could be completely wrong. The other main reason is to show that it’s a potential objection. I believe I correctly indicated what MI fans say MI wants (with OSU), so I also wanted to show that other plans could have an objection. You’ll note that was the only objection I qualified with “maybe.”
“I cannot imagine why they would find that advantageous, given that they clearly intend to play Michigan every year, no matter what.”
Because they could play MI in the CCG if they are separate. Some people see that as preferable to only playing for the division title. You don’t have to agree, but the reason should have been obvious.
“I think travel is MUCH exaggerated as a disadvantage in Brian’s list, given that teams on the eastern and western flanks are probably going to be flying to most games anyway.”
I think it’s an overrated objection, too, but it’s one many fans from those teams have raised here and on other blogs. It would have been dishonest of me not to note it.
“But I figure that #1 is less likely to be chosen because they’re going to want more Michigan and Ohio State games featured on the east coast.”
The B10 does control the schedule for crossover games. They could put RU and MD on the schedules of OSU and MI more often if they want. They’ve done it before.
“If that weren’t a priority, #1 would be the best option for all concerned.”
Just saving that for posterity.
“It’s interesting that in Brian’s list, OSU is the only school that would dislike an option (#5) purely for schedule reasons. That might be a clue that this isn’t exactly a dispassionate list of pros and cons.”
Gene Smith came out and said he didn’t want that specific alignment because of the schedule. I’d include any other comments from ADs on specific alignments if people point them out. You’ll note I asked for people to add or correct any objections that I noted.
LikeLike
Regarding the travel issue, you really need to know who is saying it. I can’t imagine that there are big numbers of Maryland and Rutgers fans planning to drive to any game besides each other and Penn State; and once you’re in a plane, there’s not a lot of difference between Columbus and Minneapolis. Penn State, of course, is gaining two nearby rivals it never had before, so they’re net winners in this transaction.
So I wonder how many people would actually be adversely affected, as opposed to people just assuming it would be a problem without having really analyzed it.
LikeLike
Penn Stater gaining UMD and Rutgers but losing playing Ohio St every season (which is a possibility in some scenarios) isn’t much of a net gain, if at all, at least IMHO. PSU has suffered relative to other Big Ten teams in not having nearby opponents in conference and adding RU/UMD helps significantly in that, but losing the one team that is legitimately a rival in conference is a huge blow.
As a PSU fan, I want to see the Nittany Lions plat Rutgers, Maryland and Ohio State every year. Beyond that, I don’t care that much about how the divisions/schedules are composed (would like to get another king game guaranteed every year, but that’s a secondary concern).
LikeLike
The conference has to weigh which direction it goes. There are at least 4 major approaches which are sometimes contradictory. Last time competitive balance was primary.
There’s:
1) competitive balance
2) attractive TV schedules
3) building new rivalries
4) maintaining old rivalries
3) and 4) can be totally different approaches. You could have an 8 game schedule which two fixed divisions and one fixed cross-division game. Essentially you are saying the division is our new “conference.” You rarely see teams in the other half of the conference. In the old SEC, there were a limited number of teams that each school played. Georgia-Alabama, for example, rarely played. Of course, those games didn’t follow geographic boundaries.
The opposite approach, 4), would be to setup divisions to avoid any fixed cross-division games. Then you get 2 or 3 (depending on whether you play 8 or 9 games) each year against the other division. You maximize cross-division exposure. You either have the inner/outer or give IU/PU or UI/NU some sort of compensation (doesn’t have to be money) for having to play their rivalry ooc some years.
I think chasing 1) is illusory. It shouldn’t be ignored, but it always varies from year-to-year. The B1G gets plenty of money, so 2) shouldn’t be a high priority, but obviously you can’t ignore the TV people. And I think 4) builds conference long-run cohesiveness while carrying 3) to an extreme hurts. And Frank was right with KISS. Inner/outer is just too weird. I think you split IN or IL in an east/west split.
LikeLike
I’d add OSU-in-Columbus as a third game that folks in NJ and MD/DC would seriously consider driving to, if only because getting through those airports is so enervating, and takes so long that an 8 hour drive is not so horrible by comparison. But for pretty much all the other destinations save Chicago (which can be reached by overnight train), flying is the most reasonable method, at which point Lincoln and Minneapolis are only negligibly further away than Ann Arbor.
LikeLike
@Dave om VA – Co-sign on getting through those airports. One of the few completely personal posts that I’ve had on this blog centered around a wonderful experience at Dulles:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/a-trip-across-the-pond-and-frank-the-tanks-football-parlay-christmas-2008-edition/
LikeLike
Dave in VA,
“I’d add OSU-in-Columbus as a third game that folks in NJ and MD/DC would seriously consider driving to, if only because getting through those airports is so enervating, and takes so long that an 8 hour drive is not so horrible by comparison.”
I regularly use Dulles and have driven OSU to VA many times. Trust me, that drive sucks. The stretch in PA is always under construction, so add an hour. Like all interstates anymore, it’s wall to wall semis. That adds another 30 minutes with all the hills unless they actually move over for you. That’s what makes it an 8 hour drive, but it should be 6:30 or less. It will save you some money, but you need a day off to do it. It all depends how close you live to an airport, though.
Going from NJ will be another 1.5-2 hours, probably. I’d think getting to an airport would be easier for them. They can fly from Philly easily enough.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Co-sign on getting through those airports. One of the few completely personal posts that I’ve had on this blog centered around a wonderful experience at Dulles:”
Dulles is a lot better now that the train is up and running. At least it is for me, since I always use the B gates. They still use the shuttle buses for farther out.
LikeLike
@Brian – Those Dulles shuttle buses are dead ringers for the Jawa crawlers from Star Wars, right down to the lack of speed.
I hadn’t read that post in awhile and, WOW, I was in a bad mood that day. That probably has the most expletives that I’ve written on this site.
Of course, when I arrived at home, I found that out from my wife that we were pregnant with twins, so that put everything back into perspective quickly.
LikeLike
Frank,
I used to hate those shuttles. What a stupid design to need buses that can be raised and lowered. It sure seems like building a ramp would have been cheaper and easier.
LikeLike
The Dulles design predates airport gates. The big failures were not adding gates like every other airport in the last 40 years, and especially opening the midfield terminal without shuttle train access. Those buses cost a fortune to maintain and should have been retired decades ago.
LikeLike
@Frank
Not sure I’ve ever had the pleasure of Dulles. Done Reagan and BWI a number of times. The most amazing thing about your story is that you were able to land when your plane arrived early. Flying to Atlanta arriving early merely means you circle the airport or better yet, land and sit on the runway with the A/C not working until your originally scheduled landing time (and then only if you are lucky enough that the previous flight left on time-remote chance if you are flying Delta).
LikeLike
@ Brian & Mark Shepard:
““I cannot imagine why they [tOSU] would find that advantageous [being separate from MI], given that they clearly intend to play Michigan every year, no matter what.”
Because they could play MI in the CCG if they are separate. Some people see that as preferable to only playing for the division title. You don’t have to agree, but the reason should have been obvious.”
In my view, this idea is most commonly expressed as: “If MI and tOSU are in the same division, then The Game is diminished because The Game is now merely to decide who goes to Indianapolis. The Game used to decide who went to Pasadena and who was the B10 Champion.”
FWIW, I agree since The Game no longer determines who goes to the Rose Bowl. But I don’t care. MI and tOSU should be in the same division. ‘Bama and Auburn are in the same division and it has not tarnished or lessened the intensity of the Iron Bowl. For me, The Game must be played every year and must be the last game of the regular season. Those are more important to me than The Game determining who goes to the Rose Bowl. I am plenty happy ending a MI perfect season or keeping them from winning the B10East. Plus I think playing The Game twice in back-to-back weeks is stupid. But. then that is me.
If the B1G did not want to change, they should not have expanded. Expansion inevitably leads to change; folks may not like the change, but change is here, has happened and is not going to be undone.
But there are some good changes balancing out the bad changes. BTN is fabulous; love the coverage of olympic sports and now there will be hockey; CCG is interesting; playing Nebraska is cool.
anyway, my choices:
1. tOSU
2. ##3-5; preference for #5
3. no idea what the school would prefer.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“If the B1G did not want to change, they should not have expanded.”
Exactly. Long live the status quo.
“Expansion inevitably leads to change; folks may not like the change,”
And I don’t.
“but change is here, has happened and is not going to be undone.”
One can always hope RU and MD fold their ADs before they further the corruption of the B10.
“But there are some good changes balancing out the bad changes.”
No, there aren’t.
“BTN is fabulous;”
It happened before expansion, thus it isn’t a change due to expansion. It’s the reason for adding non-B10 schools to dilute the conference.
“CCG is interesting;”
Not to most people. It doesn’t sell out and it doesn’t draw great ratings. Plus, rematches always suck.
“playing Nebraska is cool.”
That’s just an OOC game that showed up in the B10 standings. It’s no different than when OSU played UT or USC (or OU or VT in the future).
LikeLike
@Brian:
LOLs at your responses to my suggestions that some changes are “good.” We will definitely disagree, tho’ there is no arguing anything you typed.
My view is that expansion started with PSU and, from that point, bigger changes were inevitable. We did not know it at the time, but hindsight is 20/20. (I think most figured we would go to 12 once Notre Dame finally came to its senses and joined the “obviously wonderful” Big Ten. LOL).
As I said, if the B1G didn’t want change, they shouldn’t have expanded.
But that is actually false. If the B1G had not expanded, changes would still have come; just unpleasant changes (like what the Big East has been experiencing for a decade).
it is interesting to run some counter-historical scenarios where PSU does not join the B1G.
What if PSU had gone to the Big East? Would that have prevented the ACC raid in 2003? If yes, then a very interesting CFB landscape in 2007. Would the B1G have been strong enough for Delany to “roll the dice” with ESpin? Would there be a BTN? Would the B1G have been strong enough to attract Mizzu (and thereby destabilize the BXII)? Would the B1G have been attractive enough for Nebraska to jump ship? My guess is “no.” The B1G would have been stuck at 10.
What if PSU had gone to the ACC? Would the ACC have needed to raid the Big East in 2003? If not, then the Big East would have remained a “power conference.” And all the conferences would still be in the 10-12 range?
If PSU had gone to the Big East and the ACC had still successfully raided in 2003, who would they have raided? PSU instead of BC? Sounds right, but who knows. An ACC-with-PSU opposing a B1G-without-PSU over the carcass of the Big East gives the upper hand to the ACC.
Without the B1G presently sitting at 14 with the money-machine that is the BTN, you can certainly imagine a SEC-based Frank-the-Tank running a blog where posters debate whether the SEC could pry tOSU and Michigan away from the B1G. I can just see the discussions about Michigan and Ohio State being too “northern”, but folks arguing that Ohio State is really pretty southern being “so close” to Kentucky and Appalachia.
There would be an ACC counterpart blog debating about getting a block of four midwestern schools.
Everyone wants OSU because they are a king and for the Ohio markets and the fertile recruiting grounds. I can just see the discussion about how best to accomplish that. Get MI first as a way to leverage tOSU or just figure out how to get tOSU (“give them what they want”) and MI will come along because they are a pair (as OU is to TX). or “Get ND first, that will pry loose Michigan and then OSU will have no choice but to join the ACC.”
Then the debate over PSU or PITT (for the Philly and Pittsburgh markets). You can’t add both.
And the SEC/ACC/Big East bloggers would endlessly debate whether Northwestern or Illinois could ever REALLY deliver the Chicago market.
Indiana would be the B1G’s version of Kansas; a Bball king that no one wants (tho’ some SEC bloggers would argue it’s a good match with tOSU, MI and IL or NW. “Adding Indiana will make Kentucky happy.”)
Poor Michigan State becomes an orphan like KState, GaTech and OkieState and Purdue and Minny are doomed to join the MAC.
etc. etc.
My point: the B1G is sitting in a position of power because it changed.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“LOLs at your responses to my suggestions that some changes are “good.” We will definitely disagree, tho’ there is no arguing anything you typed.”
I’m not saying there are no such thing as good changes, just that they are not balancing out the bad changes. And I consider adding PSU a separate round of expansion from this one. It was a different world back then.
LikeLike
@ Brian. Yes, I did not assume you believed all change was “bad change.” I just chuckled that for my three examples of “good change” you had a quite valid counterpoint which did not change my mind that the changes were still “good.” We agree on the larger point which is change has happened and we all have to learn to deal with it.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“We agree on the larger point which is change has happened and we all have to learn to deal with it.”
Unfortunately for me, yes. The playoff has already killed my national interest in CFB (the BCS had already undermined it), and now the B10 is doing everything it can to drive me away. By 2014, I may only watch 2-3 games per year. And until Gene Smith stops ruining The Game with those stupid Nike uniforms, that won’t be 1 of the 2-3 games.
On the bright side, it’ll free up a lot of time on Saturdays for me.
LikeLike
Any reason you don’t have a setup of M, MSU, Illini, OSU, PSU, RU, MD?
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“Any reason you don’t have a setup of M, MSU, Illini, OSU, PSU, RU, MD?”
Actually, yes. MSU really wanted to be with NW, and the B10 asked NW about going east. If only 1 of the middle schools is going east, IN or PU (neighbors of OH and MI) seem more likely to me than IL. Your welcome to add it as Other.
LikeLike
1. Ohio State
2. I like 1, 4 and 2, in that order. Option 1 seems unlikely though, due to lack of OSU and UM exposure in NYC and DC. Option 4 seems unlikely due to competitive balance issues.
3. Probably 4, then 2. 4 provides access to all 3 major markets, has UM in division and minimizes (or hopefully eliminates) crossovers. Same as 4, minus Chicago.
LikeLike
I agree with bullet on a lot of these the issues as they pertain to division splits; I don’t think you can chase competitive balance or CCG setups.
The ACC chased FSU-Miami CCGs for years; how’d that work out?
The Big 12 for all its faults had much more reliable TV showings with Texas, OU, and Texas A&M in the same division. Those 3 schools accounted for every single Big 12 South title game representation between them.
I’m almost certain that’s what the Big Ten will look like in an East-West setup, and that’s okay with me.
As for me, I favor keeping Northwestern in the West of an East-West split with IU-PU being the sole kept crossover (scenario #2).
I think that’s what we’re likely to get at this point.
The TV people will be happy with a Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State/Indiana/Maryland/Rutgers division pumping out big names for the title game, and the West division will still have visits to Chicago every other year for its teams.
LikeLike
1. Indiana
2. 1 or 4. These are the two plans that should require no protected rivals. (Illinois has so many weak rivals and no strong rivals, so let them play everybody as much as possible. Northwestern isn’t mandatory.)
3. 2 or 6. $$$
LikeLike
From Cutter:
1. Michigan
2. #4 because it has Ohio State in division and includes Northwestern and Chicago area.
3. Probably #4 as well. Appeals to Chicago and east coast alums. Better fund raising opportunities in Chitown, NYC, WDC, etc. Access to #1 media market in NYC.
LikeLike
1. Michigan fan
2. I prefer option #2. Split E/W through Indiana, sending IU/UM/MSU to the east and Purdue to the west. Make PU/IU the only protected cross-over game.
LikeLike
1. Michigan alum (as well as a Mizzou alum of course)
2. I’d pick 4. Keeps annual games with MSU and OSU, keeps regular games in Chicago, and helps recruit on the east coast.
LikeLike
Big East football seems bound and determined to beckme 14-team league for football by 2015 when Navy joins, regardless of who it has to add to get there.
Does it also want to be a 12-team league for non-football sports? 14 minus Navy and ECU makes 12. Could the mere awkwardness of a 13-member league be keeping ECU from being a full member?
LikeLike
The agreement was for FB-only, and the NuBigEast is going to be in a holding pattern until the SDSU tip-ball ends up in one set of hands or the other. If and when SDSU decides that geography, stability and basketball together trump a few million dollars a year, then the NuBigEast can start making actual decisions.
The present NuBigEast schools committed to BBall in 2014 are:
15. UC 87.27
28. UConn 85.26
48. Temple 82.86
116. South Florida 75.88
— weighted average rank: 82.23
Including all those committed to be playing BBall in 2014:
15. UC 87.27
28. UConn 85.26
42. Memphis 83.40
48. Temple 82.86
108. Central Florida 76.20
116. South Florida 75.88
121. Tulane 75.67 {2014}
159. Houston, 73.22
172. SMU 72.36
— weighted average rank: 78.59
The FB-only adds would both pull that average down:
171. ECU 72.39 — FB-only 2014
282. Navy 64.39 — FB-only 2015
Two widely rumored targets are:
109. UMass 76.13
176. Tulsa 72.08
And one new add by C-USA as much to boost their BBall as their FBall would be:
50. MTSU 82.24
If the NuBigEast goes with Tulsa, in some combination, then ECU’s chances of Tulsa as a FB-only pair to Navy and ECU as a full member are better. If the NuBigEast went with Rice, it would be as a FB-only member, based on current rankings (333rd).
The best three to add for basketball might be UMass from the MAC, Louisiana-Tech from C-USA, formerly from the WAC, and MTSU from C-USA, formerly from the Sunbelt, which would leave ECU as a FB-only member.
LikeLike
Putting that in context, Sagarin’s weakest “Big Five” conference is the SEC at 7th, 78.50, which the NuBigEast above is (currently, and counter-factually because they would have a difference schedule to this point) only marginally above.
That tells us that there are two Group of Five conferences in amongst the Big Five, which are the MWC at 2nd and the OlBigEast at 3rd.
So the NuBigEast would be well advised to look for an all-sports add that would not only not drag its BBall strength of schedule too far down, but actually increase it. On current strength (no idea how persistent these strengths may be, even over the current season), that would be MTSU from the Sunbelt ~ intercepting its move to the C-USA ~ and Southern Miss from the C-USA.
LikeLike
What about CCG representation balance in the longer term?
If we do go East-West (assuming Purdue in the West) for a long period of time, would this change anyone’s minds about the division splits?
If we do end up East-West after 2014, what would people think of these as our CCG representatives over a 20 year span (2014-2033) assuming no more expansion:
East:
Ohio State 11
Michigan 6
Penn State 2
Michigan State 1
Indiana/Rutgers/Maryland 0
West:
Nebraska 7
Wisconsin 6
Iowa 3
Northwestern/Minnesota/Illinois/Purdue 4
As far as CCG representation, you’re basically looking at the Big 12 North and Big 12 South all over again with a lot more spread of representation in the West than in the East.
If you’re a Michigan State fan, does this change your mind? Michigan State would probably get into 4x as many CCGs in the West as it would in the East (in place of Purdue in the West).
If you’re an Indiana/Rutgers/Maryland fan, do you really want that division if you knew going in that you were almost certain of never winning? Money is great, but that division is going to be a monster after 2020 (if we get that far without going to 16).
These divisions work great for short-term development goals on the D.C. and NYC markets, but not so great if you want to see Michigan State/Indiana/Rutgers/Maryland aim higher.
LikeLike
I mean, obviously, the TV people would love to know they’d have Ohio State or Michigan in almost every CCG along with Penn State taking up 2 of the other 3 slots.
I assume that’s far more valuable than trying to gerrymander an Ohio State-Michigan rematch every 7 or 8 years…
LikeLike
zeek,
“I mean, obviously, the TV people would love to know they’d have Ohio State or Michigan in almost every CCG along with Penn State taking up 2 of the other 3 slots.
I assume that’s far more valuable than trying to gerrymander an Ohio State-Michigan rematch every 7 or 8 years…”
I’m sure they’re just thrilled at the prospect of NW/IL/MN.PU in 4 CCGs. Or IA in 3. Or, frankly, WI in 6 after the attendance issues for the last 2. Realistically, that’s only 7 of 20 CCGs they’d love (king/king). On top of that, they’d always miss out on their most valuable possible match-up.
LikeLike
I think though that they’d rather guarantee kings in 19 of the 20 games rather than know that they may have a risk of 4-5 games completely without kings (as 2 kings per division might result in).
It’s clearly a tradeoff, but I think the TV people would prefer the Big 12-ish imbalanced setup.
You’re right though about the attendance issue. It may make for better TV guarantees but the attendance issue would probably end up worse off given less king-king matchups.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I think though that they’d rather guarantee kings in 19 of the 20 games rather than know that they may have a risk of 4-5 games completely without kings (as 2 kings per division might result in).”
How would the numbers change if you slid MI west like they are now?
My guess based on your numbers above:
OSU – 12
PSU – 5
MSU – 3
Other – 0
MI – 9
NE – 4
WI – 3
IA – 2
Other – 2
E kings – 17, W kings 13
King/king – 11 of 20 expected
King/prince – 6 of 20
At least 1 king – 17/20
OSU west?
MI – 12
PSU – 5
MSU – 3
Other – 0
OSU – 11
NE – 4
WI – 3
IA – 1
Other – 1
E kings – 17, W kings 15
King/king – ~12 of 20 expected
King/prince – ~6 of 20
At least 1 king – 17/20
LikeLike
I think Brian stated upthread, and I agree, that the conference isn’t in the business of artificially inflating teams’ prospects by giving them deliberately weaker schedules.
Let’s get real about Maryland and Rutgers. Since 1991, the year FSU joined the ACC, Maryland won the league title exactly once (2001), and they’ve never reached the championship game in the eight years it has been contested. That’s in a weaker league than the Big Ten is, or ever was.
In 22 years in the Big East, Rutgers has never won the conference title, unless you count 2012, when four teams tied with 5-2 conference records, and Louisville won the tie-breaker for the BCS bid.
Barring very substantial program upgrades, Maryland and Rutgers are going to be perennial also-rans, no matter the division setup.
Michigan State has a slightly better claim, but only slightly. They did not win a Big Ten title between 1990 (when they shared it four ways) and 2010 (when they shared it three ways). Sure, the west would be easier for them, but they’re probably only going to be occasional winners in any alignment.
LikeLike
Yeah, those schools shouldn’t even field teams.
LikeLike
jj,
I’d like to see your vote on preferred divisions. I’m curious how MSU fans weigh playing in the east versus the expected reduced success compared to your peers.
LikeLike
I agree that MSU would almost certainly have better success in the western scenarios and know that some Spartans want this to se up a year-end game with Wisconsin That, of course, would be nice and i can live with that no problem. But I personally believe that MSU can compete with anyone and that if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. So, I prefer the East. I’d rather enjoy the year(s) we beat UM, OSU and PSU and earn it the hard way.
LikeLike
Brian:
MSU was one of the last teams to schedule AA opponents and it really upset me when it did that. I understand it, but I don’t like it.
LikeLike
zeek,
Those CCG numbers somewhat jibe with my results elsewhere showing the price PSU and MSU would pay in wins for having an east with IN versus In/Out. It would cost them well over 1 B10 W per year.
LikeLike
For the next 8 years or so, the chances of PSU competing for the conference title are virtually nonexistent anyway regardless of the division they’re in (and I expect that the B10 will have expanded some more before 2020).
LikeLike
Here’s some good news.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8842536/big-ten-consider-renaming-legends-leaders-divisions-jim-delany-says
B1G division names may change for 2014.
“”We weren’t going to go with ‘Bo or Woody,’ ‘Black or Blue,’ or ‘Plains or Lakes,’ ” Delany said. “Obviously we got some acceptance [with Legends and Leaders], but not as much as we would have liked.”
Delany said he was a “little surprised” by the backlash when the division names were announced.”
LikeLike
Should just go with East-West. It seems likely that we’re looking at the 6 Eastern schools in one division with possibly the Easternmost of the other 8 if they go with Indiana.
Even if Northwestern is in the East, just go East-West.
LikeLike
I would love to see one of the divisions named ‘Western’ as an homage to the history of the conference.
LikeLike
Then they name the other The Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
I was about to post this. I saw it on a Big 12 board, posted before you posted it here. This board’s slow this week. An SEC fan posts it and it was on a Big 12 board before here!
LikeLike
I’m busy. I aslo haven’t posted the SBJ article on the ACC Cable Channel.
LikeLike
Delany commented again about the months long circus surrounding expansion last time. He says they aren’t active right now.
If they do expand again, it will happen suddenly, relative to news leaking out. With all the media speculation that smoke probably means something. I suspect either we will hear something soon or noone in the ACC that the B1G is truly interested in has responded favorably (as Frank believes).
LikeLike
” Delany said he was a “little surprised” by the backlash when the division names were announced.”
This doesn’t bode well. You would think that they would consult with people under 60 when deciding on purely emotional issues like division names.
LikeLike
If the names are not geographic, can they please just go with “Stagg” and “Berwanger”? They are so perfect that it’s hard to understand why they were’t used the last go around.
LikeLike
Stagg/Berwanger would be as bad as leaders and legends.
LikeLike
On the other hand they would make for much better jokes.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/14/Colleges/ACC.aspx
Interesting article on ACC committee of ADs and hiring Wasserman Media Group to study potential of an ACC network.
Most interesting tidbit is this:
“Another reason for ESPN’s reluctance to move forward is that it is preparing to launch an SEC channel in August 2014, sources said, which would make it difficult to launch an ACC channel in many of those same markets, like Florida, Georgia and South Carolina where the SEC and ACC footprints overlap.”
LikeLike
Beat me by nine seconds.
LikeLike
IANAL, but how does ESPN avoid a conflict of interest here? They are basically saying, “We’ll make more with an SEC network, so screw off ACC, we don’t want competition in FL, GA and SC.”
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/14/Colleges/ACC.aspx
ACC Cable Channel inital discussions.
The ACC has a bigger problem than the SEC does with its Cable Channel. All of the ACC’s content is controlled by ESPN, where the SEC has some content reserved. Interesting comment about sharing resources with the SEC Network.
LikeLike
I’m probably missing something, but how can the ACC set up an ACC network when they’ve already sold the rights to all of their sports content to ESPN? Where would this network get it’s content?
The only way I can see this happening is if ESPN were to set up the network for the ACC, and then kick back a set dollar figure for any new carriage fees, and perhaps some of the advertising dollars to the ACC. However, off the top of my head (and I don’t claim to be any type of TV exec) I see some risk to ESPN here:
1. Presumably, ESPN would foot the bill to set up and run the network, so they would likely be taking most of the risk on this endeavor.
2. The ACC has a smaller population footprint than B1G, so they likely would not be able to approach BTN/Fox sized payouts ever.
3. As mentioned in the article, SECN/ESPN will have a competing product in overlapping home markets. I highly doubt the SEC would ever agree to be packaged with an ACCN to get on basic cable.
4. As a result of 2 and 3, any ACC network will certainly have a tough time getting on basic cable in enough large markets to justify the new network.
5. A number of ACC teams are widely viewed as being the target of further expansion. Would they ESPN risk investing significant dollars in setting up a new network under the current “GOR-less” conference structure?
As we all know, if ESPN were to take on a good portion of the risk, they would want to be compensated with the majority of the reward, which would leave the ACC less money assuming its success, and ultimately at the mercy of ESPN to determine how much they want to share since ESPN already owns the rights to these games.
If ESPN acquiesces to a new ACC network, I have to believe it wouldn’t be broadcasting for at least another 2-3 years, if not longer, due to the set-up time and ESPN’s desire to ensure the success of its fledgling SECN. Also, I believe BTN operated in the red for the first couple of years, and if you assume the same for an ACC Network, that would extend the time table for getting paid anything from this network to 4-5 years, roughly 2017 or 2018 before ACC sees a dime and ESPN starts turning a profit Meanwhile, the upcoming ESPN/ACC deal runs out five years later in 2023.
Another option for the ACC would be to purchase back some of their Tier 3 rights from ESPN, but that would be expensive and likely too risky for the ACC to handle alone.
LikeLike
@Quacs – I expect the ACC to try and get a similar deal from ESPN that the SEC will get. The difference will be the SEC retains one football game for each team (typically the worst game on each teams schedule) so they will have some content to offer ESPN (in addition to what ESPN already has) for the SECN. ESPN can manage the risk and costs for an ACCN if it leverages the infrastructure it already has in place for the SECN. I wouldn’t be surprised to see ESPN “bundle” an ACCN and SECN in cable negotiations for operators in SEC/ACC markets to make sure both are profitable.
LikeLike
ESPN already has these rights, so the ACC is delusional if they think they can make substantial money. How do you sell something you have already sold? Basically, they want to re-work the ESPN deal that they have already re-worked twice. Its odd that they are trying to do that now when they could have tried with either of the other two re-workings.
The SEC not only added inventory (ACC already signed that over), they each had inventory the school owned that they are putting into the new venture. That comment about being reluctant with the SEC network to be sold in the same market makes sense. One will be difficult but has good potential. Trying to sell two makes the first more difficult.
LikeLike
Do you think SECN/Slive would allow SECN to be tethered to ACCN in network negotiations? I have to think the SECN, a more desirable network, would cede some money to the ACC (and in some markets risk not getting on basic cable) if bundled w/ ACCN. Perhaps they would allow this in ACC-only TV markets (VA, NC), but I have a hard time believing Slive would allow his network to be packaged with ACCN and accept a bundled discount in Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc.
LikeLike
@Quacs –
Do you think SECN/Slive would allow SECN to be tethered to ACCN in network negotiations?
If the network takes shape like I expect it to (ESPN owned like the LHN) then I don’t think they’ll have a say. Its ESPN’s job to sell the network to the cable providers any way they see fit.
I have to think the SECN, a more desirable network, would cede some money to the ACC (and in some markets risk not getting on basic cable) if bundled w/ ACCN.
If you assume that the SECN will be more popular than the ACCN in areas where the ACC and SEC overlap, it would make sense for ESPN bundle the two networks together for carriage. Bundle doesn’t necessarily mean discount. If you want to buy one, you have to buy the other. I agree, the won’t be ACCN carriage in Texas anytime soon.
LikeLike
What was referred to in the article was ESPN infrastructure. In effect, the ACC is saying that it will be cheap for ESPN to set up an ACC network because ESPN can leverage the studio, equipment, employees that will be used for the SEC network. No indication of ACC getting a cut of fees.
LikeLike
Bundling ACCN and SECN isn’t going to result in higher carriage fees for both if compared to what they may negotiate separately with the cable providers. The SECN will have a better chance of getting on basic cable by negotiating without an ACC bundle than with one.
Again, I don’t know the structure of the SECN deal, but if it’s anything like BTN (and it may not be), then SEC will have an ownership stake in it. If they do, I have to believe they will be fighting like he!! to have their network negotiated separately from ACCN in ALL SEC markets.
LikeLike
@Quacs –
Again, I don’t know the structure of the SECN deal, but if it’s anything like BTN (and it may not be), then SEC will have an ownership stake in it.
No one knows the structure of the deal because as far as I know it’s not done. I expect the SECN to follow the LHN model (ESPN owned, flat payments with profit sharing) because the two situations are similar. If it is, I would expect ESPN to launch a similarly modeled ACCN that shares the infrastructure with the SECN. If it isn’t LHN like, then the whole discussion is moot.
Bundling ACCN and SECN isn’t going to result in higher carriage fees for both if compared to what they may negotiate separately with the cable providers.
Even if there is a discount with bungling (which we don’t know will happen just like I don’t know there won’t be) the end game of ESPN owned networks like the LHN is to make ESPN money. If ESPN can make more money overall with a bundle then I would expect them to.
What’s missing from the whole ACCN discussion (as bullet noted) is exactly what they’re going to give ESPN in exchange for any money from the ACCN.
LikeLike
Mike & Quacs – the majority of the content for the SECN will come from the sub-licensed package with FSN and Comcast that expires after the 2013-14 seasons. That’s why the SECN will launch in August of 2014. ESPN will probably move some ESPNU content over to the SECN. I haven’t seen anything definitive regarding current Tier 3 content being added to the SECN, as each school has agreements that may extend past August 2014.
Regarding the ACC, at the expiration of ESPN’s sub-licensing agreement with Raycom, ESPN could add more content to ESPNU or start an ACCN. ESPN could also move content from ESPN3 to ESPNU, once the SEC slots become available. Either way, that could increase the value of the ACC contract.
Another thing to consider regarding the demise of the ACC. ESPN has a vested interest in seeing the ACC succeed, much more so than seeing the B1G or the B-12 steal members and show its games on FOX. I think ESPN shows more ACC content than any other conference. If and ACC school with value really gets antsy, I bet ESPN steps in and gives the ACC enough of a bump to calm the waters.
LikeLike
If and ACC school with value really gets antsy, I bet ESPN steps in and gives the ACC enough of a bump to calm the waters.
If they were interested in calming the waters they wouldn’t have lowballed them when they renegotiated the deal last year. If they weren’t willing to bail the Big East then why would they do it for the ACC?
LikeLike
@ Alan, I understand ESPN wanting to maintain status quo vis a vis membership for ACC, but a small bump in the overall contract (spread out over 14-x members) isn’t going to dissuade the most valuable members from jumping if there’s a payday offered from another conference that doubles the future payouts of the ACC TV deal (assuming the targeted school is inclined to change conferences which isn’t necessarily a given). I don’t see ESPN being this “white knight” for ACC if there’s serious money on the table from someone else.
Help me understand this Raycom structure, and how ACC could charge ESPN again for these rights. From the ACC’s press release on their new deal w/ ESPN:
“Following are the key details of the new agreement:
Football
With exclusive rights to every conference-controlled football game, ESPN will serve as the national cable and broadcast TV home for the conference and distributor of syndication telecasts via an agreement with Raycom Sports. With the agreement granting rights to every matchup, there is flexibility where games can be distributed on a weekly basis throughout the season.”
This sounds to me like ESPN has already paid for exclusive rights to “every conference-controlled football game”, so apart from a revenue share of carriage fees and ad dollars, how would ACC make more money?
LikeLike
@Alan – If there’s a way for ESPN to make more money off of the ACC’s current ESPN3 and Raycom content by making an ACC channel than I think ESPN will use that content for the basis of the ACCN. How profitable it will be for the ACC is yet to be determined. Once we see what ESPN and the SEC agree to, it will be much easier to estimate what it will be from there. An ACCN showing profit potential for the ACC might just be the ‘bump’ from ESPN you refer to.
LikeLike
frug – as I stated above, the ACC provides more content to ESPN than any other conference. The ACC is also exclusive to ESPN. The B1G and the B-12 are shared with FOX. So far, only Maryland left and that move didn’t implode the ACC. With apologies to Vincent, the ACC arguably got a better football/basketball deal by replacing Maryland with Louisville. Now if UNC or Florida State really make noise about moving and it looks imminent (like the demise of the B-12 did prior to the LHN deal), I think its fair to assume that ESPN would step in at that point. There’s no reason to step in at any point before imminent demise. Why spend any more money if you don’t have to?
LikeLike
Quacs said, “Help me understand this Raycom structure, and how ACC could charge ESPN again for these rights.”
Since the ACC sold all its content to ESPN, ESPN doesn’t have enough windows to air that content. Once the Raycom agreement expires (I don’t know when that is), the success of the BTN, P12N, and the SECN may indicate that an ACCN is viable.
Alternately, as I understand it , the ACC has a lot of content on the web-based ESPN3. Once the SECN is up and running, there should be several windows open on ESPNU that were once reserved for SEC content. The ACC could benefit by having ESPN move that content from ESPN3 to ESPNU. I would have to think that a window on a TV network is more valuable than a window on a webpage.
The question is would ESPN share in the increased ad revenue produced by moving more ACC content to ESPNU, or keep it all and let the ACC blow up. Think of ESPN as an emergency room doctor. Its not their job to make you healthy, but to keep you from dying.
LikeLike
Well, first you are assuming paying more for the current 14.5 is cheaper and more profitable than paying more while getting half of the best of the group. Second, ESPN has to tread a fine line to avoid litigation and anti-trust issues. I don’t think they do anything.
LikeLike
bullet – ESPN saved your Big XII.
LikeLike
Let me say, I’m not convinced B1G or SEC expansion to 16 generates enough of a revenue bump to offset the headaches, unless, it involves knocking the remnants of the ACC down to the gang of 5. Big 12 could easily justify 12 and probably 14. 16 for them is very problematic.
LikeLike
Really it was more Fox. ESPN made promises of what they would do with the new contract. Fox paid up right away. ESPN kept the same deal for a couple of years, just recently renewing.
LikeLike
@Alan – I like the emergency room metaphor. Will it be too late if ESPN steps in after the ACC has already flatlined? After Maryland left, and with a new wave of expansion rumors swirling, why wouldn’t ESPN be acting to curtail any possible ACC departures right now? Instead the SBJ article states the ACC is hiring these consultants to make a case for a new ACCN. This isn’t being driven by ESPN.
Also, If the SECN is being populated with previously unowned football content (as someone previously posted), then there are no “holes” created by the SEC in ESPN’s programming lineup. The current SEC content would remain where it is in ESPN’s schedule.
I see the ACC having some tough sledding in trying to sell ESPN on giving them any more money on their current deal, and I think it may be difficult to convince ESPN to start a new, ground up ACCN without ceding most of the upside profit potential to ESPN.
LikeLike
Quacs – here’s how the SEC package works.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/132060/unprecedented-espn-agreement.aspx
All of the SEC content is sold to CBS, ESPN, or local Tier 3. ESPN bought more content than it can show on its various platforms, so ESPN has sub-licensed out certain SEC content to Comcast and FSN. The Comcast and FSN games, once their contracts expire at the end of the 2013-14 seasons, will be the foundation for the new SECN. While I don’t have any verification, it is reasonable to believe that ESPN would also move some SEC games previously designated for viewing on ESPNU to the SECN, in order to make it more desirable to cable providers. Movement of SEC content from ESPNU to the SECN would create windows in ESPNU’s programming that could be filled with ACC content currently shown on ESPN3.
LikeLike
@Alan
I’m pretty sure the Raycom doesn’t expire for at least another 10 years (the length of the original ESPN deal). The ACC made partnering with a Raycom a condition for perspective media partners when they signed the last media deal and it caused Fox to drop out of the bidding.
Really, the Raycom requirement is what led to the ACC getting a such an awful deal in the first place.
LikeLike
So, in essence, ESPN is setting up a new channel to broadcast already owned rights to SEC sporting events. A couple of questions:
1. Will the SEC have any ownership stake in the new network? If so, how much (or are we waiting to hear this from Slive/ESPN)?
2. Does the SEC share in the cost of getting the new network up and running?
3. Will the SEC provide the new network with existing Tier 3 football content?
I would assume the answers to these questions will dictate the likely payout the SEC (and ACC for that matter) can negotiate with ESPN. If all SEC teams keep their own Tier 3 content, the same question I have with the ACC Network would go for SECN: why would ESPN pay either conference more for content they already own?
LikeLike
@Quacs – The terms of ESPN’s agreements with the SEC and ACC likely have provisions about what ESPN can actually do with its low tier 2/tier 3 content that it owns. In fact, there’s likely language that states that the parties CANNOT start networks, as much of the value of the current SEC contract (which was the largest for any conference at the time that it was signed) was explicitly to prevent another BTN-type network. So, if ESPN wants to start an SEC Network, it can’t just take the lower tier content that it owns without altering the terms of its deal with the SEC. It’s the same thing for the ACC. As a result, there could be an incentive for ESPN to pay more to the SEC and ACC for new conference networks with content that ESPN technically owns at this point because (1) ESPN might not be able to use that content for conference networks under the terms of its SEC/ACC deals and (2) there might be enough money to be made in such conference networks that it’s worth it to pay the SEC and ACC to alter their contract terms.
LikeLike
Frug:
Perhaps they were setting the BE bar low (did they over do that?). Now that the BE is worth far less does ESPN now have an even greater interest in the ACC?
LikeLike
The discussions I’ve seen indicate the school owned rights were being thrown in. It was taking time since they had to buy some of them out. Its not clear who owned the extra Missouri/A&M content. If the SEC, that is additional content. The plan is for a shared ownership, similar to the BTN. So both sides are throwing in additional content.
LikeLike
So that is what makes the SEC deal much different than the ACC. The SEC owns Tier III and is throwing it into the pot. The ACC has already sold theirs.
LikeLike
@Quacs –
1. Will the SEC have any ownership stake in the new network? If so, how much (or are we waiting to hear this from Slive/ESPN)?
IMHO – The most they will be a minority partner. I would be surprised if they end up with any ownership since their situation is very similar to the one Texas was in when they proposed the LHN. I don’t see the SEC using the PAC12 model.
2. Does the SEC share in the cost of getting the new network up and running?
I don’t think they will in any situation.
3. Will the SEC provide the new network with existing Tier 3 football content?
The SEC should turn over all available content to the SECN since the more content it has the more successful it will be. Unless there is a contract too prohibitive to buy out (say Florida’s with Sun Sports) expect the SECN to have first dibs on all tier three content.
LikeLike
@bullet – that makes sense. There’s no way ESPN would just give away their rights to the group they just bought them from. Both parties contribute content, both parties own a share, and both parties share in the profit. The SECN in this form makes a lot of sense.
It also means the SEC, with an ownership share in this new SECN, will likely fight tooth and nail to make sure it’s not yoked together with an ACCN when negotiating carriage fees in SEC territory, and would not share “established infrastructure” with ACC. Slive’s not about to give charity to ACC, especially at the expense of his fledgling network.
There’s no reason for ESPN to give away an ownership share in an ACC Network to any entity that doesn’t buy in. I suppose the ACC could contribute, but there would have to be a LOT more trust established among the ACC schools before they spend their own cash on a new network of schools rumored to be going elsewhere.
LikeLike
As bullet stated, the SEC owns its 3rd tier rights, which the ACC doesn’t. Also the SEC could potentially own the new content add by the additions of aTm & Mizzou (depending on how the language of the original ESPN contract, but I can’t imagine that ESPN would own content that was in existance back then). Now how they are able to use that content and any other leverage to gain ownership into the SECN remains to be seen. But with that said, I believe the SEC will get a certain percentage of the ownership.
The difference with the ACC is that they do not own any of their (outside of the few games added by ND). The ACC’s 3rd tier rights were farmed out by ESPN to Raycom (supposedly at the ACC’s request as part of the negotiations). They don’t have near the negotiating leverage that the SEC has. Plus I don’t see enough fan interest from the majority of the ACC schools for ESPN to even risk starting an ACCN (especially with the intial trouble they are having with the LHN), but who knows. The ACC hasn’t even talked to ESPN yet. I’d bet my bottom dollar that Slive will not go along with being tied to the ACCN and any type of coverage packaging.
LikeLike
The story (around last summer maybe?) was that ESPN and SEC have been going around buying back the tier 3 rights from local channels to start the SECN in fall 2014. I believe that date was cited because that’s when the ESPN sub-licenses to FSN and the other cable channel originally expired . This was in some articles that I’m sure were linked to here.
A month or so ago there was a few other articles that said an announcement would be made early this year (like around now, maybe). Some sports journalists interpreted that as saying the SECN would be up and running by next football season, though I haven’t seen anyone cite an insider that gave them that belief.
The announcement may just be that all the negotiations have been finalized (both between ESPN & the SEC as well as those 2 parties and all the stations that bought tier 3 rights) and the channel will indeed start in a year and a half.
LikeLike
@bamatab ~ if the tier 1 and tier 2 rights specify a certain number of conference games that the rights holder can pick, then expansion would indeed increase the number of games falling under tier 3 rights.
LikeLike
remember when a bunch of you were telling me that the SEC couldn’t set up an SEC Network, and I insisted that they could and would. yeah, those were the days.
LikeLike
They were saying, to the many who disagreed, they didn’t think they could. Your position (mine as well) had nothing to do with it, nor made it either a more or less viable proposition.
LikeLike
my position was based on the fact that when the SEC was recruiting Missouri for membership, a centerpiece of their sales pitch was the SEC network, and it was also used as the sales pitch to SEC members as to why expansion was a good idea. Considering that, it would be kind of strange if it didn’t happen. But many on here would hear nothing of it.
LikeLike
Andy:
Whether it was your position or Elmer Fudd’s is immaterial to the argument. Everything isn’t personal. I shared the belief an SECN was probable, almost anything is if it has considerable potential value. I didn’t/don’t feel belittled by disagreement. I personally wonder at all the conferences helping sponsor more new ESPN (or other) channels. P12N seems the best model to me. I could be right or terribly wrong. Either way my opinion has no bearing on the outcome.
LikeLike
The fact that it still hasn’t closed, even though Slive has been openly talking about it at least since summer, indicates how difficult it is. I didn’t think it would happen until the UGA and UF ADs or Presidents said they favored it. That indicated the economics worked well for the power teams, not just the Vanderbilts.
LikeLike
ccrider, it wouldn’t be personal at all except a got lot of crap on here over the years even though I’ve been proven right about 85% of the time, so I’m cashing in another I-told-you so. Sue me.
LikeLike
Andy:
You are the only one that can make it personal, or not, by how you take disagreement.
I’m right most of the time, too…in my mind.
Why would I sue? We were in agreement about the issue. Congrats on your “win”.
LikeLike
ok, so I’m dealing with a turbodork. No, I didn’t literally think you were going to sue me. It’s an expression. It means “yeah, so? what are you going to do about it”, or maybe more specifically “mind your own business, I’ll do what I want.”
I don’t follow you too closely, so I don’t know what conversations you were or weren’t part of. I’ll just say that there’s a not-short list of poster on here, some of whom post on here several times per day to this day, who used to give me a ton of crap on a regular basis, claiming I was wrong all the time when in fact I rarely was.
Some of them gave me a whole lot of crap about this particular item. So now that it’s proven that I was right all along you bet your ass I’m going ot say I told you so. And I’m going to enjoy it.
LikeLike
I’ll just leave you with this. My contention that the SECN would likely happen was born out, too. No need for anything else to be said. And I hope those who had a different opinion think no more or less of me than they did before (if they have an opinion of me at all). Bye
LikeLike
you and I are definitely coming from different places on this because we had different experiences on this forum related to this topic, and we will consequentially have different feelings about it. I don’t expect you to feel the way I do about it, and you shouldn’t expect me to feel the way you do.
LikeLike
No Andy you are changing the goalposts here a bit. You were contending 1) that the SEC could create an SEC network and 2) that the SEC could entirely reopen its existing television contracts merely by expanding. Both of which I’d still contend are incorrect.
What people told you then and what I’d tell you know is that the SEC is still under contract with CBS and ESPN. If ESPN feels it is more profitable for them to do a network they’ll do it. That said, with the SEC still being under contract for another 9 or so years ESPN has a tremendous amount of leverage in this situation. It isn’t the same as the Big Ten or Pac-12 choosing to start networks on the open market.
LikeLike
actually I never argued #2. You argued that #2 would be necessary for #1 to happen. I said that wasn’t the case. I did say that the contract would have to be altered to account for the new additions, which turned out to be true.
Not sure why you’re saying #1 isn’t happening. I guess you’re just stubborn.
There will be an SEC network and it will make the SEC an awful lot of money. Whatever technicalities you are clinging to are irrelevant.
LikeLike
All anyone ever said was that their wouldn’t be an SEC network if ESPN didn’t want there to be one. Their current contract gave ESPN the final say. I’d be interested if you could find ONE comment by anyone claiming that an SEC network was a non-starter or unfeasible.
LikeLike
@ GreatLakeState – There were several on here that stated basically that there was no way ESPN would allow a SECN to be established based on the view of the original contract being “overpriced” in order to keep an SECN from being established, like what Eric stated below (kudos to him for admitting it btw). But that was the view of quite a few on here back when the aTm move to the SEC was still a rumor.
LikeLike
@bamatab,
I think that was more in response to people saying Slive suddenly had carte blanche on everything (The SEC is starting their own network, the existing ESPN/CBS contracts are going to be torn up, etc) by adding two upper-middle Big XII teams despite the fact he is locked into decade plus contracts.
“ESPN would allow a SECN to be established based on the view of the original contract being “overpriced” in order to keep an SECN from being established,”
ESPN paid a premium to keep to keep the SEC from starting a network. That is a pretty well documented “fact.” It seems highly foolish that the SEC would have an automatic out of that by expanding. Those three sentences of course don’t mean an SEC network is impossible.
It just means anything here is going to have to go through ESPN and ultimately they’ll have the decision on whether or not something is a go or not. That also likely means ESPN has leverage to dictate terms like a significant equity stake in the network and or an extension of their existing SEC deal to get this done.
All I was saying before is, if the SEC is as undervalued as many think it is, ESPN might say screw a network, do what is minimally contractually obligated by adding A&M and Mizzou and keep the higher profit margins through 2024. If they want to book more revenue, the network is the obvious solution.
LikeLike
Do we know exactly how ESPN overplayed in order to prevent a SECN? Could they simply have agreed to purchase X number of games per year leaving behind only 12 tier 3 games (one for each conf member at the contract signing)? If that’s the case then all the aTm and MO home games more than double the unpurchased content. ESPN may need to renegotiate what they already purchased due to the increase in tier 1 and 2 content, unless they would prefer to leave all of aTm and MO’s games unclaimed.
LikeLike
I think the contract was certainly valued by ESPN at $X per game. However I don’t think any contract from a network’s perspective is going to leave future games unclaimed, especially when you are the 2nd and or 3rd tier rights holder. If you outbidded Fox for the ACC like ESPN did, are you going to leave a loophole that would allow potential future inventory to hit the open market? There is no way those games were “unclaimed.”
I’m sure the ESPN deal with the SEC has provisions on how expansion will be dealt with. The Conference-USA/ESPN contract that become public record as part of the lawsuit said ESPN had to negotiate in good faith over compensation for expansion. The SEC probably has a little more negotiating power than that, and it has been reported they have arbitration.
We’ll see what happens, but I still have a hard time seeing how adding two teams turns $17 million for 12 into $25 million for 14 without a contract extension (basically ushering in a new deal like the ACC did). That implies Missouri and A&M magically added $146 million a year in value to ESPN and CBS pre SEC network.
LikeLike
Some of us agreed with you, expansion added ‘inventory’ that ESPN, CBS didn’t own which allowed for these SECN games to have a home.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine,
I still contend that the added inventory was and is controlled by ESPN by default. In a primary and secondary rights situation like the SEC has, ESPN was paying for everything not covered by CBS minus the individual games retained by the schools for 3rd tier. The ESPN contract would’ve contained provisions saying any expansion games are ours, but we’ll compensate you for them.
LikeLike
I figured there wouldn’t be one simply because that was the reason for ESPN “overpaying” (values have gone up a lot since then) to prevent the SEC going that route. I’m still not sure what it will take for them to do it though.
LikeLike
“I’m still not sure what it will take for them to do it though.”
Slive can present a fairly compelling case to ESPN that the World Wide Leader could be making a lot more money on the syndicated inventory by putting it towards a dedicated SEC Network. ESPN still has a tremendous amount of leverage though as anything other than the 12 school controlled games, assorted basketball games, etc. belongs to them right now. If I were ESPN, I’d seek a majority stake in the network, and an extension on the syndicated inventory if not the entire SEC ESPN package.
LikeLike
This would be nice.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jan/11/unlv/
LikeLike
Sounds like they’re going for that Pac 12 invite.
LikeLike
Yes, if UNLV can up the ante a bit on academics, they’re in the most important market in the Pacific Time Zone that the Pac-12 doesn’t cover (if you grant that USC and UCLA already cover all of Southern California, including San Diego).
I’d love to see that type of stadium in Vegas, although it would seem that a top tier basketball arena that’s acceptable to the NBA may make more sense financially. I’m fairly convinced that the NBA would be more than willing to set up shop in Las Vegas with the right facility in place (and that would be a *great* fit for that town, whereas the NFL still has a wacky denial of the existence of gambling despite openly encouraging fantasy leagues and having injury report requirements that specifically are geared toward gamblers.
LikeLike
Yes, UNLV wants in, but they’re still essentially a commuter school that isn’t far from community college levels. I don’t see the Pac taking them any time soon.
Only if the Pac loses out on Texas to the SEC in the Battle of Texas a decade from now will will they consider UNLV (and UNM?)
LikeLike
Really can’t see UNLV or Boise making the ‘grade’ academically, neither are even close to the worst Pac 12 schools. Both would be good fits if not for the academics.
LikeLike
Neither draws enough fans. Boise averaged 33k and UNLV 20k over the last 4 years. Only WSU is below 40k.
LikeLike
Actually both would be poor fits were it not for the academics. Poor markets, small fanbases, lousy recruiting (especially Idaho)… basically there’s almost NOTHING positive for either program to slap on a Pac-12 application. Boise has recent (and really ONLY recent; prior to 2006 they were nothing special) football success, and UNLV has a halfway decent market.
And that’s without considering that the Pac-12 has unique issues that inherently make expansion difficult. The main one being LA access, as EVERYONE wants as many LA games as possible, and every new school you add means fewer LA games for someone, possibly everyone (depending how the next scheduling structure would work out).
The secondary issue is that the geographic distribution of the Pac-12 is kind of weird. Currently there are 6 relatively local pairs of 2 schools, that can also logically be grouped in 3 pods of 4 regional schools (Northwest, California, “Mountain/Desert” [or whatever you’d call AZ/CO/UT] ). That geographic distribution is part of why they division setup is the way it is (keeping all 3 pods together for annual games even in a 2 division setup).
That kind of structure really doesn’t work if you slap on 2 extra teams, really in almost any format. So you’d have to do something more complicated, more awkward, or both. It’s a pretty messy way to do it, even without dealing with the LA access issue (which continues to be a big deal). So unless there’s a slam-dunk addition, or the league REALLY wants to expand for expansion’s sake (which is a big part of the Utah addition, since 12 games + CCG was valuable for its own sake, but that’s really the only point where a 12th member adds value just for being a 12th member)… then it’s just not going to happen. Much less for a pair of schools who are actually BELOW the average in almost every way.
LikeLike
And then only if new rules written to accomodate the larger Big Ten and SEC make expansion for the sake of it worthwhile. Under the current rules, there is no absolutely no incentive to expand beyond 12 just for the sake of expansion.
LikeLike
Unless you can make a lot of money by doing it, which the Pac 12 could not without raiding the Big 12.
LikeLike
But expanding for the sake of more money per school is not “expansion for the sake of expansion”, its expansion in pursuit of money.
LikeLike
Las Vegas Invitation basketball tournament next thanksgiving. Anybody heard who’s in it? One of the mu coaches said Missouri will be in it next year. I’m wondering who we’ll play. Participants over the last three years have included North Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Wisconsin, Arkansas, South Carolina, USC, Arizona State, UNLV, Creighton. So presumably by rule none of those schools will be in it.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
If the conference doesn’t go east-west and they are going to rename the divisions, who thinks the original place holder might be ideal.
Division X and Division O
I always liked Great Lakes/Great Plains, but they’d probably throw that out with the 2 new east coast schools and it doesn’t sound like they’d use an individual names.
LikeLike
For 18 schools, I thought of Lakes and Rivers.
Actually, for 18 schools, they could split in to the “Western” and “Big Nine” divisions.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visuals/post/_/id/10989/graphic-football-recruiting-then-now
Where football recruits come from 1940-1970 vs. 1980-2010.
LikeLike
It’s just shocking the decline in states like Pennsylvania. New Jersey also didn’t fare so well. Mississippi surprised me a bit. I thought the poverty there would be a greater motivator for sports participation. No wonder schools like UT and UF jealously guard their turfs. Schools elsewhere don’t even bother cultivating in their home states and, instead, keep leeching off the 3 or so states that are churning up athletes. This has greatly affected realignment as well.
I look at a state like Virginia and I wonder when the B1G would finally make its move for a school there before either Swoffy pulls off a miracle or the SEC checkmates Delany by taking the more-coveted schools.
LikeLike
Mississippi is a low-population state. Their per capita numbers are as good as anyone’s (better than TX’s and definitely better than CA’s), but you’re just not going to produce massive numbes of football players if you only have a few million people.
LikeLike
Also, what you say is true of the schools on the West Coast and Great Plains (who depend heavily on talent from CA and TX, respectively, but the schools in the east are mostly in-state kids supplemented with talent from the 3 hot beds. For example, OSU under Tressel and Cooper was overwhelmingly OH kids with a few supplements from FL, TX, and elsewhere. Michigan under Carr and now under Hoke is/was overwhelmingly Midwestern kids with a few recruits from elsewhere. The weakest recruiting classes Michigan has had in recent times was, ironically, when RichRod deviated from that philosophy and ignored MI kids to chase recruits in Sun Belt states.
LikeLike
Transic,
The numbers are highly skewed by which teams happened to be in the top 20 in those particular years. OSU was in 3of the 4 for the early map, but only 2 of 4 for the later map, for example. Thus, OH dropped considerably.
LikeLike
Since I believe they’ll end up with two divisions of ten, I would name them BTE (Big Ten East) (Big Ten West). In the meantime, just East and West.
LikeLike
If the B1G grows to 19 or more the best division names are B10 and B9. Put everyone in the conference before 1960 in the B10 division with the rest in the B9 division. At that size with the current NCAA rules it would be 2 conferences joined by a CCG (and BTN) in football.
LikeLike
That’s essentially inner-outer, with Nebraska on a western island.
LikeLike
Then what’s the damn point?
LikeLike
The point is a vague notion of chasing cable TV money that may not, in fact, be there any more by the time that the end point is reached.
LikeLike
The notion is to chase the dollars live sports attract (and it’s not vague). Cable, broadcast, Internet, future yet to be imagined delivery system, whatever, are simply the conduit. The value is in the product, the delivery system is like asking whether you accept cash, Visa, MasterCard, etc.
LikeLike
But the economics may change. You may not have the fixed .70/cable subscriber in your territory.
LikeLike
So, we should be concerned about a theoretically possibility, that so far there is only evidence to the contrary?
LikeLike
@ccrider
So, we should be concerned about a theoretically possibility, that so far there is only evidence to the contrary?
That’s what they said about the housing market circa 2006.
LikeLike
Frug:
I understand that. Many things go through boom and bust cycles. Has the market for live sports ever done anything but rise? Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but no busts so far.
LikeLike
@ccrider ~ dramatic change in the relative value to advertisers of sports programming is not a mere theoretic possibility. It has happened over this past decade.
And what went up due to growth in advertising market share (1) cannot continue to increase at the same rate due to indefinite growth in advertising market share, since shares cannot grow indefinitely, (2) can go down again for a reversal of reasons that they went up and (3) simply to be maintained over the next decade as cable market penetration begins to decline will not only require innovation to monetize new means of media distribution, but require that to offer similar advantage to sports programming as cable advertising does in the era of DVR’s.
The current income levels are not necessarily a bubble, but they certainly could prove to be one.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
“…but require that to offer similar advantage to sports programming as cable advertising does…”
You have that backwards. By its nature live sports programming IS the advantage available to what ever broadcast medium is used, and their advertisers. Will there be highs and lows? Yes. But lows will be slower increases, not busts. At least until prerecording of future competition arrives 🙂
LikeLike
Getting people to watch the advertising because they are watching live and there is nothing to fast forward through is the advantage offered by sports programming, and helping to drive its advertising market share up as, eg, movies lose the ability to do that as people fast forward through the ads.
Since its not sports gaining that which has increase sports ad market share, its other things losing it, then if other potential ad supported options regain that, then live sports is going to lose ad market share.
LikeLike
Totally agree. But I see nothing (except presidential election returns) that either can or will be produced live, diluting or replacing live sports broadcasts. Point shaving and/or game fixing scandals are the only threat to live sports broadcasts. That would put in question whether we are watching a recreation of a prescribed outcome or an actual competitive event.
LikeLike
Why is the SEC so sure that their TV network will make money ?When I was in Florida every possible SEC and local college game was already on TV. Besides that they are all only small SMSA’s .They also have one other problem, their basicly only one sport .What do they fill air time with that people will want to watch ?
LikeLike
SEC local demand is higher than even B1G local demand. They’ll make money.
They can fill air time with talking heads talking about how awesome the SEC is. Also, they have a crapload of baseball they can air.
LikeLike
Greg & Toda – just last season, SEC teams won national championships in football, men’s basketball, men’s and women’s outdoor track & field, men’s indoor track & field, and women’s tennis, softball, gymnastics and golf.
While football dwarfs all other sports, as it does almost everywhere, basketball, baseball, softball and gymnastics are all very popular.
LikeLike
The SEC’s network will make money but probably not as much as the BIG’s simply because of enrollment. Alumni will watch non-revenue sports. Non-alumni which is what makes SEC football so powerful, couldn’t care less about track, golf, or volleyball. Baseball might bring in some eyeballs and thus some ad revenue, but not to the extent of the BIG. IMO, the SEC network will get better carrier fees but make less than the BIG because of smaller population and smaller alumni means smaller advertising dollars.
LikeLike
If there are football games on the SECN, then it won’t matter a whole heck of a lot how many non-alumni watch the other sports when it comes to cable/satellite companys providing the network on basic and lower tier packages. If there is a chance that Bama fans will miss one game, they will flood their local cable/satellite providers and force them to provide the network (this is true form a lot of the other SEC schools as well). The other sports will just be filler material for the offseason. The SECN can show “classic” football games, and sprinkle in some talk shows with talking heads talking football/recruiting during the offseason and most non-alumni will watch that as well. Plus you would be surprised at how many non-alumni will watch the other sports if there isn’t anything else on. A bunch of non-alumni Bama fans watched the girls softball team when they were in the World Series playoff last year. If the SECN puts the right mixture of offseason programming, advertisers will be more than willing to pay for ad spots.
LikeLike
And for advertisers buying buying off-season spots on a cost per thousand impressions (CPM) basis, more critical than the total numbers is the demographics of the viewers.
LikeLike
There was an article on college baseball the other day that said SEC baseball on ESPNU gets ratings that rival basketball on the same network.
That’s not a completely fair comparison, as the ESPNU broadcasts are really the only national college baseball broadcasts, while the big basketball games are everywhere but ESPNU. But it’s definitely a growing sport that will benefit from the heavy attention it will get in spring from an SECN.
LikeLike
The real question is how much more the power schools will make under this scenario than they were already. Vanderbilt and Missouri and Texas A&M, who weren’t making much under Tier III will make significantly more. How much more Georgia, Florida, LSU, Kentucky and Alabama make is the question. They were already monetizing their Tier III.
LikeLike
The SECN will be worth a lot more than the local tier 3 agreements because away games are worth more than home games for TV purposes.
When Kentucky hosts Georgia in basketball, there are 23,000 Kentucky fans not watching the game on TV because they’re at the arena. When Georgia is hosting Kentucky, many of those fans will be at home, boosting the ratings as they watch on TV.*
In addition, there are a lot of SEC fans who will be happy to check out their rivals playing in football, basketball, baseball, etc. For a college sports fan, there will be a lot more quality games on than there are on any of the regional sports networks in the area.
* This is one thing I’ve wondered about the LHN strategy. They shouldn’t be trying to purchase the football game Kansas @ Austin to build up demand in Texas; they should be trying to get the game when the Longhorns travel to Kansas. There are about 90,000 less Longhorn fans who will attend that game and they will put more pressure to pick the network up if it’s not on TV. Of course, televising those games requires more cost for the LHN (although they’re just renting equipment from ESPN), but the telecasts are worth more money in Texas.
LikeLike
Kansas should help the LHN with home games? Wasn’t the specter of such a contributing factor to aTm leaving?
LikeLike
They had to give permission for their away game at Austin to be televised on the LHN (for some compensation, I believe). So they’d likely do the same with their home games.
LikeLike
…ceding conference network status to the LHN…
On the other hand this shows the limitation of single school media endeavors and the strength/flexibility of group efforts. If this succeeds is it refutation of the LHN model?
LikeLike
From ESPN’s Mark Schlabach’s 10 bold predictions for 2013.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8845770/ten-bold-predictions-2013-college-football
“4. The Big Ten will rename its divisions.
The Big Ten will ditch Legends and Leaders as its division names before Maryland and Rutgers join the conference in 2014. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN’s Brett McMurphy that a decision could be made as early as June.
It’s unclear where the Scarlet Knights and Terrapins will fit in the Big Ten’s new landscape. Based on geography, the following teams could be placed in the East: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois. The following teams could be placed in the West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern. But geography figures to be tossed out the window when the Big Ten announces its divisional realignment sometime this spring, so look for bitter rivals Michigan and Ohio State to end up in the same division to preserve their longtime series.
Sadly, Delany and the Big Ten’s athletic directors and presidents will pass on the most appropriate division names available: Rose Bowl Loser and Capital One Bowl Loser.”
.
LikeLike
If we all agree that 14 is an awkward number (and I think we do), I posted this on a message board as to the reasons stopping at 16 doesn’t make a whole lot of long term sense for the B1G.
Also, this is mentioned below, but there are assertions being thrown around that NW/Illinois cannot be split. I think they will be split because in a “pod” setup it gives guaranteed Chicagoland exposure to every school AT WORST 4 out of every 6 years (if done properly).
Now to my rationale behind why 16 doesn’t make a whole lot of sense:
1. Stopping at 16 won’t accomplish the B1G’s long term goals. In 2010, Delany was quoted as saying the following in USA Today:
“The shifting population is by itself reason enough to look at the concept of expansion, We’ve been blessed in many ways by the economy and density of the population in the 20th century, In the last 20 years there has been a clear shift of movement into the Sun Belt. The rates of growth in the Sun Belt are four times the rate in the East or the Midwest. That has demographic meaning long term for the economy, for jobs, for recruitment of students, for recruitment of athletes, for recruitment of faculty, for tax base.”
This quote tells you that the presidents are aware that, long term, the population shift south needs to be addressed. The northern states (other than MI) probably aren’t going to start shrinking, but they could very well eventually be outgrown by some of the southern states who are seeing their populations explode (relative to the conventional midwest region).
Note that Delany specifically mentions recruitment of students and athletes in this quote – sports are a way of marketing your school to prospective students as well as student athletes. B1G schools getting exposure in growing regions of the country is a big deal both athletically & academically.
When I say “getting exposure” I’m talking about an entire region. Stopping at 16 means your “southern exposure” is probably limited to one or two states (maybe North Carolina/Virginia or Virginia/Georgia), but either way, your exposure isn’t the “Southeast region” of the country, it is a mere two states (this presents more than one issue that will be discussed in another point). If a long term goal of the B1G is to get strong exposure for all of its schools in the east and south, stopping at 16 isn’t the ideal solution, going to 20 is. If the B1G expands to 20, all of UNC, UVA, GT, FSU are in play – the B1G has then added 4 states to its footprint and can claim an entire region in its footprint rather than only having a fraction of it. There are a lot of great students & athletes in the East & South, the more exposure in those states, the better.
2. Learning From Your Past Mistakes. Penn State was admitted to the B1G in 1990. They have now been in the league for 20+ years and entire generation of their fan base still feels out of place – why is that? It is because they were a single addition on the fringe of the conference.
If you are going to a number as large as 16 (or 20 for that matter), you have to make damn sure everyone feels at home, which means familiarity with opponents is critical. If schools don’t feel comfortable where they are at, future defections are certainly a possibility. Stopping at 16 means that UVA/GT/UNC/Etc. are going to feel out of place because they are going to be forced into an odd division/pod structure & will have a schedule full of opponents they do not have any familiarity with.
Going to 20 significantly reduces that concern. Say the B1G goes to 20, grabbing all of UNC/UVA/GT/FSU. The B1G SE Pod would be Maryland/UVA/UNC/GT/FSU – all schools who already have a familiarity with one another. They would move to the B1G, but nearly half of their football schedule would essentially remain the same, and the other half would be a huge upgrade over what they currently have, which would make their assimilation into the conference MUCH easier from a cultural/rivalries standpoint.
3. Product Quality Will Suffer at 16. There is no realistic way the B1G could add two final members and improve its overall football quality for the present and remain contiguous. Sure Rutgers/Maryland may eventually develop into strong football schools, but they are just that – development projects. They were added for potential, but will hurt the B1G’s football brand in the short term. If you want to improve the brand, and gain additional market share in the south & east, you need a football king for each of those areas – that is where ND & FSU come in. They give the B1G real ratings value today in order to lift up the football product.
4. Maintaining B1G Rivalries. I’m not great at math, but I know the original B1G had 10 members. When going to a large number like 16 or 20, a “Pod” structure (similar to the NFL) is critical in ensuring all schools play each other with some form of regularity (2 times every six years is as good as it will get in conferences this large). The “Pod” structure is kind of a nightmare to assemble at 16 because that only allows you groupings of four, which makes rivalries more difficult to maintain. The main problem comes when trying to keep Illinois/NW & Indiana/Purdue together – the reason that is difficult is because there isn’t a traditional “king” amongst the four, so when assembling pods with competitive balance in mind, those four create a nightmare.
However, when you move to pods of 5, one of those two rivalries can be maintained (or both if you throw out geography for Nebraska). If you want to know what I think will happen, this will be the final B1G in 10 years:
Great Plains Division
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Northeastern Division
Penn State
Notre Dame
Boston College
Rutgers
Northwestern (Yes, Northwestern in the NE division, laugh it up, but I’ll explain it)
Southeastern Division
Florida State
North Carolina
Virginia
Maryland
Georgia Tech
No matter what you do at 16, multiple B1G rivalries get screwed up, and while a couple of them do in the above format, most of the key ones are maintained in division – which is important for preserving the integrity of the regular season IMO. Having the rivalries maintained in division also eliminates the need for “locked” cross divisional games.
In addition to maintaining most key B1G rivalries, the above setup also maintains long term competitive balance & makes (almost) perfect geographical sense. The almost is, of course, referring to NW in the NE pod w/ ND. My reason for putting them there is that, from a marketing standpoint, it is where they would fit best. It connects NYC-CHI in the Rutgers/NU game, and it is Domer bait – giving ND guaranteed exposure in Chicago, NYC, & Boston every season would make joining the B1G an ideal situation for them. Further, separating NW/Illinois allows every B1G school to play a Chicagoland school 4 times out of every 6 years – something that would be agreeable for everyone except NW/Illinois, who I’m sure would prefer to remain together. If the B1G threw out geography & competitive balance, they could force Nebraska out east & put NW in their place, which would mean two of the four divisions would perfectly represent the B10’s core (I’m including you MSU, even though you don’t deserve to be ) ten members.
Further, going to 20 makes scheduling a breeze – 9 conference games, a 2 year rotating sister pods, the school with the best record between the 2 pods goes to the CCG. Everyone plays everyone else in their rotating “sister division”, thus the CCG is always a mega-ratings-non-rematch game.
Also, with the one exception of Boston College, the entire conference proposed above is contiguous (and in all reality, BC is contiguous in what really matters in all of this – DMA ).
LikeLike
“If we all agree that 14 is an awkward number (and I think we do)”
14 is slightly awkward. But every number greater than 14 is way worse.
LikeLike
In my above proposal, the longest you could ever go without playing a conference opponent is 4 years….and actually, it could be as little as two years if pods rotated every season. A home and home would be completed once every six years for cross pod opponents.
Currently, Iowa hasn’t played Illinois since 2008 (and won’t play Illinois until 2015 – 7 years without playing a school from a bordering state) and has missed Wisconsin for two straight years….that is unacceptable, but things like that will continue to happen in a 2 division format – a pod format ensures it doesn’t happen that way.
LikeLike
You can make crappy pods with 14 just as easily, if not easier, than 20.
The seven year layoff is due to crappy scheduling by the Big Ten office, not just divisions. They can screw up 20 even worse.
LikeLike
As Greg says, you can do pods with 14 and play everyone twice in 4 years with only an 8 game schedule.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I’m agreeing with Greg that 14 may be slightly awkward but everything bigger is worse.
LikeLike
How the heck do you do “pods” w/ 14? You aren’t doing pods of two, which means you are doing two divisions of seven schools each. With my system you would be playing each other nearly as frequently at 20 as you would be in a two divisional format at 14, but at 20 you get all the benefits of geographical “pods”, competitive balance, & expanded exposure that you don’t have at 14. I can’t see a single argument as to why 14 is superior to 20. Money would be better at 20 as well if the B1G followed the above expansion plan.
One thing I hate about divisions is that you end up with a rematch/uncompetitive CCG at least some of the time – going to 20 would eliminate one of those issues, and dramatically reduce the other.
I would have preferred the B1G stay at 10 and play a round robin schedule, but that isn’t going to happen. Twenty is better than 14 in every possible way. If you don’t agree with that, you haven’t thought about this enough.
LikeLike
“How the heck do you do “pods” w/ 14?”
Two pods of three, two pods of four. Makes as much sense as four pods of five.
A conference of 14 plays each other more often than 20, despite posters torturing the numbers to pretend its “nearly as frequently”.
“If you don’t agree with that, you haven’t thought about this enough.”
Ha.
LikeLike
“Twenty is better than 14 in every possible way. If you don’t agree with that, you haven’t thought about this enough.”
But this is coming from someone who hadn’t thought about it or read different views of it sufficiently to be aware of how pods work with 14, so is not doing an apples to apples and oranges to oranges comparison.
LikeLike
BigTenFan,
“How the heck do you do “pods” w/ 14?”
2 pods of 3, 2 pods of 4, rotate one of the sets of pods every 2 years. The other set stay fixed.
“With my system you would be playing each other nearly as frequently at 20 as you would be in a two divisional format at 14,”
20 assumes 9 games, so we’ll apply that to both:
20:
4 – 100%
15 – 33%
14 (pods):
3 – 100%
10 – 50%
or
5 – 100%
8 – 50%
14 (divisions):
6 – 100%
7 – 43%
or
7 – 100% (locked rival)
6 – 33%
20 is not nearly as frequently as 14.
“I can’t see a single argument as to why 14 is superior to 20.”
Either you’re blind or you haven’t tried. The trivial answer is because a current member can play the other current members more often rather than having a bunch of OOC games count for the B10 title.
LikeLike
How many times must people be told that Boston College offers next to no value for the Big Ten? It’s not AAU, it’s a small private institution, and it’s in a market that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in college sports, with the possible exception of hockey. Using a pro sports template for college sports in Boston is folly. BC’s near-decade in the ACC has yielded little, if any, benefit to the conference.
Assuming FSU either gains AAU status or successfully curries favor with Big Ten presidents, you still have the ND white whale to harpoon. Good luck with that. And was Duke left out solely because it couldn’t fit into your ACC five?
UVa, UNC, Duke and Georgia Tech would make 18. Finding a sensible, realistic #19 and #20 is the problem.
LikeLike
BC + ND delivers the BTN to Boston on basic cable….that’s enough of a reason to add them alone. I have no problem with the B1G grabbing Duke instead of BC, but if you’re going to get ND, making them comfortable is important. And if you get the likes of ND, PSU, UM, OSU, UNL, & FSU regularly visiting Boston, I’m sure the interest in college football would increase exponentially. BC wouldn’t be a whole lot worse of an addition athletically than Maryland or Rutgers, but you’re looking at it from an academic standpoint, and I agree that the fact that they are not AAU is a problem, but Nebraska isn’t AAU anymore either, and the presidents had to know that they were on the edge of getting that status revoked when they were added.
RE; ND I would agree with you under the current paradigm that ND would never join the B1G, however, paradigms change and never is a word you shouldn’t use.
The “Super 64” are going to breakaway from the NCAA at some point, and when that happens, ND is going to be told to get in one of the major conferences or get left behind playing a schedule full of the Toledo’s & Navy’s of the world – the big boys won’t be able to grant sweetheart status to ND anymore because it will be a legal liability for them to maintain it (they’ll say “If ND gets this exception, so should we”).
ND & FSU aren’t just sensible at #19 & #20, they’re damn near perfect athletically…they completely validate every move that has been made up until that point, and I think they’re a lot more realistic than most are giving them credit for at the moment.
LikeLike
@BigTenGuy: “The “Super 64″ are going to breakaway from the NCAA at some point, and when that happens, ND is going to be told to get in one of the major conferences or get left behind playing a schedule full of the Toledo’s & Navy’s of the world – the big boys won’t be able to grant sweetheart status to ND anymore because it will be a legal liability for them to maintain it (they’ll say “If ND gets this exception, so should we”).”
This comment embeds multiple layers of confusion. It is simply untrue.
The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization with around 300 schools. Many in the “Super 64” feel that small schools have too much influence over the rules. It’s like the U.N. General Assembly, where the Ivory Coast gets the same vote as the United States.
All the Super 64 would do is replace the NCAA with another voluntary membership organization oriented towards big schools. It would not change Notre Dame’s legal status (vis a vis independence) whatsoever.
For years, I’ve been reading comments (mostly from fans ignorant of the circumstances) that the conferences would “force” Notre Dame to relinquish independence. It has never had a shred of truth. In the negotiations that led to the new 4-team playoff and bowl structure after the 2014 season, the major conferences treated Notre Dame as an equal, just as they have always done.
The fact is, the members of those conferences like playing Notre Dame. If the Irish joined the ACC full-time, it would no longer be able to schedule Purdue, BYU, USC, Stanford, Michigan State, Navy, et al, on a regular basis. Those schools want ND on their schedule. Thy are not going to join any kind of cabal to force the Irish into a conference.
I’m not saying there couldn’t be a scenario where the Irish would eventually become full members of a conference. But they’re not going to be bullied into doing so. If the ACC were no longer viable, the Big XII would probably offer them a similar deal to what they have now, and the Irish would probably take it.
LikeLike
That is an important point ~ Notre Dame has multiple spokespeople within two conferences who will be top tier no matter what happens, talking up in favor of maintaining their independence. And no serious OPPONENTS of their maintaining their independence in those conferences.
No majority of big schools has any benefit from “forcing” Notre Dame into A DIFFERENT conference. So long as Notre Dame draws an audience, there is no incentive in locking them out of a “Big Boys Athletic Association” and gifting that audience to the mid-majors.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF
You are half right. Right now ND’s biggest (and really only) leverage is pitting the conferences against each other, but a breakaway could radically alter the equation. If a breakaway results in a Larry Scott style scenario where all the conferences unify for contractual purposes (a true “super conference”), then it would absolutely be in everyone’s interest to force ND to join them since the conferences would no longer be competing against each other.
Even if that didn’t come to pass, it is unlikely ND could remain an indy in the new system since they wouldn’t be able to find a home for their non-FB sports (the ACC is won’t survive the consolidation that would precede a breakaway and the Big XII (assuming it isn’t forced to merge with the PAC) wouldn’t take them either since the “lesser” schools aren’t going to set a precedent for Texas to do the same).
There are other possibilities where a breakaway could enable them to keep their independence (in certain versions of an FB only split, though that seems unlikely since the major schools could make a small fortune if they operated their own MBB tournament), but I see that as unlikely.
I stand by my previous prediction that ND will be in a FB conference within a decade.
LikeLike
I’m reasonably familiar with projections failing due to failing to account for are turning points. When I look at the economic underpinnings for the push toward bigger college football conferences, I’m not so convinced that the inevitability of the Super-64 vision, if it doesn’t come to pass within the next five years or so.
Further, given that the formation of an alternative athletic association and the migration of the existing conferences into that association is just as plausible a way to realize that vision, I do not see outcomes that rely on the specific details about how that Super-64 vision is realized as being anything like inevitable.
LikeLike
My error: the NCAA has almost 1,300 members, not 300.
LikeLike
BigTenFan,
“BC + ND delivers the BTN to Boston on basic cable”
1. I doubt it.
2. ND + nobody does just as much in Boston as ND + BC
LikeLike
Its BU that is the AAU member, not BC, and ND+BU would deliver the same Boston audience as ND+BC ~ also delivering the same Boston cable draw as ND+BC is ND+UVA, ND+Duke, and ND+GTech, with UVA, Duke and GTech also being an AAU members.
LikeLike
1. ND isn’t joining a conference within a decade.
2. No one is going to be able to “force” ND in to a conference. Even if the top 60+ schools “breakaway” (actually, they’re more likely to form another layer of the NCAA and keep the money for themselves), ND will be part of the “in” crowd. If the ACC disintegrates, the B12 will be happy to provide them the same arrangement the ACC did. If/when the B12 is split up by the Pac and SEC a decade from now, ND may consider joining the B10 at that point, but not if the Pac is willing to provide the Domers with the arrangement that the ACC (and BE) have provided. Even then, ND may choose the Pac over the Big10/18/20 if the Pac adds Texas.
LikeLike
I hate to harp on the same point again and again but no one who pushes this line of reasoning will answer this simple question; Why would the Big XII give ND the same deal the ACC did?
How in world is a $1 million a year in conference distributions and a couple home games a decade against the Irish worth setting a precedent for Texas to do the same? Do you really think it is a coincidence that the only sources for ND to the Big XII rumors are from Texas administrators and mouthpieces like Chip Brown? I just honestly can not imagine a scenario where the risk outweighs the reward for the “lower” schools (i.e. everyone but Texas and Oklahoma).
(And the PAC idea is absolutely ludicrous. Not only would it be a logistical impossibility but the PAC is even more hardline on their no religious schools requirement than the Big 10 is on their AAU requirement)
LikeLike
Frug:
You’re right about the Pac. ND may very well join the B10 when the B12 is split up by the SEC and Pac a decade from now.
As for the B12 question, ask the ACC. Why did they give that deal to ND? It didn’t exactly strengthen them, did it?
LikeLike
As for the B12 question, ask the ACC. Why did they give that deal to ND? It didn’t exactly strengthen them, did it?
So you’re assuming that the Big XII would just make the exact same mistake?
LikeLike
Desperation causes bad decisions.
Maybe not now, but when the end of the GOR is within sight.
LikeLike
Well ND will only join the Big XII if the ACC collapses, but if the ACC collapses then the Big XII shouldn’t be desperate since they would be in a position to add a bunch of valuable pieces as full members.
LikeLike
@BigTenFan – I like how you think. We’re in the minority on this but that’s OK. From where I’m standing, the B1G needs to be an alternative to the dominance of the SEC/Big 12 alliance. We have a golden opportunity where several schools south of the Mason-Dixon have the chance to get out of the shadows of the SEC and, at the same time, maintain their academic and athletic standards. If Delany can somehow corral four AAU schools in the region he will stand as one of the best commissioners in college athletics history. That’s how critical it is.
Where I must disagree with you on is the idea of ND and BC. The B1G is better off isolating those two to another conference where they can be better watched than risk being embarrassed when they (ND) say “No!” for the 502,003th time. At this point, it’s time to move and end this quest (if they haven’t already).
FSU is the golden opportunity that is waiting for the right offer. Eric Barron is an academics-first president. Here you have a school that is working hard to raise its standards, while being located in a recruiting hotbed, having problems keeping up financially with its immediate competitors, in an area that is fanatical about football. Do you think that’s a school the conference should go after?
Assuming the 4 AAU’s are in, who should FSU be paired with? Well, they didn’t like UConn in the ACC and they picked Louisville, instead. So UConn is out. Miami is in the same state and, while they might double up in one state to get two national brands, I don’t think the B1G would double up for a private school with questions about its future viability. So they’re out. That leaves one more school that’s close by and is a current rival and is fanatical about football. That’s Clemson. Why Clemson? Look at a map. Start off at Atlanta. Draw a line straight from there all the way to Charlotte. You might hit the town of Greenville and the Midlands area of South Carolina. Within that area live millions of people, many of them college football fans. They’re not all Clemson fans but a good number of them are, especially around Charlotte. The B1G hits the Deep South hard by taking Clemson as #20. Being a #2 in a small state should not matter, as the area is growing faster in pop. than in the Midwestern states. Academics are an issue, yes, but the demographic reality, I think, trumps that. Clemson is compatible with GT in that the old B10 schools can make one trip into the area a season. Combine that with FSU and that’s a dynamo combo waiting to happen.
PSU
RU
UMd
Duke
Indiana
FSU
GT
Clemson
UVa
UNC
MSU
UM
OSU
Purdue
Ill
NW
Wis
Minn
Iowa
Neb
Protected: Duke/UNC; Ind/Pur; NW/ILL; PSU/FSU; OSU/UMd; UM/RU; Wis/MSU; Neb/Clemson; Minn/UVa; Iowa/GT
LikeLike
The B10 _may_ admit a legit king in football in a giant growing state that is within shouting distance of AAU membership (and even that looks doubtful).
The B10 most definitely will not admit a non-king in football in a small state which contributes nothing in basketball and is no where close to AAU status.
LikeLike
OK, how would Syracuse work for you?
PSU
RU
UMd
Purdue
Indiana
FSU
GT
Duke
UVa
UNC
MSU
UM
OSU
Syracuse
NW
Ill
Wis
Minn
Iowa
Neb
Protected: Duke/Ind; RU/UNC; NW/Ill; PSU/Syr; UVa/UMd; FSU/Neb; Wis/MSU; Iowa/OSU; Minn/UM; Pur/GT
LikeLike
SU isn’t AAU, isn’t in a growing part of the country, doesn’t have a big alumni base, and isn’t a king in football.
As going to 20 would entail breaking up a bunch of big games/rivalries while you can play all rivalries 4 times in 6 years (and the major ones annually) with 18 schools, I can’t support going to 20 unless #19 & #20 are 2 of UGa, UF, Texas, FSU, or ND. I don’t think the COPC would entertain the thought of 20 either unless it’s 2 of those schools at #19 & #20 (with the assumption that FSU is closer to AAU status in a decade if they’re chosen).
LikeLike
BigTenFan,
“If we all agree that 14 is an awkward number (and I think we do),”
We don’t. It’s worse than 12, but not awkward. Odd numbers are awkward. 14 and above are unwieldy, which is different. 16 is worse than 14. 18 is the start of 2 separate conferences with a joint CCG.
“1. Stopping at 16 won’t accomplish the B1G’s long term goals.
… There are a lot of great students & athletes in the East & South, the more exposure in those states, the better.”
That logic leads to 1 conference of 70 teams. You’re forgetting the constraint of actually being a conference and not an entire division of the NCAA.
“2. Learning From Your Past Mistakes. Penn State was admitted to the B1G in 1990. They have now been in the league for 20+ years and entire generation of their fan base still feels out of place – why is that? It is because they were a single addition on the fringe of the conference.”
Yes and no.
1. New additions are almost always on the fringe of the old conference.
2. The B10 did a much smoother job integrating NE which had the same geographic issue.
3. PSU was an independent. That was their biggest problem in integrating into the conference. They weren’t used to what it means to be in a conference and have to make joint decisions for the common good.
“If you are going to a number as large as 16 (or 20 for that matter), you have to make damn sure everyone feels at home, which means familiarity with opponents is critical.”
Adding 6 schools may make the newbies more familiar with each other, but it doesn’t help their familiarity with the old members since they’ll play less often. It also hurts the old members as they don’t recognize half of their schedule anymore. Yay, now 20 fan bases are mad.
“3. Product Quality Will Suffer at 16. There is no realistic way the B1G could add two final members and improve its overall football quality for the present and remain contiguous.”
18 wouldn’t help either. Even 20 is unlikely to make a net gain.
“4. Maintaining B1G Rivalries. I’m not great at math, but I know the original B1G had 10 members. When going to a large number like 16 or 20, a “Pod” structure (similar to the NFL) is critical in ensuring all schools play each other with some form of regularity (2 times every six years is as good as it will get in conferences this large).”
So you admit you can’t maintain the rivalries with your plan. Good.
“The “Pod” structure is kind of a nightmare to assemble at 16”
No, it isn’t. We’ve done it many times on here.
“If you want to know what I think will happen, this will be the final B1G in 10 years:
…
Notre Dame
Boston College
…
Florida State”
No, no and no. Unless the COP/C changes their academic stance, FSU is a no go unless they reach AAU status. I don’t see that happening in 10 years. BC is private, catholic and non-AAU like ND, but lacks the cache of ND. The COP/C won’t make an exception for them. And ND will not join any conference as long as they have playoff access as an independent.
LikeLike
As probably the first person on this board to propose a Big20, I figure that I’d chime in:
Yes, rivalries/big games would have to be destroyed with a Big20 (if only 12 regular season games are allowed). Specifically, the Little Brown Jug game and OSU-PSU. Also Illinois-NU or IU-PU have to played OOC some times if maintained. Also, you destroyed PU-ND. The Boilers will not vote to admit ND if they have to lose their game with ND. This means that to go to 20, both #19 & #20 would have to be powerhouses & top brands. Specifically, 2 of ND, FSU, UF, UGa, or Texas (and ND isn’t giving up independence within a decade, FSU isn’t gaining AAU status within a decade, UF & UGa aren’t going anywhere unless the SEC somehow implodes, and Texas won’t consider the B10 unless the Pac falls in to the ocean).
Why such a high barrier for 20? Because with 18, you can still play all rivalries 4 out of 6 years (and all the major rivalries/big games annually). The scheduling would be convoluted, but doable. With 20, you can not.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/01/15/coach-k-says-maryland-will-be-outsiders-in-the-big-ten/
Coach K disses Maryland’s move
LikeLike
When Duke is in the Big Ten some years from now, someone please hand him a printout of this column.
LikeLike
The more interesting stuff (re: Coach K’s comments on realignment in the WaPo) is the comments in that article. It seems that the Maryland fans, just based on who is commenting, are coming around to the Big Ten. It’s not farfetched to imagine that we could see similar turnarounds in the schools that might be added in the future.
LikeLike
I think division names that included ‘Atlantic’ might help appease reluctant ACC-to-B1G fans.
1. Great Lakes – Atlantic
2. Midwest – Atlantic
3. BTW(est) – BTA(tlantic)
LikeLike
this is a really good (short) article that extensively quotes Coach K. really interesting consistent with a lot of things we’ve discussed/followed along with here on this blog.
Some choice lines:
Coach K: “Every conference is kind of like it’s own country, and you’re trying to annex these different areas, and there’s nobody looking at all of the countries together,” he continued.”
My take: yep, he’s been reading FtT. Delany and Slive are playing Risk. Game of Expansion = Game of Thrones.
more Coach K: “A lot of these decisions are based on college presidents, chancellors and athletic directors who do not have a depth of understanding of the tradition of the institutions that they are leading, the athletic programs of the institutions that they are leading. …. you get people who make these decisions who will be in those positions for a few more years, and then they go. They may not stay at that school. They’re gonna go maybe to a school that they’ve been to before, or retire, or whatever. They don’t have to live with that decision.
“It’s like throwing a rock into a pond,” Coach K said. “There’s this big splash. They make a big splash, like we’re gonna make all this money, and then there’s all these ripples. And what are those ripples? Well, I don’t care about the ripples. They’re not even thinking about the ripples. They’re thinking about making that big splash. I wonder if some of this is egotism.”
My take: seriously, YES. do any of us really think Maryland would have jumped to the B1G if Maryland’s president were a rabid Terrapin? This fact makes me a bit concerned that tOSU’s AD is not a died-in-the-wool Buckeye and Gordon Gee has jumped from place to place. Poor Michigan with Mary Sue Coleman, the Hirer of Ferentz and RichRod.
more Coach K: “For us, we have a good brand at Duke University, but we also have a good brand because we’ve been in the ACC. We benefit from that brand. And people who have gone to school here, played sports here, they are not only Duke people; they’re ACC people.”
My take: the idea that the CONFERENCE is/has a brand is something we here on FtT have not adequately discussed. SEC fans are very dedicated to their conference brand; rabidly it seems. That factor may be unique to the SEC. For sure, allegiance to the conference brand is less so for other conferences and a lot less so for Presidents and Chancellors. And even less for schools that have recently (in past 20 years) changed conferences (e.g., PSU) or where conferences have been somewhat predatory (e.g., ACC raiding the Big East).
more Coach K: “Intercollegiate sports is really something that only the United States has. No other country has that. And our thing is based on all the right values: loyalty, honesty, tradition.”
My take: I would never had thought Coach K was such a “get-off-my-lawn” starry-eyed sentimental traditionalist. He thinks conference expansion is a danger to “… the innocence that an academic institution has.” I agree with many of his points, but “innocence” is not the word I would apply to big time universities.
Anyway, it’s a good thought-provoking read.
LikeLike
“My take: the idea that the CONFERENCE is/has a brand is something we here on FtT have not adequately discussed. SEC fans are very dedicated to their conference brand; rabidly it seems. That factor may be unique to the SEC. For sure, allegiance to the conference brand is less so for other conferences and a lot less so for Presidents and Chancellors. And even less for schools that have recently (in past 20 years) changed conferences (e.g., PSU) or where conferences have been somewhat predatory (e.g., ACC raiding the Big East).”
Some of what you say is true, but you’re overall point (that those behind conference expansion don’t care about conference brand) is exactly wrong.
The people supporting conference realignment believe strongly in conference brands. They believe Rutgers in the Big East might not be very valuable, but Rutgers in the Big Ten is worth millions more.
They believe that there are already differences in the values of conference brands, and that those differences will increase with the right expansion.
LikeLike
The hypocrisy in this article is hilarious.
“They didn’t get public opinion from their alums, from the people there,” he later said. “All these things are secret. It’s not out there. Some of it gets leaked, but in Maryland’s case it was never leaked. I’m really worried about that type of thinking.
Yet I have never once seen Coach K complain about the way Miami, BC, Syracuse, Pitt and ND were added to the ACC. The ACC was in secret negotiations with Miami for over a year prior to Miami’s announcement and the ‘Cuse and Pitt additions went from rumor to official announcement in less than 48 hours. The Big East commissioner only learned of it after a reporter asked him about it at a football game.
There may never be a Texas-Texas A&M game again, a Syracuse-Georgetown game again.
The ‘Cuse-Georgetown is only ending because the ACC grabbed Syracuse a move that Coach K was gushing about a few months ago.
There’s no feeling for the other guy, for another conference. Forget about them; we got ours.
This my favorite. Because it was only a year ago he said this;
“It’s actually pretty exciting,” Krzyzewski said. “I think it’s great for our conference football-wise, even better basketball-wise. Wherever this is going to end up, four big-time conferences or five, whatever it is, you want to be perceived as No. 1 in football and basketball.
…
“The last few years the ACC has lost some of that but over the last 25 years if you had to pick the best conference in basketball it is the ACC. Lately, it hasn’t been that. It’s been a really good conference. But to me this is in some ways a coup for basketball.”
…
“I’m proud of the leadership of our conference to be ahead of things,” Krzyzewski said. “We’re in a period of change. Whether everyone agrees with it or doesn’t agree with it — change is happening. It’s not a revolution, it’s evolution. These things are happening.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/6985115/mike-kryzyzewski-says-pittsburgh-panthers-syracuse-orange-coup-acc
LikeLike
Like I said in my original post: Follow the money + The B1G’s stated long term goals (more exposure in the South & East) – 20 accomplishes both of those goals better than 14 does.
LikeLike
@BigTenFan’s analysis, for a speculative “what if,” is very good. I agree that if the Big Ten wants to expand to the south, it’s better to add more than just two schools, and 20 is easier to schedule than 14.
However, he makes the same mistakes that most fans do. He looks at it only from the conference’s perspective, ignoring what other actors might want. The potential member schools have their own agendas, and they aren’t simply going to comply with whatever Jim Delany says. What’s more, the SEC and Big XII won’t just sit idly by and watch Delany accumulate power.
Finally: with very rare exceptions, most conference realignment decisions occur just one or two schools at a time. (The split-off of the C7 from the Big East was one of those exceptions.) Anytime there’s a move, it has the effect of completely re-setting expectations. If you’re really good, you might be able to predict one or two moves ahead. Beyond that, there’s a high likelihood that something will happen that you haven’t accounted for, and that totally changes the game.
LikeLike
Also, if all of this takes too long to play out, the underlying media economics may shift completely before it has a CHANCE to play out. Its subscriptions for and ad spending on cable programming that people watch live that is driving all of this ~ and if over the next half decade advertisers become more comfortable with streaming video advertising and streaming video advertising CPM’s rise, that is something that could reverse the growth of cable sports advertising CPM’s which is driving the growth of superconferences.
LikeLike
18 accomplishes those goals as well.
LikeLike
Frank,
I posted this earlier, but it kind of got lost. You said Ohio State-Penn State is seen as a must for the conference and I believe you. If they eventually expand to 16, do you think the same logic applies? Whether it does or doesn’t greatly effects how you arrange pods and maybe even the odds of expansion.
LikeLike
I’d like to see some evidence to back up his opinion. We know it’s a big game since it’s king/king, but NE/MI, MI/PSU, NE/PSU and NE/OSU are all expendable. Now that PSU has eastern partners, OSU/PSU shouldn’t be untouchable.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine Maryland or Rutgers generating the interest of Ohio St. PSU has dominated those schools.
LikeLike
That’s the complaint about some “East” lineups ~ having MD, Rutgers AND Indiana in the East is like playing Indiana three times each football season. Of course, the people working for the Buckeyes can’t say it like that on the record, so they say something like “it would not be an exciting schedule”.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I can’t imagine Maryland or Rutgers generating the interest of Ohio St. PSU has dominated those schools.”
True enough, but they mean more to the older fans and to the eastern (more populous) side of PA than to the newer fans and the western side. More importantly, it gives PSU 2 games they wanted. That makes it easier for the B10 to do whatever is best for the league rather than reflexively locking the OSU/PSU game just because PSU wants it. It’s not a major rivalry (OSU/MI). It’s not the lone border game any more (NE/IA). It’s not an in-state rivalry (NW/IL, MI/MSU, IN/PU). It’s not a historic rivalry (WI/MN, etc). It may be PSU’s biggest game, but PSU is #1 for RU and MD plus PSU/MI and PSU/NE aren’t far behind PSU/OSU.
As for national interest:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/#chart
2012 numbers (Rating/Millions of people):
OSU/UCF – 1.4/2.2M – 12:00
OSU/Cal – 2.4/3.8 – 12:00
OSU/MSU – 3.3/5.0 – 3:30
OSU/NE – 3.1/5.2 – 8:00
OSU/PU – 2.9/? – 12:00
OSU/PSU – 2.3/3.9 – 5:30
OSU/IL – 1.3/2.2 – 3:30
OSU/MI – 5.8/9.5 – 12:00
PSU was OSU’s 6th highest rated game, 4th or 5th by viewers.
PSU/Ohio – 2.4/3.5M – 12:00
PSU/UVA – 2.0/2.8 – 12:00
PSU/IL – 1.2/1.7 – 12:00
PSU/NW – 1.7/2.5 – 12:00
PSU/OSU – 2.3/3.9 – 5:30
PSU/NE – 2.2/3.5 – 3:30
PSU/WI – 1.2/2.0 – 3:30
The Ohio game drew as much interest as undefeated OSU, and NE was almost as interesting as OSU.
Some other B10 games that outdrew OSU/PSU:
MI/AL, MSU/ND, MI/ND, NE/MSU, NE/WI and several split broadcasts.
It doesn’t seem to be a huge game for the B10, either.
LikeLike
2012 is a bit of an aberration. PSU won’t be on probation forever.
LikeLike
Richard,
“2012 is a bit of an aberration. PSU won’t be on probation forever.”
I realize that, but they were the only complete ratings I could find. That’s why I gave the whole season, so at least there’s some context.
PSU late in the season, after they had rebounded from their horrible start, playing in an evening game drew about the same as OSU/Cal at 12:00 in September. PSU/NE drew about 93% as well as PSU/OSU. That tells me OSU/PSU isn’t a special game outside of possibly PA.
LikeLike
Don’t forget to account for the ESPN2 mirrors in your rating analysis.
(How? That’s a good question. Sum them? Average them by network? Average them by game? I have no idea what is the best metric.)
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow,
“Don’t forget to account for the ESPN2 mirrors in your rating analysis.”
I accounted for them by leaving them out.
LikeLike
I’m saying its an important game for PSU. If they could only hold onto 1 game in the Big 10, it would probably be Ohio St.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m saying its an important game for PSU.”
And I’m not disputing that. I’m saying they have other games that are almost as big (MI, NE) that could take it’s place, plus they have two new games that they constantly clamored for (RU, MD). Combined, that has to mostly fill the hole not having OSU annually would make.
“If they could only hold onto 1 game in the Big 10, it would probably be Ohio St.”
Probably, but would they give up RU and MD to keep it?
My other point is that people have claimed OSU/PSU is too valuable to the conference to lose. That’s the point I was addressing with the ratings data. That game isn’t anything special to the B10, it’s just one of many good games.
LikeLike
Earlier, frug posted a link to where college recruits of top teams come from, but I want to point to something interesting:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-chart-these-states-produce-the-most-nfl-players-2011-10
As you can see, in terms of NFL players currently in the league (well, as of 2011), CA, TX, and FL lead the way (by far). The next tier includes usual suspects like OH, GA, and LA.
But just a little after them are 4 northern states: NY(!), NJ, MI, and PA.
SC, VA, AL, IL, and NC follow.
Considering the poor representation by Northeasterners in recruiting rankings (and the absolutely paltry showing by NYS residents), what this shows is that the Northeast is an untapped source of talent for college football. In a way, that makes sense. In states like TX & FL, any kid who shows football potential would be showcased and hilighted in high-pressure environments over and over again. In NYS, their potential may not be noticed at all as people just don’t care that much about HS football. Yet NYS has as many people as FL so there are plenty of diamonds in the rough for B10 schools to find up there. Guys like Victor Cruz (OK, he’s out of Jersey) who’s just as fast as 5 star WR recruits but didn’t get recruited at all out of HS (which is how he ended up going to UMass).
BTW, I counted up the players in Rival 100 lists for a few years (not just recently, but also when they first started about a decade ago), and the ratio of top recruits in current SEC states (including TX & FL) compared to B10 states (including NJ & MD) is roughly 3.5-1.
Yet the ratio of current NFL players from B10 states vs. those from SEC states (remember, including the motherlodes of FL and TX) is more like 5-3. Take half the TX, FL, SC, and GA numbers away from the SEC (they do have to share those states with other leagues, and yes, UGa would get the majority of top recruits in GA, but there are 2 ACC schools in FL and the B12 schools still would get the majority of recruits in TX), and the SEC and B10 are almost even. Even if you take away half of PA’s numbers from the B10, if you add the rest of the Northeast to the B10, the B10 would actually have more NFL talent at its disposable than the SEC. What this means is that with the B10’s recent expansion to the east and fewer kings in their local territory to contend with (PSU will be down for almost a decade, ND gets as much talent from the SEC states as from the B10 states, and in the south, UF, LSU, ‘Bama, UGa, FSU, Texas, and OU, not to mention A&M, Miami, Auburn, SC, and Clemson all go after the same recruits in SEC states), there’s no excuse for OSU and Michigan to not get top 10 recruiting classes every year and put up not only national-title-contending squads but national-title-winning squads regularly.
LikeLike
You definitely hear of more “D-2 to practice squad to NFL team” stories from the Northeast than anywhere else.
Talent in the South (Gulf of Mexico states + Ga/SC) and Midwest and California is pretty much completely mined out by D-1 college recruiting.
It makes sense though; there’s like 50 million people living in the Northeast; and there’s probably more high school footall being played there than in other areas of the country.
The problem is, it’s probably a lot harder to find those diamonds in the rough in the Northeast and given that it’s not in any major school’s backyard (closest being Penn State), that makes it tough to mine that region.
The ratio of D-1 impact players to regular high school players has to be much lower up there. College football programs aren’t going to spend the time and money to fish out those recruits when they can go to a pond that they know has more D-1 impact players as a percentage of high school players.
LikeLike
That mean’s that a coach who can evaluate talent (instead of just recruit it) has a definite edge there.
LikeLike
You make a good point that I have seen before about the area I am familiar with (NJ).
NJ has so many separate school districts considering its geography that you have some that only see a D1 prospect every decade or so. The coaches don’t know how the game works and the kid ends up underrecruited.
It is worse in the urban districts. The parochials like Don Bosco recruit the elite athletes away from them before high school. Kids who are not as obviously elite or “late bloomers” stay in a school with weak facilities/education with no one to manage the process. They fall through the cracks and don’t get recruited or are hopelessly short of any chance to be eligible for college.
LikeLike
Richard,
Good points about recruiting. The problem with the ESPN link is that it was tied to only 20 teams. When OSU wasn’t in the top 20, most of the best OH players disappeared.
“there’s no excuse for OSU and Michigan to not get top 10 recruiting classes every year and put up not only national-title-contending squads but national-title-winning squads regularly.”
I’d hedge that a little bit. The class size is a fairly large factor in class rankings still, and until something changes B10 schools will sign significantly fewer recruits than SEC and B12 schools. I won’t turn this into another thread on oversigning, but the numbers do matter for the metric you chose.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
Class size stats by conference, 2002-2010 (max, min, ave)
SEC – 28.1, 21.2, 25.2
B12 – 27.0, 21.3, 24.3
P10 – 26.1, 18.9, 23.1
ACC – 25.0, 19.3, 22.1
B10 – 24.2, 18.9, 22.1
Averages for kings:
AL – 26.1
LSU – 24.9
FSU – 24.2
OU – 23.9
Miami – 23.8
UF – 23.3
NE – 23.3
MI – 21.7
UT – 21.3
USC – 21.1
PSU – 20.3
ND – 20.0
OSU – 20.0
Now, many factors can impact those numbers, but coaching changes and ethics are two main ones. I’d expect Meyer to have a higher average than Tressel did, but the SEC West teams will be hard to catch.
All of that was to say that looking at average stars per recruit might be a better metric for you to consider.
Scout numbers for OSU and MI lately:
2013 – 3, 6 (3, 1 the normal way)
2012 – 5, 10 (3, 4 the normal way)
2011 – 5, 19 (6, 29 the normal way)
2010 – 8, 14 (20, 12 the normal way)
2009 – 4, 13 (1, 14 the normal way)
OSU and MI have been doing OK, especially OSU. The problem comes with NE, PSU, WI, etc. They are farther down than is ideal.
LikeLike
Good point on the numbers, Brian. I use to consider average stars, but in terms of winning, a bigger class size does offer an advantage (which is why, in the BCS title game for the last several years, the team with the higher ranked recruiting classes the 3 previous years has won every single game).
As for B10 schools, I believe Tressel definitely could have done better. From 2003-2007, Rivals didn’t have an OSU class in the top 10 once.
Michigan also wasn’t recruiting up to potential during the RichRod era.
I cut UNL and Wisconsin some slack because Wisconsin is close to only 1 middling recruiting ground (Chicagoland) that’s fought over by the entire B10 (west of PSU) while UNL isn’t close to any sort of decent recruiting grounds.
PSU has no excuse, though, and had really underperformed. Well, they had the excuse of having an ancient coach who never left campus to recruit and didn’t bother trying to get talent west of OH or south of VA hardly ever, but that’s self-inflicted.
For OSU & Michigan to contend for and win national championships, they’ll have to consistently get top 10 (normally ranked) recruiting classes. It’s certainly doable. USC doesn’t sign any more than OSU or Michigan, and they’ve had top 10 recruiting classes for all of Rivals existence. Same is true of Texas (though their rankings are a bit worse, but still better than OSU’s & Michigan’s, mostly). Granted, USC can pick and choose who they want from CA while OSU & Michigan have to share the Midwest and Northeast with each other & PSU & ND (to an extant, as they take as much from the south as they do from B10 territory), but with PSU down for a long time, the next decade, I definitely expect OSU to put up USC-level recruiting numbers with Michigan a bit behind (because their home state is not as fertile & they have to share it with MSU).
LikeLike
Richard,
Players in CA, TX and FL (the sun belt in general, too) get rated higher, in part because they play spring football and so get a lot more reps. UCS is knee deep in 5* players because of it. The midwestern kids need to be coached up. Meyer will do better because he recruits more nationally than Tressel did. Tressel was all about OH.
And OSU is riding a streak of 1, 20, 6, 3 and 3 according to Scout, and that low rated class was #8 in quality. That should be good enough to compete if the players pan out and are at the right positions. Hoke is doing well at MI, too, he just has to get rid of the rest of RichRod’s players that don’t fit his schemes.
LikeLike
Well Texas was #3 in 2009, but only 6 of those 20 players are still with the program. Top rated recruiting programs don’t always help.
LikeLike
Not always, but the last 7 national title games have been won by the school with the higher recruiting rankings the 3 years before the title game year.
So if your players have got it together enough & your coaches are good enough to get you to the national championship, talent wins out. Pretty much every time.
LikeLike
So Texas was the exception to that rule as well. A single Vince Young can create exceptions.
LikeLike
Yep, a top QB can make up for a lot of things. However, note that Texas’s senior class that title game was much higher ranked than USC’s senior class, and Texas barely won, so ultimately, it seems that the title game still almost always comes down to talent.
LikeLike
So given the recruiting situation, how successful should programs be expected to be over a 30 year period? Previous post, I had divided the kings who are in or close to very rich recruiting grounds in to “superkings” and “regular kings”. Thinking it over, though, I think that Texas, UF, & USC should sit a level above even the superkings, as they are kings with the brand and money (well, in the case of Texas & UF) & sit in by far the 3 most fertile states for recruiting in the country.
So here’s a more expansive list:
Super super kings: Texas, UF, & USC
Should haul in top 10 recruiting classes every year, win 3 titles over 30 years, be in a 4-team playoff 1/3rd of the time, and contend for a national title every year.
Super kings: OSU, LSU, UGa, Bama (all have brand, money, and recruiting grounds)
Should haul in top 15 recruiting classes every year (top 10 most years), win 2 titles over 30 years, be in a 4-team playoff 1/4th of the time, and contend for a national title most years.
Regular Kings: ND, PSU, Michigan, OU, Tennessee, & FSU (all have the brand; the first 5 have mucho dollars but aren’t in the most fertile recruiting states; FSU has the recruiting grounds but not the money of the biggest programs).
Should haul in top 15 recruiting classes most years, win 1 title over 30 years, be in a 4-team playoff 1/6th of the time, and contend for a national title some years.
Poorer kings and rich prince: UNL, Miami, & TAMU (all have one major drawback: UNL isn’t close to any good recruiting areas, Miami doesn’t have money/support, and TAMU isn’t a king but are stellar in the other 2 aspects of brand/money/recruiting grounds)
Should haul in top 20 recruiting classes most years and be in a 4-team playoff every so often. Need a Cam Newton or Tim Tebow or Michael Vick (or RGIII or Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson) to win a national title.
Princes: Auburn, SC, Clemson, VTech, UNC, MSU, Stanford, Oregon, OKSt.; maybe Wisconsin and Arkansas
Should haul in top 20 recruiting classes maybe half the time. Need a Cam Newton or Tim Tebow or Michael Vick, etc. to contend for a national title.
However, with the PSU sanctions, they drop down below “prince” level in performance over the next decade while both OSU and Michigan should move up a level. It would be quite disappointing if OSU doesn’t win at least 1 national title and OSU & Michigan don’t make 5+ playoff trips between them over the next decade.
LikeLike
Forgot about UCLA; they should be in the same tier as UNL, Miami, and TAMU.
WVU may be considered a prince as well. Washington is in the same group as Wisconsin and Arkansas as “maybe” princes (those 3 have the resources & brand of a prince but far from the recruiting grounds or distance to fertile areas).
Of all the non-princes out there, RU and (especially) UMD are best positioned to join the ranks of the princes. UMD should follow the same path of a rich sugar daddy giving it a boost in to the ranks of the princes that Oregon and OKSt. recently trod.
LikeLike
Forgot about Cal. They’re a prince.
I also should not include Tebow with Newton and Vick. Those 2 led teams who otherwise would not have contended for the national title to title games and also excelled at the next level.
LikeLike
@Richard: At some point, your theory has to dovetail with reality. You have Nebraska in the fourth tier, but in FBS, they’re 4th in all-time wins, ahead of all your “super kings” and all but one of your “super super kings” (Texas). UF, by the way, is a relatively pedestrian 28th in all-time wins.
Obviously, there must be factors you haven’t properly weighed.
LikeLike
That list is basically a ‘recruiting hierarchy’. Although he doesn’t seem to take into account the National team status of ND (which clearly should be in the top tier even with his criteria). OSU also should be in the top tier with their combination of stellar Ohio recruiting grounds and national recruiting power. Nebraska suffers from its location.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState:
Well, it’s also a brand hierarchy and a money/support hierarchy.
ND’s “national team status” has netted it exactly 0 national titles in the last 20 years (less than Michigan or OSU or in fact, any of the other 14 or so schools that I consider kings beside PSU and UGa).
LikeLike
Richard,
Georgia hasn’t won anything since Disco, yet they’re in a tier above ND?
If recruiting grounds don’t carry the most weight in your list, then Michigan should
be in your ‘Super Kings’. Their national recruiting success combined with local (Michigan/Ohio) recruiting grounds more than make up for Georgia’s regional advantage. Also their brand is marginally more valuable and they have more wins. When you look at the top ten recruiting classes over the last twenty years, I don’t see how you can justify Georgia being in a tier above Michigan.
If you were to move ND and OSU up to SS king status and Michigan up to S king status, I think it would be pretty accurate. I do think the argument could be made that Nebraska belongs in the S king group, but Marc can make that.
LikeLike
1. Some schools have overperformed vs. their tier (‘Bama & OU), and some schools have underperformed (PSU & Georgia). GA has the same population as, has as many recruits as, and produces as many NFL players as OH. UGa brings in as much money as the other super kings. There’s no excuse for UGa performing as poorly as they have, so saying that some school has done as well or better than UGa doesn’t mean that school should be on a higher tier.
2. Did I say recruiting doesn’t carry the most weight on my list? No. Brand and money/support matter as well, but in the end, success is dependent on 2 things: the talent on the field and the coaches coaching them. Brand & money are means to those ends. They help in recruiting & money helps in getting top coaching talent as well (though none of the kings other than Miami and maybe FSU are going to be outcompeted on coaching talent due to money). See where top coaches go because they pick where they think they’ll have the most success. Urban Meyer chose UF over ND and came out of retirement for OSU. That tells me that UF is clearly on a tier above ND, and OSU probably is as well. Les Miles chose to stay at LSU over going to his alma mater. That tells me that LSU is on a tier above Michigan.
3. Michigan does have a more national brand than UGa. However, local brand UGa has gotten a higher ranked recruiting class (according to Rivals) than national brand Michigan 8 out of the past 12 years.
4. OSU, Michigan, ND, and UNL all deserve to be where they are. Notice that all 3 Super super kings are the top brand in the 3 most fertile states for recruiting in the country (CA, FL, and TX each have more than double the NFL players of the next tier of states: OH, GA, and LA). It’s not a coincidence that the next tier of kings feature the top schools in those 3 states of OH, GA, and LA. If any case can be made for moving a school, it’s either moving PSU up or ‘Bama down, as they have very similar characteristics. Both are kings which make tons of money and have a good (not great) supply of in-state talent (but which they have to share with a rival) and are surrounded by states that produce plenty of NFL talent. If ‘Bama has an edge, it’s that they are close to a gigantic talent pool in FL while there’s nothing like a FL near PSU. However, a strong case can be made that PSU should be expected to be a super king (and they had the results of one in the ’80’s) but severely underperformed their potential in JoePa’s last 15 twilight years.
LikeLike
Mind you, I would bump OSU & Michigan up a level for the next 10 years due to PSU being bombed out (and B10 expansion to the NE), but only for that long.
LikeLike
The other school I’m wavering on is USC. Like UF and Texas, they are the top king in one of the 3 richest recruiting states in the country. Unlike UF and Texas, they don’t make as much money as the top programs.
USC definitely could move down, and PSU defintiely could move up, to the “super king” level.
LikeLike
Are you talking about U South Carolina, or U$C in LA?
LikeLike
Heh. U$C.
No way SCarolina could be considered a super king of any kind.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t be expected to mesh perfectly with all-time wins, since the demography of 2012 is far different from the demography of the late 1940’s, which AFAIR was the first Cornhusker dynasty (including a healthy dose of returning vets with full NCAA eligibility).
More to the point there that there is more going on there is UNL’s success in the 90’s, when the demographic shift to the Sunbelt was already well underway.
LikeLike
Nebraska was pretty medicore from ’42 to the mid 60’s.
LikeLike
BTW, it was OU who jumped started their football program with WWII GI Bill vets, not UNL.
In fact, UNL dominated the Big8 up til WWII. Then OU dominated. Then both were juggernauts from the late ’60’s forward.
LikeLike
Aha, got the UNL/OkU transition in dominance turned around. Oh, well, it was my dad who was the Huskers fan (naturally, given that he was born in South Dakota, and only made it to Columbus to go to grad school).
LikeLike
Marc:
The world of college football has changed drastically over time.
This is my projection of how things will play out over the next 30 years. Obviously, the tiers were much different in 1940 or 1900. In reality, I believe that my tiers have been pretty good already during the BCS era. At the end of the first 4-team playoff era, we’ll have 28 years of BCS & 4-team playoffs. Obviously there will be overacheivers and underachievers, but I would be shocked if Nebraska wins as many national titles (3) as a super super king during that period.
LikeLike
Nebraska, Tennessee and Notre Dame have always recruited more nationally than other powers. Don’t see anything negatively changing for Nebraska.
LikeLike
Yes, but ND and Tennessee have decent/good/great talent pools nearby. It’s a lot easier for Tennessee to convince a kid in NC to play for them or ND to convince a kid in Chicagoland to play for them than for any of the 3 schools to convince a CA kid to play for them.
It’s easy for UNL to convince a KS kid to play for them as well but unlike the days when beefy linemen and punishing fullbacks alone won you football games, the Plains don’t provide a great football talent pool these days (or as high a percentage of the US population as they use to).
To Bruce’s point, I think UNL had it easier in the ’90’s, even though the demographic shift had already occurred & the game was already changing a bit is because only kings got on TV then. Now that virtually every school gets on TV somewhere all the time, the appeal of kings like UNL to kids from far away is lessened, making proximity to talent a key factor for success (as was the case 50 & 100 years ago).
LikeLike
Yes, although I didn’t give UTK football intense consideration while I was doing my grad study in the 90’s, I do have the impression that UTK recruiting included a focus on Georgia, Florida and the Carolinas (eg, Heath Shuler).
LikeLike
Why does the SEC think their TV network will make money ? When I was in Florida it seemed to me that every football game in the south was on TV .The big SMSA are not in the south .The SEC is a football conferance. What do you show on the SEC network in the summer and winter?
LikeLike
@C. Toda – The SECN will make money for the same reasons the BTN makes money. There’s not a whole lot of difference in the content either will provide. Obviously the SEC doesn’t play hockey, but baseball (starts in Feb) and basketball will easily fill the gaps.
LikeLike
The real question is how much money the SECN will make for ESPN vs. SEC in the near term. ESPN already owns most broadcast rights. Add in carriage ramp and network start-up costs and I doubt much incremental revenue is left for the SEC during the first 5-7 years. Long term it will be a winner for the SEC as the current ESPN contract is renewed and the start-up ramp is finished. Even if the SEC gets very little, its network will be up and running when renewal talks begin. As far as football content, I expect the SEC/ESPN to pull content off of other cable and local stations to create demand for the network. A few years ago almost all bowl games were broadcast on free TV. Now only two bowls are left (Sun, Cotton). Except for the weekly CBS broadcast, I expect free to air TV of SEC football in its region will disappear.
LikeLike
@Mack – I’m very interested to see what they come up with. The SEC has about as much to offer the SECN as Texas did for the LHN. I don’t think that’s enough to garner a 50/50 or 51/49 split in ownership unless the SEC contributes financially to the start up. I don’t see the SEC contributing, so that’s why I think the SECN will probably use the LHN model. The LHN model (no ownership, fixed payments, profit sharing) has some advantages:
1. The risk is entirely with ESPN.
2. Payments start right away and are guaranteed.
3. Profit sharing after meeting certain financial levels means sharing in the success.
4. The SEC is only married to ESPN as long as their contract runs. After that, the SEC can take their entire rights packages to the open market. If FOX offers a better deal for their rights and is willing to launch a SECN as well, then it’s very easy for the SEC to walk away from ESPN.
5. No buy-in period for new members in case of expansion.
LikeLike
SEC has no less than 14X what UT had for the LHN. Probably more with 2 additions since their contract started.
LikeLike
@CC – Average it out over the conference (i.e. what each school will bring to the table for ownership) and they don’t. ESPN will be bringing the majority of the value to make the SECN work, so I don’t see the SEC getting 49/51 split. Anything less than that isn’t worth it, IMHO. Hats off to the SEC if they do.
LikeLike
@CC – Think of it this way. Is the value of the 14 (worst) football games plus the basketball games not fit to air on the ESPN networks worth ~50% of what the expected value of the SECN will be? That’s all the SEC is bringing to the table with ESPN for these negotiations.
LikeLike
Plus SEC baseball. I live in the west now and I’d pay a bit more to see their baseball, gymnastics and track without any FB.
LikeLike
@CC – I’m a college baseball fan, however, I don’t see college baseball moving the needle so much that it changes the math in any significant way for the SECN.
LikeLike
Baseball (college) has not had much opportunity. Given the new platforms creating available time slots they probably now will, and of all the sports it is best suited for selling ads. What other sport has 18 built in breaks (each 1/2 inning) plus however many pitching changes.
LikeLike
” As far as football content, I expect the SEC/ESPN to pull content off of other cable and local stations to create demand for the network.”
Some months back, I made my own guess as to the SECN football content. Assuming 7 games a week played by SEC schools (14 SEC schools with 7 home games each over a 14 week season), I’d guess:
1st pick: CBS
2nd: ESPN
3rd: ESPN2/SECN
4th: Syndicated national package
5th: SECN/ESPNU
6th: SECN
7th: SECN
ESPN gets 1 pick for its national network and another for ESPN2 or ESPNU
SECN gets 3 in an average week, every other week getting the 3rd best game to keep demand high.
The SEC could still keep a syndicated game on over the air around the country.
Once the SECN is on basic cable in the south (that might take a year or two) fans with basic cable would have more access to their games than they do now (nothing on PPV, and fewer games on ESPNU).
LikeLike
I’d guess as far as media markets, the SEC may not be located in any of the Top 5, but (in part thanks to expansion), the SEC has 1/5 of the top 10 media markets, and 1/4 of the top 20 media markets:
9. Atlanta
10. Houston
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg
17. Miami-Fort Lauderdale
20. Orlando – Daytona Beach
… and 6/7 more in the top 50. If the SEC had North Carolina, the SEC would have 15/16 of the top 50 media markets.
Then it seems likely that it would be the football moving from current subsidiary carriage to the SECN that would get the SECN on basic cable in most of the SEC footprint, and then once its on basic cable, the secondary sports programming in basketball and spring sports will supplement Fall earnings with additional ad revenue during the winter and spring.
LikeLike
And Southerners consume a lot of beer and buy a lot of pick up trucks – the products most advertised on sports channels.
LikeLike
For what its worth, the Big Ten doesn’t allow alcohol ads on the BTN. I don’t know if the SECN would or not.
LikeLike
Also, the idea that Southerners consume a lot of beer is not very accurate. The South actually has one of the lowest beer consumption rates in the nation. In 2011 no SEC states ranked in the top 10 in beer consumption per capita, and only 4 ranked in the top half (and they are 4 of the smallest; Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina).
In fact, Florida (33), Georgia (42), Kentucky (46) and Tennessee (43) all rank near the bottom of the list.
Texas (8) and Missouri (19) consume quite a bit of beer but they are more Southwestern and Midwestern than Southern.
Click to access State%20Per%20Capita%20Consumption%202003%20to%202011.pdf
LikeLike
frug,
I’ll be GA moves up the list now that Sunday sales are legal almost everywhere. Damn blue laws.
LikeLike
@Brian
Even consumption were to increase by a full 1/7th (and I doubt they will since people stock up for Sundays) Georgia would still be below the national average.
LikeLike
Any records of where the most moonshine might be discovered and/or consumed?
LikeLike
frug,
I’m amazed how much consumption has dropped since 2003. 2003 GA would be above the national average for 2011.
LikeLike
Alanta I will give you , but Houston . Your last 3 are in Florida a state with ACC teams and a population that has a large percentage from the north and retired. Tell me about NC when they join the SEC .Finally because of cold weather MLB is in the south in the spring if, I remember correctly on TV.
LikeLike
Most definitely Houston with aTm being right in Houston’s backyard (DFW is the market in question when it comes to which Texas markets aTm can deliver). It also doesn’t matter which ACC schools are in Florida because UF has the biggest following of the 3 major Florida schools and will deliver the Jacksonville & Tampa markets with Miami being the only one in question. Throw in Nashville, New Orleans, KC, and STL markets and you have enough to support a SECN and make it pretty profitable.
LikeLike
And zero of the top 8 TV markets. More people live in the top 8 markets than in #9-#30 combined.
LikeLike
That sucking sound coming out of LA?
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-0116-usc-football-recruiting-20130116,0,555236.story?track=rss
LikeLike
Chip Kelly to the Eagles.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/21563514/eagles-hire-chip-kelly-away-from-oregon
LikeLike
Multiple reports saying SDSU and the Big East are preparing to announce separation. I assume that the SDSU now has the votes to stay in the MWC.
LikeLike
More like a broken engagement than a separation.
LikeLike
I agree, but that was the terminology they used.
LikeLike
I forgot to use the 🙂
LikeLike
And now “sources” duly cited at ESPN as of 1:43pm, anticipating an announcement this arvo.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8850122/sources-san-diego-state-reinstated-mountain-west-conference-member
LikeLike
SDSU becomes the 3rd member of the Big East taken from the MWC to never make it there. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. TCU, Boise, SDSU.
LikeLike
But they didn’t get the same result: the first time, they got ditched in preference to a higher income AQ conference. The second time, they got ditched in preference to a lower income non-AQ conference.
Given the trendline in the results, they best not talk to getting any other MWC schools, or they risk getting ditched by a school that elects to play FCS instead.
LikeLike
The second time, they got ditched in preference to a lower income non-AQ conference
@BruceMcF – In fairness to the MWC, until the Big East actually signs a contract for income, we don’t know that.
LikeLike
But in fairness to the NuBigEast, the odds are strongly in favor of the balance of the current contract and the next contract being (1) a massive plunge from what had been hoped for less than a year ago and (2) appreciably better than the current MWC contract.
LikeLike
The TCU virus is why I fear for the B12 🙂
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/01/study_highlights_ncaa_spending.html#incart_flyout_sports
Another reason the SEC dominates in CFB. They spend 12.2 times as much per athlete as they do per student.
SEC – 12.2
B12 – 9.4
P12 – 7.2
ACC – 6.7
B10 – 6.1
The SEC also spends much more per athlete:
SEC – $164k
B12 – $131k
B10 – $117k
ACC – $103k
P12 – $102k
On the other hand, the B10 spends by far the most per student:
B10 – $19,200
ACC – $15,400
P12 – $14,200
B12 – $14,000
SEC – $13,400
The money shows where the priorities are for the presidents of these schools.
LikeLike
All of those numbers are skewed by distribution of sports. Some sports are higher cost than others. I’d be curious to see how much of it is that the SEC spends more per football player on football program and how much of it is related to how large the other non-revenue sports programs are.
LikeLike
cfn_ms,
“All of those numbers are skewed by distribution of sports.”
The spending per student numbers are not influenced in any way by sports. The others are, of course, impacted by that. That still shows where their priorities are.
“I’d be curious to see how much of it is that the SEC spends more per football player on football program and how much of it is related to how large the other non-revenue sports programs are.”
2011 football expenses reported to DOE:
SEC – $262M = $21.8M/school
B10 – $254M = $21.2M/school
They do spend more (the B10 is usually #2 for that IIRC).
LikeLike
CHN is correct, you started your post: “Another reason the SEC dominates in CFB. They spend 12.2 times as much per athlete as they do per student.”
That chart is about athletes. By having more minor sports that you don’t spend a lot on (relative to football), the Big Ten drives it’s average per athlete down. The remaining figure has little to do with football dominance.
As to the spending per student, it’s actually interesting how close all the conferences are after the Big Ten. I wonder if you accounted for cost of living (or construction, etc.) for the different areas of the country if the Pac 12 wouldn’t end up last in that metric.
LikeLike
Forbes with some conference income data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/01/16/the-most-valuable-conferences-in-college-sports/
LikeLike
“The Pac-12 has had trouble securing cable syndication for its new conference-specific network, and the conference’s sole ownership of the network means that it’s also fully responsible for covering start-up and operating costs.”
Huh? Cox, Comcast, TimeWarner, Brighthouse signed up a year in advance, reportedly enabling the P12N to be profitable in year one dispute startup costs. DTV I think is the only major holdout.
“… the network is projected to distribute an average $30 million per school annually over the 12-year life of the current TV contracts.”
Again, huh? Is the P12N going to provide that much additionally? Or raise the combined distribution to that level?
Forbes just throwing something together quickly to meet a deadline…?
LikeLike
I’m 80% sure that this article is flawed given that it’s ONLY looking at league distributions as opposed to total revenue. This matters since:
1) Gate revenue matters a LOT for programs. Since the SEC (more than almost any other league) skews OOC schedules towards bodybag games (which get a lot of gate but aren’t worth much on TV), not accounting for this skews the numbers, or at least makes any analysis incomplete.
2) IIRC some SEC teams keep 3rd tier rights to sell themselves. If that money gets earned outside the auspices of the league office, it’s still earned. Excluding it makes the comparison apples to oranges.
LikeLike
cfn_ms,
I wouldn’t say it’s flawed so much as they over-promised. They provide some useful information, but you’re correct that it’s not the whole story. I think this data is better than when we just look at TV deals. They added the bowls and tourney money. Given this data, an ambitious person could probably use the DOE database and/or USAToday’s to round out the picture with Tier 3 value. That would round out the picture in terms of comparing conferences. Gate receipts and merchandising matter for schools, but they shouldn’t impact expansion decisions tremendously.
Millions in revenue from bowls, NCAA tourney, TV
ACC – 35, 17, 240 = 293 = 24.4/team**
B10 – 40, 20, 250 = 310 = 25.8/team**
B12 – 42, 20, 200 = 262 = 26.2/team
P12 – 39, 14, 250 = 303 = 25.3/team
SEC – 50, 15, 205 = 270* = 19.3/team
* – new TV deal imminent (SEC should jump to #1 for a while)
** – about to have more members
The new playoff money will change this, too.
LikeLike
Interesting fact was NCAA BB conference revenue of $20M for B12 (#1 per school) and B1G, both exceeding ACC at $17M. BE had $28M, for #1 in conference revenue, but #3 per school.
LikeLike
Article on SEC contracts.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
Headline makes the jump look like more than it is. And this is from a TV consultant, not from any insider. Estimates $21.4 million/school on TV and $1.5 million/school from SEC Network in 2014-5. The contract average for Tier I and II over 15 years is estimated to be $25 million. Again, this is a consultant. The estimates I saw from consultants on the Big 12 and Big East were both over actual. MWC/CUSA obviously thought they would get more than they did and so ended up scuttling their merger. But this is the first time I have seen any figures other than homer numbers.
LikeLike
I’m sorry I double posted ya.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/01/16/sec-conference-money-increases/1836389/
SEC Network: $1.5 million per school ($21 million total)
A dedicated conference network is projected to have extremely good distribution among cable and satellite TV providers, especially in states where the conference has schools. It also may be attractive nationally.
To continue the discussion of the SEC network, here’s a consulting firm’s estimate of the distribution from a 100% SEC owned SEC network to each school in 2014-15. This analysis also expects the ESPN and CBS deals to jump to an average value of 25 million per school.
LikeLike
I’m a fan of the 100% conference ownership. Why invite the fox (pun) into the golden egg laying henhouse?
LikeLike
@CC –IMHO – Assuming the risk associated with owning and operating the network isn’t something the conferences should be in. I know the conference networks are the geese that laid the golden egg right now, but who knows what the future holds. If the underlying economics that make conference channels profitable change, let that be ESPN/Fox/Comcast’s problem. Especially, when there are models available that are nearly just as profitable. Imagine what would have happened if the Mountain West owned the MTN when it collapsed.
LikeLike
I doubt that the SEC will end up with a 100%-owned conference network with all of the content that they’d need to get back from ESPN to make it viable. If Slive can pull that off somehow, more power to him, but I’m not sure what ESPN’s incentive is to work with the SEC is on the project at that point.
Having Fox as a partial owner of the BTN was actually extremely important at its launch since the channel received immediate national basic carriage on then-Fox-owned DirecTV. That gave the BTN a ton of leverage against Comcast and other cable providers in the Big Ten footprint in carriage negotiations.
So, it all depends upon the situation. It’s easy to look at the BTN and assume that making money off of conference networks is like shooting fish in a barrel, but there was a massive amount of risk associated with the project at the time. It took a year of some fierce carriage disputes with the likes of Comcast with a lot of interim complaints from fans that couldn’t watch games to turn the BTN into a moneymaker. As the Pac-12 has seen (and the Mtn before it), setting up a conference network is still easier said than done.
That being said, the SEC having a network largely with the content that’s syndicated by ESPN Regional (which is essentially what the Big Ten placed on the BTN) is about as much of a lock of a moneymaker as you could get in the TV industry. It’s just that they need the content that ESPN currently holds the rights to in order to form that type of network, so there’s almost certainly going to be an ownership role for ESPN in this. The third tier content that is currently retained by the individual SEC schools wouldn’t be enough.
LikeLike
Yet Kevin Weiberg said the one thing he wished they had done was build the BTN themselves?
The initial foray into this idea understandably might engender concern. For a power conference that has been relieved. Does anyone believe a SECN whatever the ownership makeup won’t be successful? To me, if ESPN is interested at all, they see enough profit to feed themselves, share holders, Disney, as well as make the conference happy. Eliminate the middle man, increase your SECN take, and create an alternative/leverage in the next round of T1 negotiations.
LikeLike
Wait, so ESPN’s new SEC channel isn’t going to generate $20M per school for the conference?!
LikeLike
@Scarlet Lutefisk – Well, that is just a projection of the distribution for its second year in existence. It is also assuming that it isn’t ESPN’s SEC channel, just the SEC’s SEC channel.
LikeLike
Which isn’t even what the SEC is doing, so why project for it at all?
Like usual these numbers are bogus. Let’s wait for the real ones.
LikeLike
The SEC’s not doing an SEC channel? What?
LikeLike
USAToday must be horribly wrong because I’m sure Andy promised much more than that, and his sources are impeccable.
LikeLike
USA Today is saying $34.5M, which is actually pretty much exactly what I had heard projected.
But they’re also only projecting $1.5M per school for the SEC network, and saying that network would be 100% owned and operated by the SEC. But from what I’m hearing the SEC Network will be part of ESPN, and should make a lot more than that, more in the neighborhood of $5M-7M per school.
So in the end the total looks fine, I’m just quibbling with how they reached it.
LikeLike
Sarcasm noted. But there’s no way for that to happen, obviously. ESPN is already paying the SEC significant coin for their Tier 2 rights (which would be the backbone of any network). ESPN is not going to double pay the SEC for the same content. And its not going to front a ton money, assume the risk, provide the technical staff, supply the best content (it’s unclear where exactly the Tier 3 stuff is coming from. Someone has to buy those deals out) and get none of the money from the network.
Fox got roughly 50% of the Big 10 Network and they had no claim to any of the television rights. ESPN is providing exactly what Fox did and also providing most of the TV rights (since they already own the Tier 2 stuff).
LikeLike
If the SEC was only going to make $1.5M per school they wouldn’t even bother. Schools would keep their tier 3 rights. They can make more than that on their own. This analysis is bunk. I guarantee.
LikeLike
1.5 first year of 100% conference owned network. Could that be after the $100+ mil in startup costs are accounted for? With significantly limited inventory (which will improve in the future)? I’d take that deal.
LikeLike
Well sure, if you put it that way, but the article sure didn’t.
And I haven’t heard anything about a 100% SEC owned network. But maybe it’s a big secret and we’ll find out about it soon.
LikeLike
It’s specifically mentioned in the article at least twice, including “…the estimate is based on 15-year rights deals with ESPN and CBS that would be worth an annual average of $25 million per school (a total of $5.625 billion) and an SEC Network that while 100% conference-owned, like the Pacific-12’s new network, primarily would have only one channel, like the Big Ten’s.”
LikeLike
yeah, and when they itimize it they say it’s worth $1.5M per team, with no mention of it being worth more than that. It’s either sloppy reporting or a nonsensical analysis.
LikeLike
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. The 1.5 is apparently immediate, a part of this: “the combination of new deals with ESPN and CBS, along with the formation of a 100% SEC-owned network, would bring the SEC schools nearly $23 million apiece in 2014-15,”. The cost/value of that network must be accounted for somewhere, and since it is conference owned the early years reduced revenue would amount to the schools buying equity.
LikeLike
I see, so they chose to project a scenario that would in all likelihood make significantly more later on than it would in its first year, but then only mention the first year’s projection and make no mention of how much it might increase to in the future.
That’s either sloppy or slanted reporting if you ask me.
LikeLike
Sorta average reporting. What are leading journalism schools doing…
LikeLike
Yeah I don’t see how the network can be 100% SEC owned. The only way that would be possible is 1) if they only use the third tier rights. It is debatable whether that is enough content for an actual 24/7 network. And like Andy said, if that is only valued at $1.5 million per school (that even seems low) it isn’t worth it for most of the conference to do it.
Or
2) Buy the current syndication package directly from ESPN and place it on a hypothetical SEC network. ESPN only has an incentive to do this though if the SEC paid more for the games than ESPN could hypothetically sell them to other bidders.
LikeLike
Even at strictly third tier the SECN would still have 14 X the game content the LHN has.
LikeLike
Here’s a messed up story of lies coming on the heels of the Lance Armstrong interview: Manti Te’o’s dead girlfriend apparently never existed. The story was a complete hoax:
http://deadspin.com/5976517/manti-teos-dead-girlfriend-the-most-heartbreaking-and-inspirational-story-of-the-college-football-season-is-a-hoax
LikeLike
That kid is either mentally ill or has a serious personality disorder. He needs help.
LikeLike
Bizarre. Not sure what to even say to that.
LikeLike
How/why has it taken this long to be exposed?
LikeLike
Because ND is good at covering up stories about dead girls?
LikeLike
ESPN didn’t want it coming out before the game.
Story stinks on many levels.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s statement:
Notre Dame Statement: Manti Te’o
On Dec. 26, Notre Dame coaches were informed by Manti Te’o and his parents that Manti had been the victim of what appears to be a hoax in which someone using the fictitious name Lennay Kekua apparently ingratiated herself with Manti and then conspired with others to lead him to believe she had tragically died of leukemia. The University immediately initiated an investigation to assist Manti and his family in discovering the motive for and nature of this hoax. While the proper authorities will continue to investigate this troubling matter, this appears to be, at a minimum, a sad and very cruel deception to entertain its perpetrators.
Dennis Brown
University Spokesman | Assistant Vice President
Seems unlikely since he said he met her.
LikeLike
Te’o realized a statement as well, basically claiming he got Catfished;
“This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her.
“To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating.
“It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother’s death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life.
“I am enormously grateful for the support of my family, friends and Notre Dame fans throughout this year. To think that I shared with them my happiness about my relationship and details that I thought to be true about her just makes me sick. I hope that people can understand how trying and confusing this whole experience has been.
“In retrospect, I obviously should have been much more cautious. If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that others will be far more guarded when they engage with people online than I was.
“Fortunately, I have many wonderful things in my life, and I’m looking forward to putting this painful experience behind me as I focus on preparing for the NFL Draft.”
collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/16/notre-dame-manti-teo-victim-of-a-hoax/
LikeLike
And reading the article, the guy doing it was a friend of his.
LikeLike
Maybe I am a slow coach on this one but if your imaginary girlfriend dies of imaginary leukemia how did Manti find out? I mean if she were dead she could not tell him she was dead and her obit would never have been written for him to read because they do not put fake obits in the newspapers?
Suspension of disbelief works when making movies because we are all in on the ruse but this is the hard part to comprehend when it is actually reality. I am an old guy and back in the day the imaginary girlfriend was for the non straight guys. Surely in this day and age nobody plays that card anymore especially when folks like TMZ live to expose that type of media chum for a shark frenzied segment who live on it.
LikeLike
This is one to ignore for a couple weeks while the “journalists” go back and do the fact checking and investigating that should have been done months ago. Speculation from he was duped, to Te’o involved from start will be just sensationalist drivel for some time to come.
LikeLike
“I am an old guy and back in the day the imaginary girlfriend was for the non straight guys.”
Well, it might still be. Heck if I know (or care) who T’eo’s with in his private life.
LikeLike
@Richard – It’s a theory that I’ve heard and honestly would be one of the few explanations where the story starts making “sense” (to the extent that it makes sense at all). I certainly don’t care about anyone’s sexuality, but I could see how a Mormon playing football at the country’s most prominent Catholic university wouldn’t be very comfortable coming out of the closet. Once again, this is pure speculation – it’s just a theory that’s been kicked around without any substantiation.
LikeLike
Frank, you have a point. Otherwise, it just seems a bit too irrational on T’eo’s part.
LikeLike
@Frank
The Mormon at a Catholic school explanation was the first thing that came to my mind, but in that case I’m not sure why he would draw some attention to the story. The last thing you want to do is shine a big spot light on your lie (especially something as easily investigated as this).
I’m guessing (and this is pure speculation) that this really did begin as a sort of Catfishing, but Teo chose to embellish the extent of the “relationship” and once he found out what was really going on he was too embarrassed to admit he had been duped so ran chose to live the lie.
LikeLike
@frug – That’s very possible, too.
LikeLike
Running with this (completely baseless) speculation, it could even explain why he chose ND over USC, the school he grew up cheering for. In SoCal, saying he’s only interested in Polynesian/Mormon/Polynesian Mormon girls wouldn’t work; they’d be jumping all over him. In fact, saying he’s only interested in any sort of girl wouldn’t work as LA is so diverse. Plus the girlfriend story would be much harder to pull off. In South Bend, he could concentrate on football.
LikeLike
Frug:
He could have started the girlfriend story to keep girls away. Then what does he do when a reporter asks him if he’s single or not? His friends think he’s in a long-distance relationship. After a few years, he’s comfortable with the phantom gf and embellishments get thrown in. Then the story takes on a life of its own. Remember that he’s a college kid. I remember making up crazy stupid stories that age as well.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ll point at that this is entirely speculation on my part and I have no basis for it.
LikeLike
@Richard
If that is the explanation why go through the process of setting up a fake Twitter account? Did he really think a Twitter account was necessary to convince people she was real?
LikeLike
Not him doing it.
His friend probably was having fun and ran with it.
Dangers of outsourcing.
LikeLike
@Richard – Speaking of outsourcing fake girlfriend profiles, this story was posted in the Washington Post yesterday morning *before* the T’eo story broke:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilian-website-creates-profiles-of-fake-girlfriends-and-posts-them-on-facebook/2013/01/16/7d5af260-5ff0-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
LikeLike
Brent Musburger: “Oh, you middle linebackers, you get all the imaginary women!”
LikeLike
Frank, that’s pretty funny.
I wonder if they all have big butts.
LikeLike
They’re selling “Play like your fake girlfriend died today” T-shirts on the internet……..
LikeLike
There are people who are just big talkers and compulsive liars. I had an employee who went on and on about how she was a 100M sprinter in HS and went to the state meet. She’d tell detailed stories. I was always skeptical because she was built like a distance runner, not a sprinter. She also told stories of her volunteer firefighting. Eventually it came out that she was a cross-country runner, not a sprinter in high school. The firefighting stories were those of her boyfriend, not her.
LikeLike
Like Paul Ryan shaving over an hour off his marathon time.
LikeLike
http://gawker.com/5976828/how-did-football-star-manti-teo-get-catfished-by-a-fake-dead-girl-six-theories-to-explain-the-years-craziest-story?tag=manti-te.o
Six theories to explain what happened (including the two we have been talking about).
LikeLike
Swarbrick’s spin. Says Te’o got Catfished and will speak to the media as soon as tomorrow.
LikeLike
well heck, it’s not like he killed someone….oh, that was the coach…..
The ND line is that when Teo says he “met” the girl, he means met on-line…….but didn’t he say he “met” her in Hawaii?
LikeLike
wrote that before I read the story……..
So ND was a fraud this year. ND’s coach is a fraud, generally. ND’s star is a fraud. And their AD is a twit.
LikeLike
More twists and turns
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/17/cardinals-mauia-says-he-met-manti-teos-girlfriend-she-is-real/
Arizona Cardinal Reagan Mauia insists Lennay Kekua is real and he’s met her.
LikeLike
Also, Kay’s Twitter account is once again active and whoever is operating the account says s/he will be releasing a statement at noon Pacific time.
LikeLike
Is this like the fake Dan Beebe?
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/LennayKay/status/291991188607758336
LikeLike
As good as the fake Dan Beebe.
LikeLike
😉
LikeLike
What’s her next post?
I watched the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong is not real?
LikeLike
Lance is as real as any other cyclist. Eddie Merx said around 50 years ago that anyone who claims to ride the Tour without drugs is either a liar or insane.
LikeLike
ccrider:
Other cyclists did not go around threatening people who told the truth and trying to destroy their lives.
LikeLike
Nobody tried to rat out others to save themselves back then, either. Those older cyclists often had nasty reputations for how they dealt with other cyclists, there just wasn’t the press coverage.
LikeLike
http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/01/17/manti-teo-told-interviewer-lennay-kekua-wrote-him-letter-before-stanford-game-31-days-after-she-died/
Manti Te’o discussed Lennay Kekua in an interview with Notre Dame Athletics on November 13. He told the interviewer he received the last letter from her before the Stanford game on Oct. 13. The game was 31 days after her supposed death on Sept. 12. If we can assume he didn’t forget Notre Dame’s schedule, it seems he believed (or pretended to believe) she wrote the letters ahead of time? This story just keeps getting weirder.
…
Pete Thamel references these letters in this article from Sports Illustrated. Te’o mentions a specific letter before the Michigan game to Thamel and claimed Kekua’s brother Kainoa read it to him. Thamel’s article references a letter received for the Senior Day game against Wake Forest. Thamel claims Te’o was read the letters by family members before being emailed them.
Te’o told the Notre Dame interviewer the last letter came before the Stanford game on Oct. 13 (interview more than four weeks after that game). Te’o then told Thamel he received another letter from her before the Wake Forest game on Nov. 17.
LikeLike
@frug – Lennay Kekua obviously wanted to reenact the plot of P.S. I Love You with pre-written inspirational letters to be delivered posthumously before each game.
(I’ll hand in my man card now for that movie reference.)
(My wife forced me to watch that movie – I swear!)
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130117/manti-teo-girlfriend-hoax-quotes/?sct=hp_t11_a2&eref=sihp
Pete Thamel’s unedited interview with Te’o for the Sports Illustrated article.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/5976762/manti-teos-teammates-had-their-doubts-about-lennay-kekua
Also, at least some of Te’o’s teammates had doubts about Kekua. They believed that Te’o had been in contact with her by that he exaggerated the extent of their relationship for publicity and simply got himself in too deep.
Also for those pushing the “Te’o is gay idea”
The debate among teammates wasn’t whether or not Manti actually knew this girl – it was clear that they had been in contact; no, players just didn’t think that it was fair to call Lennay Kekua Manti’s girlfriend, period (it is well-known on campus that he has had relations with other girls during his time at Notre Dame)
LikeLike
After reading that, it baffles me that Thamel wasn’t on the phone with the hospital she supposedly at as soon as that interview was over. Red flags should’ve been flying all over the place when he was describing her hospital ordeal.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8856519/manti-teo-talked-girlfriend-knowing-hoax
Te’o spoke publicly about his dead girlfriend at least 3 times after he supposedly found out he was being hoaxed.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8857057/friend-says-ronaiah-tuiasosopo-confessed-manti-teo-girlfriend-hoax
Also, an unnamed “friend” Ronaiah Tuiasosopo says Tuiasosopo confessed to Catfishing Te’o and apparently other people.
LikeLike
http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/01/notre-dame-promoted-fundraiser-in-fake-girlfriends-memory-after-learning-she-didnt-exist
Notre Dame continued promoting a fundraiser in Te’o’s dearly departed even after they knew she was fake.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8859077/manti-teo-notre-dame-fighting-irish-denies-being-part-hoax-late-girlfriend
Te’o’s story. Says that he was legitimately hoaxed, and the only thing he lied about was having met Lennay in person.
LikeLike
Big 12 will discuss advantages and disadvantages of expansion according to Dallas Morning News reporter:
That’s a step beyond the typical, “We’re happy at 10.”
LikeLike
But is anybody interested at this point other than Cincinatti and BYU?
LikeLike
There’s always people interested, but I suppose no one cares about Houston, Tulsa, etc… But no one cares about those schools 🙂
BYU and Cincy are by far the most realistic options unless UConn works geographically
LikeLike
The Big East solution for weird regional misfits was for the misfit to enter FB only and play their Olympic sports somewhere else.
One would imagine that, by contrast to the MWC, UConn would join the Big 12 at a discounted payout in a heartbeat, if they could find somewhere reasonable to play their Olympic sports.
LikeLike
Not that I think it would happen, but the Catholic schools might actually welcome them in that set-up given it would probably last for awhile.
LikeLike
Not saying it hasn’t, but can someone show me how independence has failed the LDS church leadership’s mission for BYU?
Being mentioned every time realignment comes up is a plus that only happens if they remain independent.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that the LDS leadership is happy with independence, but they may be getting a lot of pressure from the administration at BYU. Not only will BYU have the worst access to the new playoff system, but scheduling as an independent has been a nightmare for BYU (this year they had ONE home game in the entire second half of the season) and they are still having to give even schools like Wisconsin and G-Tech 2-1 while PAC member Utah got a home and home from Michigan. Even ND had to agree to move to the ACC (which meant giving up the Michigan series and making semi-regular trips to Durham and Winston Salem amongst other things) in order to put together an acceptable schedule. Yes, the Irish have higher scheduling standards than the Cougars but they have far, far more leverage.
The other factor to consider is that if the Big XII were to add two Eastern schools BYU would likely be locked out of the Big Boys club forever. If the Big XII were to add to Eastern schools there is almost no chance they would go back West to add BYU, and with the PAC holding strong on their No Religious Schools stand BYU would have to accept life in mid-major purgatory forever (and likely be left behind when the Big Boys breakaway).
LikeLike
Frug:
The school is able to pressure the leadership like a priest can pressure the Pope.
There is a significant faction that would just as soon eliminate sports. See: BYU Idaho, formerly Ricks college. BYU is not like any other school regarding conference/independence motivation.
LikeLike
I realize that, but the administration may be able to convince the leadership that they will get more exposure as the member of a major conference than they will as an independent in FB and mid-major in other sports.
The LDS leadership tolerates sports at BYU because they believe it is a way to spread the message for the LDS church. If BYU is relegated that all goes away.
In addition, circumstances have shifted since they turned down the Big XII a year and a half ago. The Big XII now has a 12 year GOR ensuring that it won’t be collapsing any time soon and the new TV deal means more national broadcasts for everyone. (Under the old deal BYU predicted they would only get 3 national broadcasts a year vs. 9 or 10 as an indy)
LikeLike
Will they get 9 or 10 nationally in the B12, retaining all and immediate replay rights in all sports for BYUTV, will they be exempt from Sunday competition?
LikeLike
@ccrider
The answer to the first 2 questions is, “I don’t know”. The answer to the final is almost certainly “yes”. The Big XII knew that was a non-negotiable point and offered them a spot anyways (twice actually) and I can’t imagine that has changed.
The biggest question in my mind though is whether the Big XII is still interested. If the Big XII is considering going past 12 BYU is probably off the table unless the Big XII can pull in Air Force. Scheduling across 3 times zones would be a nightmare (especially since a lot of current Big XII schools are located fairly far from major airports) and BYU’s refusal to play on Sundays would probably be too big an issue to overcome.
LikeLike
@frug ~ I’m more inclined to the second ~ if the LDS is happy with the status quo, the argument would be greater opportunity for evangelism as a member of a Big Five conference. How that argument works, I haven’t the faintest, since I am not the person to ask how the LDS leadership views things.
What argument would be used to persuade Texas that BYU is WITHIN the group of positive adds meriting serious consideration in the present round of musical chairs, that’s more a media market question. From the outside in I don’t see anything obvious, nor do I see anything that strongly rules out there being a benefit perceived by that some influential voice or voices inside one of the media networks.
LikeLike
frug:
I’m almost positive that the GTech-BYU series is not a 2-for-1.
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/04/georgia-tech-cancels-2014-2017-football-games-byu/
Looks like a HaH now.
LikeLike
@Richard
My bad.
LikeLike
Although, I’ll add that the fact G-Tech cancelled the back half of their 4 game series further complicates BYU’s future scheduling.
LikeLike
Realistic from the school accepting, not the B12 inviting. Cincinnati would accept immediately if they got invited, but they add nothing to the B12 so it will not happen.
LikeLike
Texas changed to “expansion has to be with quality candidates” (FSU level) when things were resolved with Oklahoma. I doubt BYU will be revisited and Louisville is gone. I think the B12 will still say they are happy at 10 if no quality add is available.
LikeLike
Why is exactly is Louisville gone?
LikeLike
Same reason FSU is.
And if Louisville is available then chances are FSU is as well.
LikeLike
Why? Louisville doesn’t have the history with the ACC that FSU does and they are a better geographic fit for the Big XII than FSU is.
The Big XII already grabbed one team heading for a conference they never actually joined (TCU), don’t see why they couldn’t add another.
LikeLike
Louisville still has to pay an exit fee (and probably aren’t exactly hating the ACC basketball schedule)
LikeLike
Louisville still has to pay an exit fee
And that is significant why?
LikeLike
frug, until the Big 12 nabs an ACC school I think there’s still doubt as to whether they can.
LikeLike
A huge exit fee is a hinderance to anything. Plus, as Andy states, there’s an open question if the Big 12 can lure anyone from the ACC. It’s yet to happen and I’m not convinced anyone wants to. It’s a downgrade academically. It’s a poor geographic fit for any of the schools (even Louisville). The biggest selling point would be money, but its not really that much more money. The problem is the Big 12 cannot do a network. You can thank Texas for that. You’re not going to rake in huge $$$ without the network. Which makes the finanical side very questionable.
With Louisville in particular, you’d think they’d much rather be in the ACC sports-wise. They can potentially win it all in football and are in the premier basketball league. I’m sure Louisville themselves considered these exact arguments when weighing a potential Big 12 offer against accepting an invite to the ACC.
LikeLike
Jericho:
Exit fee is dwarfed by the entrance fee. You’d need to be willing to sign a 12+ year GOR and (presumably) be tied to that conference for its duration. That’s a lot of years media rights. You need to be absolutely certain about the move, now and for more than a decade.
LikeLike
@Jericho
A. No one ever pays a full exit penalty unless they are also buying themselves out of another commitment (like 27 month waiting period).
B. Even if Louisville had to pay the full exit penalty $50 million is not even close to prohibitive in modern athletics.
C. The geography in the ACC isn’t all that much better than the Big XII. Kentucky borders 2 ACC states vs. 1 Big XII state.
D. The ACC can’t do a network either so I’m not sure why that is important.
LikeLike
They wouldn’t be talking about it unless either:
1) Somebody more worthwhile was seriously interested; or
2) ESPN and Fox were seriously interested in Cincinnatti and BYU.
I think #1 is a lot more likely. From some of the discussions of the ideal conference size, could be there are 4 schools interested and they aren’t sure how well that would work.
LikeLike
BYU and Cinci aren’t really that bad. They’re both good at football and basketball, they have a lot of fans, they’re decent academically. They’re no worse than Kansas State or Oklahoma State. About on par really. But again, how much money are they worth? I honeslty don’t know. Maybe more than one would think.
LikeLike
Supposedly reports last January said they didn’t add value. If Colorado didn’t pull their weight in the Big 12, Cincinnati sure wouldn’t.
Cincinnati is far below KSU or OSU. They’re even far below Missouri! And their athletic budget was either the lowest of all AQs or just ahead of South Florida and behind several non-AQs, Memphis to name one. Cincinnati is a commuter school in a pro sports market which makes things tough.
LikeLike
I don’t know. They’re pretty good at FB and BB. Their academics are better than most Big 12 schools. They’re in a large market. I guess what they lack is fans. And that’s pretty important. I agree that they’re probably not worth it, but I guess that’s up to the TV networks.
LikeLike
Yes, other than the Mountaineers, the Bearcats seem a 12th team rather than an 11th team. And if the 11th team is in the ACC, seems like better 12th teams could be found there too. So I’d figure strongest odds is its people blowing smoke, after that people getting cross wires, and then laboring in 3rd several lengths behind some TV network saying that BYU is an incremental net add as an 11th and a 12th for a CCG is an incremental net add, so long as they help hold Big12 among the top ranks in BB as well.
LikeLike
In what ways is Cincinnati “far below” KSU or OSU? Cincinnati is far superior academically to both and I don’t understand why athletics budget matters so much. Does a school that wins 1 game with a huge budget has a higher value than a school that wins 10 with a small budget?
I suppose you can call any school not in a cornfield a “commuter” school, but that means Ohio State, Michigan, Columbia, Penn, Georgia Tech etc are commuter schools as well and that doesn’t seem to hurt them. There are more people within 1 hour of Cincinnati’s campus than in the ENTIRE state of Kansas and more people within 2 hours of Cincinnati’s campus than the ENTIRE state of Oklahoma, and KSU and OSU are clearly the second school in each state. The real question is when will KSU and OSU be kicked out since there is no way they add value.
I have no idea if the Big 12 wants Cincinnati, but I fail to see anyway in which they are below, let alone far below, OSU and KSU. If the Big 12 intends on keeping West Virginia for the long haul, they will need a school within 900 miles at some point.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 intends on keeping West Virginia for the long haul, they will need a school within 900 miles at some point.
Or what?
LikeLike
Little midwestern bias? UC has an excellent medical school, but is ranked in USNWR tied with KSU and OSU. Athletics budgets demonstrate committment and capability. You might note KSU and OSU have come within 1 game of getting in the BCS title game the last two years.
Cincinnati has historically been nothing in football. Until the last dozen years, they and Memphis were pretty much indistinguishable. Their biggest rivalry is with a MAC school and despite winning 7 in a row while in the BE, they still trail Miami in the series by 8 games. They have been in a major conference for 7 years. Nationally, Cincinnati is a nobody in football (even if they have had 3 10 win seasons in recent years). When Cincinnati goes to the Sugar Bowl its considered a mismatch even when unbeaten. OSU and KSU get taken seriously. Cincinnati plays in an ancient 35,000 seat stadium that they don’t fill. OSU drew 56k last year. KSU 50k.
Cincy has a good bb program, but OSU has as many national championships. Cincy has been as far as a regional final 3 times since the days of Big O. KSU has done it 6 times since then despite being with Kansas in the Big 8 and Big 12.
LikeLike
UC is an odd bird. As a private school they were very good academically but their focus has been on the classic education which does not translate to research dollars. Georgetown and Notre Dame are good academic schools but neither are research giants as their mission is focused on education. Cincinnati is similar and they have an endowment over a billion dollars which means OSU at 680 million and KSU at 340 million would have to combine to reach UC’s number.
UC has a solid medical school, one of the oldest law schools in the country, a Top 10 DAA (architecture) program, and a Top 5 CCM (music) which I am guessing is not matched at most every B12 school. Again, none of these are research based so it skews their perception as an academic institution. Personally, I think a classical education is better as a foundation for an educated american citizen but I still think latin should be required along with history and science to better educate future generations.
When they went public in the 70’s they suffered greatly in their engineering and technical programs but I would say they are still a solid school. I know focus is lost in the modern era but most old schools focused on Arts & Sciences while many just focus on the second part of the equation. This seems to lead to a supposedly smarter population but you have a real drop in social skills. Part of the value of college in general is mixing in folks from varied studies in a melting pot to foster innovation and new ideas.
LikeLike
duffman,
UC’s engineering has been doing well lately, in part because of GE aircraft engines being there.
LikeLike
“…should be required along with history and science to better educate future generations.”
Blasphemy !
LikeLike
Duff:
Agree that UCincy is odd and hard to categorize. They remind me a bit of ASU, which admits pretty much anyone with a pulse but has some departments/units which are stellar in their areas.
LikeLike
“Little midwestern bias? UC has an excellent medical school, but is ranked in USNWR tied with KSU and Oklahoma St.”
-A little tumbleweed bias? Using the 15 different university rankings we get:
44 Cincinnati 716.2576
78 Kansas St. 423.8273
84 Oklahoma St. 372.8754
If Cincinnati were in the Big 12 right now it would be by far the top research institution not named Texas. A&M & Colorado (barely) would be ranked higher while Missouri & Nebraska would not.
To claim that UC is academically far behind KSU or Oklahoma St is laughable. As a football program the argument can certainly be made, but to do so you have to ignore the fact that KSU is one coach removed from being hisotrically the all-time losingest football program in Div 1A.
That being said UC certainly has one advantage in being located in a city that produces more high caliber football talent than all of Kansas (you have to widen the radius 30 miles or so before you surpass the entire state of Oklahoma).
UC certainly shouldn’t be target #1 (or #2-5 for that matter) of a BCS conference looking to improve but there’s no need to oversell programs with little value to make that point.
And no, nobody outside of the dust bowl takes KSU or Oklahoma St seriously (even when they probably should have in regards to the Cowboys).
LikeLike
I didn’t say Cincinnati was way below KSU and ISU academically. I said they weren’t way ahead academically. I’m sure your 15 rankings would change dramatically if the medical school differences were removed, which of course, USA Today, which ranks them equal, doesn’t consider. If you include the medical school UAB is ahead of all of them and way ahead of Auburn and Alabama. That doesn’t mean UAB is vastly better academically than Auburn and Alabama. ISU IS AAU. Cincinnati is NOT.
LikeLike
“ISU IS AAU. Cincinnati is NOT.”
—When did Iowa State enter the discussion?
LikeLike
Not sure if it was in these series of tweets, but Bowlsby said something to the effect that noone knew what the ideal conference size was and he wanted some resolution on that. That would indicate that, like the B1G, they are going to be discussing a number of different conference sizes.
LikeLike
Hey Frank,
What’s your take on why Illinois football consistently under-performs? Do you agree with this article that football is not valued at Illinois?
http://www.illinihq.com/sports/illini-sports/football/2013-01-15/tate-footballs-not-valued-illinois-prof-says.html
Also, I know that they didn’t recruit him but why do you suppose Illinois doesn’t get recruits like Jabari Parker. They used to lock down Illinois with recruits from Chicago like Nick Anderson, Marcus Liberty and Len Hamilton.
LikeLike
Illinois is a basketball school. That’s where the focus is.
Plus Illinois the largest number of international students of any public school in the country and American FB is just not that big a deal to them.
LikeLike
I’m from Illinois and the answer “Illinois is a basketball school” makes no sense unless a basketball school is merely a school that doesn’t consistently win at football. If the focus at Illinois is on basketball, then my second question is still unanswered. Why isn’t Illinois consistently dominant in basketball? I see no reason why Illinois should not be consistently upper tier in football and top 25 in basketball just about every year.
sports.yahoo.com/news/college-footballs-biggest-underachievers-161203381–nfl.html
“The University of Illinois football program is another case study in underperforming and failing
to meet expectations. Their pasting last week at the hands of Arizona State isn’t helping things. The school has; a top 25 athletics budget, an astounding 31 players currently in the NFL, a strong base to recruit in Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan and the self-proclaimed “world’s largest alumni community” – which could easily turn into a robust network of boosters and financial contributors. All of these factors should translate to an annually competitive program.”
Illinois had 44,000 students last year of which 9,000 were foreign students. Sure they were one of the tops in the country but all the B1G schools have large foreign student populations in addition to other schools such as Oregon and USC. It doesn’t make a lot of sense that foreign student enrollment would be an overall contributing factor as to why the Illinois football team under-performs.
LikeLike
I’m live in Illinois and attended to U of I and the answer “Illinois is a basketball school” absolutely makes sense. Look at the other schools on the list you linked to. UCLA, Illinois, Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, Syracuse. Notice a trend? All basketball schools. The emphasis just isn’t on football.
And yes Illinois has a large athletic budget compared to the nation as a whole, but it is smaller against the teams they actually play. In fact, Illinois’ had the smallest athletic budget in the entire Big Ten in 2010-2011 (most recent year I could find).
As for your second question. Bruce Weber, while an excellent game coach, was just not a good recruiter. He was basically a reverse Ron Zook (whose ability to acquire talent is responsible for the number NFL players the schools produces but deficiencies as a coach held the program back).
LikeLike
I agree that Illinois is a basketball school, but don’t believe that it’s a place like Indiana where football literally is a placeholder until Midnight Madness. There’s a legit football fan base at Illinois and that bears itself whenever there’s a modicum of success. I wish I could pinpoint what the problem with the program is outside of the standard issue of bad coaching hires. The facilities are good and the recruiting location between Chicago and St. Louis is a major advantage. Ron Zook was able to do a great job bringing top level talent in (as evidenced by how many Illini have ended up in the NFL), but his in-game skills were lacking, to say the least. Unfortunately, Tim Beckman certainly isn’t inspiring much more confidence.
As for basketball, I agree with frug that Bruce Weber is largely the source of recent Illini recruiting issues in the Chicago area. John Groce (who was able to deliver Greg Oden and Mike Conley to Thad Matta at Ohio State) holds a lot more promise in that area.
LikeLike
I agree that Illinois is a basketball school, but don’t believe that it’s a place like Indiana where football literally is a placeholder until Midnight Madness. There’s a legit football fan base at Illinois and that bears itself whenever there’s a modicum of success
You can say the exact same thing about Kentucky, Syracuse and UCLA (though they have a more fair weather fanbase in general than the others)
LikeLike
@frug – Yes, I would agree that those schools are comparable. I just that I sometimes see comments to the effect that “Illinois fans don’t care about football”, which I definitely don’t believe is the case.
LikeLike
Is the number of fair weather fans proportional to the amount of fair weather in the local 🙂 ?
LikeLike
Hey Frank,
What’s your take on why Illinois football consistently under-performs? Do you agree with this article that football is not valued at Illinois?
http://www.illinihq.com/sports/illini-sports/football/2013-01-15/tate-footballs-not-valued-illinois-prof-says.html
“Brewer concludes that Illini football does not meet the campus standard in terms of talent, facilities, revenue and reputation. Brewer used an economic study to conclude that the UI football program, taken by itself, is last in the Big Ten in terms of value. In other words, if the team was put up for sale like an NFL franchise, it would fetch a mere $117.3 million, dead last in the Big Ten and No. 48 in the country.
Brewer’s list begins with Texas showing a sale value of $761.7 million, just ahead of Michigan at $731.9. Other Big Ten schools: Ohio State fifth at $586.6, Iowa 11th at $384.4, Nebraska 13th at $360.1, Penn State 16th at $300.8, Wisconsin 17th at $296.1, Michigan State 21st at $224.8, Northwestern 35th at $148.8, Purdue 38th at $145.1, Indiana 40th at $142.7 and Minnesota 42nd at $139.7.
Way down the list at No. 67 is Missouri (valued at $56.4 million), a rival that Illinois couldn’t solve in St. Louis meetings. That’s a bigger puzzle to me than the UI’s rating.”
Also, I know that they didn’t recruit him but why do you suppose Illinois doesn’t get recruits like Jabari Parker? They used to lock down Illinois with recruits from Chicago like Nick Anderson, Marcus Liberty and Len Hamilton.
LikeLike
And as was discussed previously, Missouri’s numbers are down because of withheld revuenue due to the conference move.
LikeLike
It’s the curse of Chief Illiniwek’s ghost.
LikeLike
I don’t know, man. People here assuming that the Big XII is looking at the likes of Cincy and/or BYU. What if there’s a tacit agreement between Slive and Bowlsby to take the more valuable members of the ACC, leaving everyone else with no way of addressing the demographics issue?
You can’t discount that. I would not be confident if I were you. This is what I was afraid of by not pulling the trigger right away. Then we’d have to hear about it from dem SEC yahoos for the rest of our days. At that point, the conference would have to look at using media to expand its influence to overcome geographical issues or accept a diminished presence in the college sports landscape. Could a merger with their bowl partner not be far off down the road?
LikeLike
“You can’t discount that.”
Why can’t I?
“What if there is…”ancient alien theorist favorite phrase when proposing an unfounded, implausible arguement.
LikeLike
Could a merger with their bowl partner not be far off down the road?</i?
Depends what you mean by "merger". If it is an alliance like what the MWC and C-USA were considering then maybe, but combining into one conference is almost certainly off the table.
The SEC isn't going to add a bunch of deadweight, and Texas and Oklahoma have made clear (UT for 20 years) that they have absolutely, positively no interest in the SEC at all. (Plus, the SEC wouldn't allow the LHN and Texas isn't about to give that up)
LikeLike
I never said anything about Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. What I was opining was that the Champions Bowl partners: BigXII and SEC, can combine forces to win over the more valuable members of the ACC, making themselves much stronger. That was always the play that would checkmate Delany’s (assuming that he has a play in progress). The thing to watch is if the targeted ACC schools would bite on the plan or they reject all offers and pull themselves together in time.
LikeLike
So far only Maryland has left, and several newbies are arriving. Much as the demise of the B12 was expected incorrectly, so I believe it may be with the ACC. There is far less evidence of crumbling than actually happened in the B12.
LikeLike
This SEC-Big 12 master plan would require:
(1) anyone volunteering to go to the Big 12; and
(2) the right (UNC) schools wanting to go the SEC
neither appear to be true.
LikeLike
“What if there’s a tacit agreement between Slive and Bowlsby. . . .”
The set of conceivable “what ifs” is infinite, but this idea doesn’t make much sense. Slive and Bowlsby aren’t peers in conference re-alignment; Slive holds the demonstrably stronger hand. He undoubtedly figures that when the time comes, the SEC will get what it wants, and he doesn’t need Bowlsby’s help to get it done.
LikeLike
Another thing, I always love when college commissioners brag about how School X brings nothing to Conference Y. It’s one thing when fans do it but when you’re supposed to be a dispassionate executive, it reads that you’re petty. Who knows what schools can bring to a conference until they’re in a position to bring it to the table?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21564054/big-12-commissioner-league-could-be-proactive-in-expansion
It’s this elitism that is turning people off of college sports. More of it and even the revenues sports start losing.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any “elitism” on his Maryland and Rutgers comment. They don’t have the fan support or the average success that the Big 10 schools do. He simply said they are below the norm for the Big 10. Just facts, nothing petty. Big 10 schools have averaged approximately 70,000 in football attendance over the last 4 years. Rutgers at 47k puts them 11th. Maryland’s 40k puts them 13th. Rutgers has been ranked twice in the final polls going back to 1968. That ties them with Indiana and Minnesota who last won Big 10 titles in 1967. Maryland was a regular in the 2nd 10 in the 70s and early 80s, but have been ranked only 4 times since 1985. They haven’t finished top 10 since 1976. 8 of the 12 B1G teams have been top 10 in the BCS era and all but Minnesota and Indiana have been top 10 more recently.
LikeLike
Maryland and Rutgers were TV market grabs. You don’t really have to expound on it.
Doesn’t mean they don’t have value in and of themselves. But that’s all long-term talk. Their locations is what brought them to the table in this round of expansion.
Just like the football program is what brought Nebraska.
LikeLike
I think the more important point is that the B12 wants to change the NCAA rule that requires 12 teams to have a CCG. They want 10 with a round robin and then a CCG.
LikeLike
The B1G and PAC weren’t able to get the CCG rules altered to allow variation in 12 and over conferences, what is the likely hood the NCAA would fundamentally alter the purpose of allowing a 13th game. That purpose was to enable a large conference that couldn’t come close to doing a round robin. Avoid potential standing chaos by effectively creating a playoff between the half conferences to arrive at a more acceptable champion. Something not necessary in a 10 team conference. (Bowlsby must have bumped his head somewhere between Stanford and Texas)
LikeLike
ACC tried to do it. I don’t see any chance of it being approved.
But note that he talked about flexibility. He didn’t say this, but maybe flexibility means he is thinking of a 12 or 14 team conference without divisions, but with a championship game.
LikeLike
The rule creates a way for larger conferences to arrive at a champion without being able to approach a full RR. A 13th game is allowed to enable two halves to full RR, and allow for both some cross division and OOC to fill the 12 games allowed. Where is the logic to toss out the reasoning that allows for the extra game, but still allow it for two teams the conference selects?
LikeLike
Money grab?
LikeLike
There isn’t any logic to it.
That’s never stopped them before. I don’t think its likely, but its a lot less remote than approving a ccg with 10.
LikeLike
Mack:
NCAA sees none of the conference media deal money.
LikeLike
??? The money grab is by the conference, not the NCAA. Even if the B12 does not need a CCG, having one will produce more revenue. Not likely the NCAA will approve.
LikeLike
Mack:
Oh, ok. I thought we were discussing the probability of the NCAA changing the rules allowing a CCG as a 13th game. If the B12 wants a CCG they can creatively schedule their 12 games with a flex in the last week to allow for it within the allowed 12.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 does expand (I still think it’s unlikely) does anyone think UNLV, New Mexico, or possibly other western programs have a shot? I know BYU and Cincinnati are probably now the favorites. If BYU is one, I think the conference would seriously look at a western school that could eventually carry a state as opposed to Cincinnati though (although on the flip side, I’d think UConn and Cincinnati would be considered together if they decided they had to expand)
LikeLike
“If the Big 12 does expand (I still think it’s unlikely) does anyone think UNLV, New Mexico, or possibly other western programs have a shot?”
No.
LikeLike
I think BYU goes back to the Mountain West. Houston joins them as #14. Talk about insult to injury. The MWC is now the highest non-AQ conference and, depending on what happens to the ACC, might even go higher.
LikeLike
Even if they do not end up going, BYU internally arguing through whether to return to the MWC, and the Big12 actively working through whether an ACC expansion is a possibility in this off-season could help spark a “crossed wires” rumor of BYU to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Again, how has the move to independence not fulfilled the church’s mission for BYU?
The desire for the prestige BCS conference membership brings them is a sin. Visibility on their terms is the currently achieved goal that I don’t see the B12 being able to improve upon, unless they are willing to make their past deference to UT seem insignificant in comparison.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I think independence fulfills the church’s mission for BYU football when compared to being in the MWC or any other Gang of Five league, which is getting the best exposure possible within that sphere of non-power conference schools. Now, I think going to the Big 12 or one of the other power conferences, though, would be a different story. My understanding is that there are enough people at BYU that know full well that they can’t turn down a power conference invite in the new postseason format.
LikeLike
But does the B12 still want BYU? Having proved to the lesser members of the B12 that BYU is more difficult to deal with than Texas (without bringing in Texas size money), why would the B12 want to go down that rat hole again. After taking WV, expanding west makes little sense. The P12 knew what they were doing when they bypassed BYU to take Utah on as a project.
.
LikeLike
An argument would be posed in terms of whether it offers an opportunity for improved visbility. What that specific argument would be and then how persuasive it would be ~ As I said further above, I wouldn’t be the one to ask how to think like someone high up the LDS hierarchy.
LikeLike
@ccrider ~ one possibility for a line of argument is basketball. BYU is unranked at 14-4 and 4-0 in their conference and yet unranked ~ Ken Rodriguez at MW Connection raises the question whether the WCC hurts BYU basketball:
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013/1/16/3881476/column-byu-being-hurt-by-wcc-membership/in/3432679
… now, bearing in mind that is from a MWC perspective, so likely to be looking for reasons why BYU might want to go back, but there’s one which would seem likely to have some weight as an argument to be used with the LDS hierarchy. After all, the NCAA tourney may not be as much conference revenue as football, due to the TV money being diced and sliced before a minor part goes to participating conference … but its lots of eyeballs, and that matters for the LDS mission.
LikeLike
If you compare UNLV with Cincy (and disregard academics), there’s nothing that puts Cincy ahead.
LikeLike
Cincy has a considerably stronger history in football, and its recent history in basketball is better too.
Since their 1991 Final Four appearance, UNLV has been to the tourney just seven times, and in five of them they were bounced in the first round. During that same period, Cincy has 16 tourney appearances, including one Final Four, two Elite Eights, and two Sweet Sixteens. They’ve made it to at least the second round in all but two of their appearances.
UNLV didn’t even start playing football until 1968, and they didn’t move up to Division I until 1978. Up to 1995, when they moved up to the WAC, they were what we call today an FCA/I-AA school in football. They’ve been to just three bowls, the most recent in 2000. They haven’t won a conference championship since they were in the Big West, a league that doesn’t even play football any more.
Cincinnati started playing football in 1885. The Bearcats have been bowling 14 times, including 10 times since 2000. They’ve won or shared the Big East title four times in the last decade.
LikeLike
UC has a stronger history because Cincinnati was a major city while LV was a speck in the desert for big chunks of the past 100 years. Doesn’t mean that will be true going forward. LV metro already has about as many people as Cincy metro.
LikeLike
But no water…
LikeLike
@Richard: Your comment was, “There’s nothing that puts Cincy ahead.” To the contrary, there are obviously a ton of things. In fact, in most ways Cincy is ahead today.
Arguing that UNLV’s future is brighter is a completely different proposition. Counting the number of people in the metro area is merely one measure, and frankly not a very good one. If it were, Fordham would be the nation’s best football school.
LikeLike
OK, some things and LV will be reclaimed by the desert.
LikeLike
@Eric – IMHO, the Big 12 could do worse than a New Mexico/Colorado St expansion.
LikeLike
Let me rephrase that. a New Mexico/Colorado St expansion isn’t horrible.
LikeLike
To the schools involved or the B12? There are worse schools out there, but doing nothing is better than expanding with anyone outside the big 5 conferences. Every school in the other 5 will require current B12 members to take a 10%+ payout hit. The likely outcome of B12 discussions is a plan that limits potential targets to a subset of the ACC. That does not mean the B12 is likely to get those targets unless the B1G or SEC destabilize the ACC. Just a realization that nothing else works and it is better to stay at 10 than dilute the product.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 wanted to expand for the sake of expanding, they could do a lot worse than UNM and CSU. They fit the profile of a Big 12 school and are a geographic fit. I’m not contending they’ll move the needle financially unless rights fees double again and the Big 12 needs an excuse to open their TV contracts.
LikeLike
The Big 12 has no reason to “expand for expansion’s sake.” @Mack is correct: all it would do is reduce the per-school payout, since they’d have two new mouths to feed, neither of whom brings very much to the table.
The B12 already has an extremely good TV deal. ESPN overpaid for the B12 to keep the league from collapsing. To get a better TV deal, the B12 would need to add a couple of blockbusters, like Florida State and Clemson.
The B12 is a bit unusual, in that they’re the smallest Big Five league, but they have no realistic danger of being poached. They’re not going to expand until they can make a splash. UNM and CSU are more like the kinds of teams the Big East would want. They are not B12 teams.
The other problem, by the way, is that when you split into divisions, there is no way to incorporate those schools without either a huge competitive imbalance, or losing annual rivalries that are far more valuable.
LikeLike
I didn’t say the Big 12 had a reason to expand. I said if they wanted to. Take a look at the profile enrollment, academically, and athletically of UNM and CSU. They look a lot like a Big 12 school.
LikeLike
“…but they have no realistic danger of being poached.”
Nothing really left to be poached (assuming OU/UT leaving would be called executing, not poaching the conference).
LikeLike
And to top that off divisions would be difficult. The B1G has 4 kings. The SEC has 6 schools that are kings or princes. Makes the division profile thin to split OU and Texas. There would be enough competition, but not enough “names.” Noone outside the Big 5 other than BYU and Notre Dame add enough name value. And BYU doesn’t add enough by themself to carry another school.
LikeLike
There’s another angle of Bowlsby asking the NCAA to change it’s championship rules. He’s not asking the NCAA to just allow a 10 team conference to have a CCG. He’s asking the NCAA to allow each conference to decide how it determines it’s own champion. This could be a big deal for the B1G, SEC, and ACC also.
A 14 team conference of two 7 team divisions makes scheduling pretty difficult, as has been discussed several times on this board. However, if the rule is removed that each division MUST play a round robin that opens up things tremendously.
For a 9 game conference schedule, If each division plays 5 divisional opponents instead of 6 every year and 4 cross divisional opponents, every team could play every other team at least 2 out of 4 years.
That has pretty big implications and relieves a lot of stress on expansion.
LikeLike
Even 5 and 3 in an 8 game schedule makes a big difference. Opens up a lot of annual cross-over rivals too. it will be interesting to see what the NCAA does. They cannot control expansion, but they can effect it.
LikeLike
All those scenarios have been explored by the B1G and the PAC previously…
LikeLike
I think the NCAA has too much authority as it is. Any change that diminishes NCAA control is for the good.
But a divisional set-up without a round robin in the division is just crazy. Without it, two teams could tie for first without having played each other, and then, who gets to go to the CCG?
LikeLike
The team who hasn’t been to the Rose Bowl the longest.
🙂
LikeLike
Like Richard said it would be resolved the way any other tie would be. The interesting part now is that the tied teams could both make the CFB playoff, but the tie break winner would have played an extra game.
LikeLike
With SDSU offically returning to the MWC step two of the Rice Conference Armageddon is now complete. Look for UConn to the ACC as the next shoe to drop.
LikeLike
Why would the ACC want UConn, and why would SDSU’s non-move have anything to do with it?
The ACC already passed on UConn. Part of their rumored rationale was basically that UConn is always going to be there, and they can therefore wait to see how the landscape develops before making their next move. That still seems to be true.
LikeLike
Why? So the universe can continue to punish Rice. I don’t know what they did, but it must have been bad.
LikeLike
The band insulted the Aggies dead dogs.
LikeLike
It wasn’t THAT bad…
I think the goose-stepping pissed them off more.
LikeLike
You probably weren’t doing it right.
LikeLike
ESPY bloggers B1G alignment proposals (both got it right!)
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/69992/our-proposals-for-b1g-division-alignment
LikeLike
Actually, I think Bennett got it right:
East: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana
West: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern
I didn’t notice that Rittenberg had State in the East.
LikeLike
Suggested protected games under Bennett plan:
Michigan-Michigan State
Ohio State-Illinois
Penn State-Nebraska
Maryland-Minnesota
Rutgers-Iowa
Purdue-Northwestern
Indiana-Wisconsin
LikeLike
@vp19: This just goes to show the drawback of “invented” protected games that have no basis in history. Your first two are obvious, and PSU-Nebraska is a sensible “king vs king” game. But the others are just random. I suspect some schools would cry foul if Wisconsin was given an extra auto-win on their conference schedule every year.
If everyone has a locked rival, something closer to balanced would be:
Michigan-Michigan State
Ohio State-Illinois
Penn State-Nebraska
Indiana-Minnesota
Maryland-Iowa
Rutgers-Northwestern
Purdue-Wisconsin
LikeLike
I also chose Rutgers to be Northwestern’s protected game. I think that could develop into an interesting rivalry, and give NW some nice East Coast exposure.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Suggested protected games under Bennett plan:
Michigan-Michigan State
Ohio State-Illinois
Penn State-Nebraska
Maryland-Minnesota
Rutgers-Iowa
Purdue-Northwestern
Indiana-Wisconsin”
Just to be clear, Bennett said only MI/MSU had to be locked but that OSU/IL and PSU/NE could be. The rest are your suggestions, not his (not everyone reads the articles).
I’d actually switch yours up, too.
RU/NW – NYC/Chicago is too good to pass up
MD/MN – At least give MD a city to go to
IN/IA
PU/WI
LikeLike
I agree. If I had a vote, I’d go for the Bennett plan.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70049/poll-big-ten-division-alignments
They put up a poll.
LikeLike
Early returns (962 votes):
49% Bennett
33% Rittenberg
18% Inner/Outer
LikeLike
I hate it when they put up the alignment and don’t mention crossovers. That’s a big piece of the puzzle missing.
LikeLike
Eric,
In the morning article, they did discuss the crossover issue. Adam had everybody with one, Brian had MI/MSU only, but said maybe OSU/IL and PSU.NE, too.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – That’s the alignment that I’ve said that I like the best if we’re going to have a cross-division rival assigned to every school. If the Big Ten is willing to just have one cross-division protected rivalry with everyone else rotating regularly, I could see putting Michigan State and Indiana in the East (which would make Michigan-Michigan State into a divisional game that would be played annually) and Purdue in the West (with Indiana-Purdue being the only cross-division rivalry that’s protected).
LikeLike
There’s the rub.
LikeLike
MSU must be paired with UM in any divisional arrangement grouping UM/PSU/OSU. Otherwise, with UM/MSU as locked cross division rivals, the other schools in MSU’s division won’t see UM and OSU often enough (76% of the time, assuming its either/or with a 9 game B1G schedule) to be happy. It seems barely acceptable that 1/7th of the time western schools will feature a schedule without Michigan or Ohio State on it. For the western schools, having a schedule featuring PSU and Nebraska 1 year in 7 is ok. But every fourth year? I don’t think so. At least not yet.
LikeLike
John O, the posters here blindly follow their fantasy league alignment without considering the individual actors. The “fuck the west” alignment probably won’t get the votes. Seven ADs will vote against it.
LikeLike
greg,
At least 1 poster here (besides yourself) hasn’t been advocating the East Uber Alles approach.
LikeLike
Two 🙂 Inner-outer makes far and away the most sense to me. That said, I think the early signs point to east-west and a minimum number of locked crossovers.
LikeLike
GLS,
Not only that, but Adam also had 7 locked games. That sucks in an 8 game schedule.
LikeLike
Yeah, did not like his scenario at all. Too many squares in round holes.
LikeLike
I think the notable thing from the Bowlsby comments was the discussion of the Big 10 taking Maryland and Rutgers, knowing full well that it will have to grow those programs. Perhaps there is a sense that “if the Big 10 can do it,” anyone can do it. In other words, if the richest conference can take on a project, why can’t we?
BYU is BYU. Who knows?
Cincinnati certainly makes some sense. Cincinnati won 10 games last year and is showing that they can stay on the big stage. Ohio is a nice area to recruit. Proximity to West Virginia is not too shabby either.
But what about South Florida. You’ve got the Tampa market. They have a rising basketball program, but not one that threatens anyone. You’ve got a good football team and great recruiting area, but not one that threatens the big dogs.
And, with WVU in the fold, can anyone count out UConn just because of geography?
If the Big XII senses that there is merit to growing a program, there are 4 solid options right there. And, given the likely Big East payouts, they could let two programs split one payout for 5 years and still be giving them a huge raise in revenue.
I am sure the Big XII would rather have a top program from the ACC, but the could also follow the Big 10 model and grow a program. That’s all.
LikeLike
The B12 should try growing Iowa State. With no network, the B12 does not benefit from poor athletics in a large TV market like the B1G. Bowlsby may have been thinking about who could be left if the ACC implodes such as NCSt, Miami, or Pittsburgh. The P12 Utah project looks like it will take many years.
LikeLike
Iowa State is a historical oddity that belongs in the MAC. I guess they fit since every conference likes teams that everyone beats most years. They do make a strong rival to West Virginia!
LikeLike
Pre-Bill Snyder, ISU was generally superior to Kansas State in football — not by much, but better. If success can come in Manhattan, why not in Ames?
LikeLike
KS is full of JUCOs, IA isn’t. Also, Hawkeyes >>>>>>>> Jayhawks in football, so the competition is a little different.
LikeLike
Except Iowa. After a long Iowa win streak, ISU has won 9 of the last 15.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there’s much upside in those “projects.” BYU strikes me as a mature brand that is close to its potential. Either the B12 and BYU want each other, or not, but they aren’t a project.
Cincinnati may have more downside than upside, because they’ve just had their most successful decade ever, and they’re at best Ohio’s #2 school. If there’s an over/under on the Bearcats duplicating the decade they just had, I’m taking the under.
USF fits the “project” label a little better, but if you’re the Big 12, do you leap right away for the 4th-best Florida school, when FSU could still be available? I don’t think so.
I agree that UConn isn’t ruled out on geographic grounds. But given their very brief history in FBS, their tiny stadium, and the lack of passionate support for college football in their (comparatively small) state, that is not a project that I could envision the B12 taking on.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose that is part of what the Big XII is debating about. I don’t doubt that they WANT Florida State. But that does not mean that Florida State wants them. The money increase is not significant enough to take steps back academically.
As for Cincinnati, if Michigan can support two decent teams at once, Ohio certainly can. They also have a nice basketball program, which made noise long before joining the Big East.
The Big East has been able to cultivate programs. Louisville was not on anyone’s radar until it spent a few years in the Big East. Same with USF–they were nothing. The Big 10 is willing to grow Rutgers and Maryland. Why can’t the Big XII do that?
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“As for Cincinnati, if Michigan can support two decent teams at once, Ohio certainly can.”
The difference is that MSU is much more equal to MI than UC is to OSU. Also, don’t forget OH already supports Miami, Ohio, Kent State, Toledo, Bowling Green and Akron in addition to UC and OSU. Plus, the rest of the B10 and ND recruit OH heavily.
LikeLike
I think MSU is in the mist of a long term decline. I work with an MSU grad that claims that over 60% of MSU grads leave Michigan upon graduation to find work – not sure if that is true, but there a quite a few MSU grads here in the mid-South and it wouldn’t be that big of a surprise. I’m sure they will continue to be good at sports, but with such a powerful in state rival, declining population, bad weather and out of the way location, I don’t see a great future for MSU.
LikeLike
Not true about Louisville. They may not have been in the general public’s notice, but they were in the top 10 their last year in CUSA and #17 in 2001. They had some good years in the early 90s. USF was a BE project, but they were ok in CUSA.
LikeLike
Cincinnati has the problem of being in a pro sports market. The number of schools in pro sports markets with consistently good attendance is pretty small. Washington, USC (who’s variable), UCLA, Michigan. 2 kings and 2 other schools with MNCs in the top 30 all time win %. Its not easy.
LikeLike
@acaffrey: I’m not sure there’s good evidence for a conference’s ability to create a football king, or even a prince. Louisville, as another poster noted, was on its way up before the Big East took them. USF is a recently-minted program. When you start at zero, all you have is upside, though we don’t know how much higher they can go.
Cincinnati has been playing football since the 1890s. If you believe they’re going to make a big jump, you’re betting against a pretty long history. Not that the Big XII won’t take them, but it’s far from clear that there’s huge upside there.
Markets can be cruel. It is not logical that in the 11th most populous state, New Jersey, the best team is Rutgers. You can’t create a football powerhouse so easily, just because the size of the market says it ought to be possible.
You could be right that Florida State doesn’t want the Big XII, but that hasn’t been demonstrated. If I’m the Big XII, I’d have to be pretty sure I’m getting neither FSU nor Miami, before I offer USF. That is certainly far from clear.
The Big East took on some rather dodgy programs because, basically, they had to. The Big XII is not in as weak a position, and despite what Bowlsby said, I don’t think they’re going to hoover up marginal programs, just to get to 12 or 14.
LikeLike
You guys just want to have it both ways. It is OK for the Big 10 to take on a project, but it is not OK for the Big XII to think it worth the risk to do the same. The difference is that the Big XII does not have to pay a full share to give a Big East team a HUGE raise in revenue. They can phase Cincy and USF in over a long tail and still be in a win-win situation.
Cincinnati and USF sit in good recruiting areas. While Cincy is a pro town, it is not a pro town in the same sense as Boston. The Bengals are hardly great and there is no NBA team.
I also think that the Big XII could afford to take on schools that are not great academically. In that context, a UNLV might be an option too.
Who says that you can only take Kings? Or potential Kings? Nobody can really think that Rutgers or Maryland have king potential.
Again… if the Big 10 could slum it by taking Rutgers and Maryland–for markets rather than athletic prowess–why can’t the Big XII slum it also? Doesn’t it behoove the lesser football teams to bring in beatable opponents? Does Iowa State go to a bowl this year if Florida State was on the schedule? I get that taking a program that requires building is not as sexy as taking an established school, but it is far from impossible just because of that. Just look at what the Big 10 did.
LikeLike
Who says that you can only take Kings? Or potential Kings?
UT?
LikeLike
I agree with you that the B12 CAN take on a project, BUT why would they?
What is the advantage to KS, KSU, ISU of having more travel and fewer games in TX?
What is the advantage to TX and OK of having a CCG without more revenue?
What is the advantage to all members taking less money if revenue does not grow enough?
So the B12 could, but it is in the interest of every current member not to.
The B12 does not need recruiting grounds, they have Texas.
LikeLike
The BigTen needed markets and recruiting grounds with large and growing populations, and they got that. They WANT more, and we will see how much they will get of what they want, but their move has already addressed their most pressing needs, so they can afford to be opportunistic but patient.
I find the ACC getting raided and adding UC at some step along the way a lot more likely than UC as the school that makes up the numbers with the Big 12 at 11 and needing a 12th, or the Big 12 at 13 and needing a 14th, but that latter is the scenario where I can imagine UC in the Big12.
The Big12 ending up at an odd number of other adds and UC the best option to even up may not the way anybody building a super conference in the clouds would imagine it happening, but stranger things have happened.
LikeLike
If you are slumming in the Big 12, you are adding 1/11. If you do it in a 12 or 14 team conference, its not as big an impact.
LikeLike
@ bullet If you go from 10 to 12, you also get a CCG. So that adds to the pot too.
What is wrong with these divisions:
A: Texas, Texas Tech, WVU, Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati
B: Oklahoma, OSU, USF, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State
Team listed below crossover. 5-1-3 schedule. That is still at least one game in Texas for the other division, and sometimes two. Plus, the B division gets Florida exposure. Can set it up where a team either gets 1 game in Fla, 1 in Texas… or 2 in Texas.
Is that awful?
LikeLike
acaffrey:
Well, that’s the thing. When you expand for markets and add UMD and Rutgers, you add 6M+ and 8M+ people to your footprint. Plus, the B10 can monetize markets with the BTN. The B12 doesn’t have a conference network (and won’t). In any case, Cincy, USF, and UConn deliver a fraction of the households that UMD and Rutgers can. Plus, with the B12’s TV contracts, they need brands in order to monetize new additions. Cincy & USF don’t provide that, and UConn’s brand is only in bball.
LikeLike
@ Richard. Rutgers and Maryland do not have the in-state following that the current Big 10 schools have. They are projects to get to a point where you can say they deliver a useful percentage of those households. And have you talked to ESPN and Fox about what they want? Maybe ESPN wants UConn to have a home and for the Tampa market to stay in the family. If the Big East ends up with NBC, this is a way for those networks to keep two decent markets. Maybe ESPN is OK with the Big 10 taking Maryland, but would not be OK with the ACC losing a bigger brand (i.e., they will save the ACC to prevent it from breaking up like what happened to the Big XII). Who really knows?
LikeLike
@acaffrey
Oklahoma St. would push back against that vehemently, and Oklahoma would almost certainly join them.
Getting a game in Florida every other year does not even come close to making up for having to give up second annual game in Texas.
LikeLike
@acaffrey,
” It is OK for the Big 10 to take on a project, but it is not OK for the Big XII to think it worth the risk to do the same. The difference is that the Big XII does not have to pay a full share to give a Big East team a HUGE raise in revenue. ”
I’d argue the bigger difference is, as Richard notes, the Big Ten has a way to monetize additional markets with the network (as does the Pac-12 and depending on the equity situation so will the SEC soon). Any addition monetarily at least is going to rely solely on what ESPN and Fox are willing to pay for a team, not what the markets can potentially bring.
“have you talked to ESPN and Fox about what they want? Maybe ESPN wants UConn to have a home and for the Tampa market to stay in the family.”
The major reason for ESPN to pay up for a specific team is to get access to content they don’t currently have. Relying on the traditional networks to fuel a conference’s expansion at the level of the Big 4 when they’re in the middle of a contract* is becoming increasingly implausible to me. ESPN is in 90 million plus households, virtually everyone with cable. Getting into market X or Y matter significantly less to them, because they’re already there. Thus what they’ll be willing to pay for any additions is minimal.
Now you can make the argument that if the Big XII knows they can get an equal share for two schools and a conference championship game out of the deal it is worth it for them to expand. You can also make the argument that they could take junior members out of the Big East and give them an unequal revenue share and they two new schools would still be making more than they were. However, I don’t buy the argument that the Big XII is just as suited to take on a “project” as the Big Ten, the Pac-12 or the SEC are.
*NBCSN, the new Fox networks are going to want content bad as existing deals expire. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more movement again as conference contracts come up, but other than the Big Ten, it will be awhile.
LikeLike
“Maybe ESPN wants UConn to have a home and for the Tampa market to stay in the family”
“Maybe ESPN is OK with the Big 10 taking Maryland, but would not be OK with the ACC losing a bigger brand (i.e., they will save the ACC to prevent it from breaking up like what happened to the Big XII). Who really knows?”
Maybe ESPN wants to add the viewers in Wyoming to the family. Who really knows?
Reductio ad absurdum.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“@ bullet If you go from 10 to 12, you also get a CCG. So that adds to the pot too.”
Very true.
“What is wrong with these divisions:
A: Texas, Texas Tech, WVU, Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati
B: Oklahoma, OSU, USF, Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State”
1. UT and OU are split (UT and OU vote no)
2. OU and OkSU are cut off from TX (OkSU votes no)
3. KU, KSU and ISU are cut off from TX while UC and WV get 2 games/year there (KU, KSU and ISU vote no)
That’s 6 no votes automatically.
LikeLike
@Brian
I agree that acaffrey’s scenario is a no go and Oklahoma would oppose it, but I actually don’t know that OU would object to be split from Texas. While it is clear that UT wants to keep that a divisional game, OU has been a bit more agnostic on the issue, and given that they are generally more open to expansion than UT they would probably be willing to consider splitting if it was necessary to get the other schools on board.
LikeLike
frug,
“I agree that acaffrey’s scenario is a no go and Oklahoma would oppose it, but I actually don’t know that OU would object to be split from Texas. While it is clear that UT wants to keep that a divisional game, OU has been a bit more agnostic on the issue, and given that they are generally more open to expansion than UT they would probably be willing to consider splitting if it was necessary to get the other schools on board.”
OU might not oppose the concept of being split from UT, but not these divisions. OU gets ISU, KU and KSU while UT gets the other 3 from TX? I don’t think so.
If he said:
A – UT, TT, KU, KSU, UC, WV
B – OU, OkSU, TCU, Baylor, ISU, USF
I would entertain the argument from OU’s perspective, but now TCU, Baylor and ISU would say no. UT would also be against it. OkSU might also complain. That’s 4.5 no votes.
LikeLike
@Brian
Like I said in my previous post, I think that OU would oppose this specific alignment, but I was just pointing out that Oklahoma may not object in principle to being split from Texas (they certainly haven’t indicated they are as opposed as UT)
LikeLike
Pretty much all the fans would object to weakening the schedule both from the average actual strength and even more so from perceived strength. The division races would be viewed as less interesting. From a perceptual standpoint, USF and Cincinnati are significant downgrades in fb from everyone but ISU & KU (Baylor has the neighbor factor).
In any event, TV has to be willing to pay for it. Its been reported that TV said noone available made expansion worth it except Notre Dame (this was before the ACC appeared vulnerable). Noone made clear whether that meant they cost the schools $ or if they only broke even. There have been some people saying (and its clear from reliable sources that there was serious interest although I’m not totally sure I believe this) the conference wanted to make Louisville #11 when they added WVU, but TV wouldn’t bump the contract up enough to make it breakeven.
LikeLike
There is no TV inventory going from 10 to 11 teams, so any added TV money is for the market and brand. At 11 the B12 would have 44 conference games vs. 45 today at 10 since a 9 game schedule does not work at 11. Options of adding up to 3 schools were discussed in case Missouri left. When Pittsburgh got the ACC invite, the B12 found other options to go to 12 did not generate acceptable conference revenue. Since the B12 did not take Louisville and Cincinnati then, it is not logical to think that Cincinnati and a school worse than Louisville will be acceptable now. .
LikeLike
For the Big 12, I’m guessing Clemson is better the Cincinnati and USF. They’d have to be bigger fools than I think they are to take Cincinnati or USF over FSU.
The Big 12 will not make a move until the ACC settles with Maryland, and possibly the NCAA ruling on Miami.
LikeLike
@ Mack ~ yes, for a “X+UC to the Big 12” rumor to sound plausible, it must be an “X” that is a stronger addition than Louisville. A Florida school starting in U and ending in F doesn’t clear that hurdle.
LikeLike
I think the Gators would clear that hurdle just fine!
LikeLike
The Gators don’t need an acronym, they’re just Florida. Its the Interstate 4 schools that both aspire to be UxF.
LikeLike
Maryland and Rutgers are markets, not projects.
LikeLike
The Rutgers/Maryland grabs weren’t about “growing weaker programs”; they were about killing the Big East (done) and destabilizing the ACC (done).
Any move the Big 12 can make right now will do nothing as definitive to any other conference.
LikeLike
The Big 12 has two main objectives in expansion.
1 it needs more population/markets for recruiting ground and to keep content revenues high in the future. They can’t have any other schools suckling from the Texas teat.
2. There must be (at least the perception of) divisional balance. Adding Cincinnati and BYU to the North would not create divisional balance.
If the Big 12 wanted Cincinnati they would have added them and Louisville or BYU 2 years ago to get to 12.
LikeLike
imo, they were mostly about keeping up with the Joneses……..SEC went to 14….BIG had to follow.
LikeLike
The Big 10 was threatened by the Big East?
LikeLike
More the ACC. Ceding the East Coast to the ACC (a possibility with PSU being down) wasn’t an attractive option. I don’t think anyone cared what happened to the BE.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10 cares one bit about the Big East or ACC or would have any desire to kill or destabilize them – these are schools, not imperialistic empires! The Big 10 just wants more money! Sometimes we make this more complex than it is.
LikeLike
It looks like Tulsa will replace San Diego State and join the Big East (CUSA 2.0) in all sports.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU/article.aspx?subjectid=94&articleid=20130117_94_B4_Afteri880016
LikeLike
If this is true, shows another example of not believing conference commissioners. Aresco said they were standing pat for the time being just the other day. With Navy not joining until 2015, they were in no hurry.
LikeLike
And who is the other one … who ought to be a school that can cushion the impact on their basketball strength of schedule?
LikeLike
The Catholic 7 will, in all likelihood, will add 5 schools to get to 12. For argument’s sake, let’s say those 5 are Xavier, Dayton, Butler, Saint Louis, and Creighton. Other interested parties like VCU, Richmond, George Washington, George Mason, St. Joseph’s, and Duquesne would be left out.
Some of those schools, especially VCU, might be worthy additions as non-football additions for the Football Big East Conference (aka “nu Big East” or “C-USA 2.0”). In my opinion, this league has so few viable football options left in the Central and Eastern time zones that they’d be better off just adding the best basketball options. Basketball’s value has been wounded greatly, yet with UConn, Temple, Cincy, and Memphis, it should still produce 3-6 tournament teams a year, depending on the season. I see little harm in adding a few non-football programs to that type of league if they can enhance basketball value, especially since adding non-football programs won’t diminish the value of football. Plus, since non-football schools would be greatly outnumbered by football schools, the football schools wouldn’t have to worry about wrestling with the non-football group over the direction of the league the way they did in the old Big East hybrid. They’d always have the overwhelming majority.
LikeLike
There’s noone left among the basketball schools worth adding. They are almost all have anemic fan support.
LikeLike
I was reading an Ohio State forum were two different people claimed that FSU and Miami have recently applied for AAU status, and that FSU even had the former president of the AAU evaluate/advise them on what they needed to do in order to gain membership. Yes, i know this is probably not unusual, and possibly not true, but as someway who believes Delany is to smart to cede the fourth largest state (and recruiting hotbed) to a rival conference, I can’t say as I’m surprised.
LikeLike
Well that would be interesting that they applied given that admission to the AAU is by invitation only…
LikeLike
Replace the word ‘apply’ with ‘submit’ and you can sleep better tonight.
LikeLike
Irrelevant even if true. FSU is ranked 94th on that AAU list behind 35 non-AAU schools. They were ahead of only two-Nebraska at 109 and #105, presumably Syracuse.
LikeLike
Here’s the former AAU President’s assessment of FSU. Pretty interesting.
Click to access Hasselmo.pdf
LikeLike
I think that’s from 6 years ago.
LikeLike
I remember reading that a few years back. It was certainly interesting.
LikeLike
GLS,
I’m sure a lot of schools ask to be evaluated for membership and to be told what to work on. That doesn’t mean they can quickly fix their deficiencies.
On a related note, this is VT’s look at what they need to do to make the AAU. The see a minimum 3-5 years for any changes to have the necessary impact. They’re also calling for some large changes, which is hard to do at most public schools.
Click to access strengths.pdf
LikeLike
As I said in my post above (concerning evaluations) “i know this is probably not unusual,”
Truth be told, I think FSU is looking at a good decade before it would be considered for an invite (a decade in the academic incubator of the B1G). I just happen to believe, if conference realignment truly is a ‘hundred year decision’, a school like FSU, with its upside academically and brand wise, seems too good to pass up. Some on here are quite adamant it is not.
LikeLike
GLS,
I said that in answer to you saying it was probably common or untrue to indicate I considered it likely. It was also a segue into posting that link about VT, another school often brought up in the AAU discussion.
I think VT and FSU are in similar places, and at least a decade away from the AAU.
As far as I-A schools, the list goes like this according to NE’s report:
31. GT – added in 2010
34. 50th percentile of AAU members
37. BU – added in 2012
49. Utah
57. WF
58. 25th percentile of AAU members
59. Miami
62. UC
64. CSU
67. OrSU
69. NM
79. HI
81. UConn
87. ASU
87. USF
90. UMass
91. VT
91. NCSU
91. OU
94. FSU
94. The lowest AAU member remaining (also 87, 83, 81, 76, 74, 74, 71, 69, 66, 64, 63, 59)
96. UL
96. UK
98. NMSU
99. ND
100. MS
Obviously there are other factors, like general reputation of the school, but that gives you an idea how far FSU and VT would have to climb. The AAU seems to wait for schools to near the 50th percentile before adding them, which would mean passing 50 or more schools, many of which are already AAU members. If Miami is making a push, they could get there in a reasonable time. No other B10 candidate is close.
LikeLike
Lots of schools aspire to join the AAU. But very few get invited. Here’s a list of all that were added in the last ten years:
Boston University 2012
Georgia Tech 2010
LikeLike
FSU is about 35th on the list of the non-AAU schools. Brian listed the fb schools. There are some specialty schools (including #1 and #2) that wouldn’t be eligible and some non-FBS schools also ahead of FSU.
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
“Lots of schools aspire to join the AAU. But very few get invited.”
Yep. That’s why I find it so funny how many schools get brought up as about to make the AAU, or pursuing it. It’s incredibly hard to move way up the list. It’s not like the other schools stopped improving. I posted the list to show how silly any short term thoughts of FSU or VT making the AAU are. Realistically, they’d need 20+ years and a huge commitment from their states to get there unless the AAU decides it wants to grow a lot bigger. Current members will fight to keep their status, too.
LikeLike
Where is this report?
LikeLike
I was looking around and found one that USF made. Pretty interesting:
Click to access AAU%20Presentation_10-2010.pdf
LikeLike
Andy,
NE’s report is here.
Click to access u-of-nebraska-aau-membership-review.pdf
LikeLike
Brian:
Agreed, though FL does have the size & resources to get their second-best research university to AAU status in a decade if they wanted to devote resources to that. In fact, it’s a little embarrassing that a state the size of FL has only one AAU institution (all the other states that are FL’s size or bigger have at least 2 public and 3 total AAU schools, including NYS, which only started SUNY after WWII; Iowa, with less than 1/6th of FL’s population, manages to double FL’s number of public AAU universities). Given how politics there is, however, it seems that they’d rather head in the opposite direction of reducing UF and FSU to community colleges with football programs.
LikeLike
If you believe MHver3 (and I doubt many of you do), he is saying that Miami has contacted the B12 and is willing to entertain an offer. Also says that at least 2 other ACC schools are close to leaving for the B10.
LikeLike
MHver3 is the college football equivalent of National Enquirer Magazine. Don’t understand why WVU bloggers are so obsessed with the ACC’s demise other than their feelings are hurt over WVU being spurned by the ACC (which was a huge mistake by the ACC IMO). I lose IQ points whenever I read his garbage. Ditto on the DudeofWV. Then again, maybe they’ll end up being vindicated at some point and I’ll eat crow. Who knows?
The ACC could survive in it’s current form if they sign a GOR. As a Clemson alum, I’m optimistic that the new TV contract that is being renegotiated for ND’s inclusion will get the ACC on par with other conferences for several reasons:
1. ACC network. ESPN might be “lukewarm” to it, but I don’t think it would have been leaked to the media if it wasn’t going to happen. Another blogger floated the idea of having the ACC network content available through online subscriptions and cutting out the middle man (i.e. cable companies). Interesting idea, no idea if it’s a good one.
2. The Catholic 7 are set to get $3.5M/team for their TV contract. Recall the ESPN executive’s statement a while back that said 80% of the TV contracts are football and 20% is non-football (i.e. basketball). The Catholic 7’s $3.5M/team is roughly 20% of the ACC’s $17M/team figure. I would think that the ACC’s market value for basketball is MUCH higher than the Catholic 7. Throw in another perennial top 10 team like Louisville too.
3. It seems like the ACC’s market value could be bumped up by the Big12’s payout. The Big12 owns the state of Texas, but the ACC has a LOT of major TV markets in the footprint (NY, Pittsburgh, entire states of NC and Va, Boston, Miami, etc.). Ratings of the games do need to improve, tho.
The Maryland lawsuit also looms large. If the TV $ evens out and the exit fee is significantly reduced, the ACC might opt for a GOR out of necessity. The TV $ increasing significantly could spur a GOR independent of the lawsuit, tho. Most of the angst is over $. I grew up in NC, so my gut feeling is that everyone wants to stay. UNC, Duke, UVa and even GT are so dyed in the wool ACC and, since none of them are on the verge of bankruptcy like Maryland, there is not much motivation to jump. The Big12 is only a viable option if at least 3 ACC teams come with you and, at that point, your division looks a lot like the ACC. I really don’t think UVa, UNC and Duke want to be the only southern schools in the B1G – I think that’s a bigger factor than most realize. Culture matters and their culture is firmly ACC.
I could be wrong about all of this, but those are my thoughts.
LikeLike
Well, the National Enquirer did break the John Edwards love child story, so maybe that comparison isn’t such an insult anymore.
LikeLike
The ACC already considered a Grant of Rights, and didn’t go that route. The reasons are not difficult to guess.
LikeLike
Marc – you are correct. My possibly-flawed speculation is that everyone would be agreeable to the GOR IF the new TV $ is on par with other conferences. In other words, the new TV $ is enough to change FSU’s mind. Again, pure speculation on my part, but it stands to reason.
LikeLike
I can’t see a scenario where the ACC gets TV dollars comparable to the Big Ten. They simply do not have as valuable a product, and it’s hard to see that changing in the foreseeable future.
Even the Big 12 analogy fails, for a few reasons. The Big 12 shares its TV revenues among 10 schools, not 15. And the Big 12 has far superior bowl revenues, including its new Sugar Bowl deal with the SEC. The ACC can’t compete with that.
And the Big 12 is absolutely dominant in four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and now West Virginia. The ACC is dominant only in two, Virginia and North Carolina, and neither of those are college football-centric states. In Georgia and Pennsylvania, they have the second-best program, rather than the best one. In Florida, they have #2 and #3, but the SEC has the best program. Syracuse and BC are just not football hotbeds.
LikeLike
@Jon – I think one reason that ESPN might be “lukewarm” on the idea right now is that they farmed out the 3rd tier content to RayCom, who now owns that content for several years going forward. ESPN would have to buy that content back, probably at a pretty high price. That is why the SECN probably won’t be launched until 2014, since that is when the SEC content that ESPN farmed out to local providers expires and goes back to ESPN. Plus ESPN might be a little concerned how marketable an ACCN would be not only outside of the SC, FL, VA, & NC markets.
LikeLike
Jon,
“Don’t understand why WVU bloggers are so obsessed with the ACC’s demise other than their feelings are hurt over WVU being spurned by the ACC (which was a huge mistake by the ACC IMO).”
Nailed it in one. WV has an inferiority complex and lashes out at any perceived slight. They’ll hold this grudge a long time, too.
As for it being a mistake, I’m not sure. WV really doesn’t fit the ACC model that well. They would lower the academic average, which is very important to the presidents. They are a FB school, so unlike most of the ACC. They have no market, unlike the rest of the ACC. The state of WV is culturally different from the coastal states. They’d fit better now, with Pitt added, than they would have back when WV was in play.
“The ACC could survive in it’s current form if they sign a GOR. As a Clemson alum, I’m optimistic that the new TV contract that is being renegotiated for ND’s inclusion will get the ACC on par with other conferences for several reasons:”
What do you consider on par? The ACC is doing fine per school right now per the Forbes article. But the SEC is about to get a sizable raise and the B10 will in 4 years. The ACC won’t keep up with them, but should be near the P12 and B12 for a while.
“1. ACC network. ESPN might be “lukewarm” to it, but I don’t think it would have been leaked to the media if it wasn’t going to happen. Another blogger floated the idea of having the ACC network content available through online subscriptions and cutting out the middle man (i.e. cable companies). Interesting idea, no idea if it’s a good one.”
It’ll make something, sure. Not as much as the SEC and B10, though.
“2. The Catholic 7 are set to get $3.5M/team for their TV contract. Recall the ESPN executive’s statement a while back that said 80% of the TV contracts are football and 20% is non-football (i.e. basketball). The Catholic 7′s $3.5M/team is roughly 20% of the ACC’s $17M/team figure. I would think that the ACC’s market value for basketball is MUCH higher than the Catholic 7. Throw in another perennial top 10 team like Louisville too.”
But the ACC is already in a contract. They’ll get a ND bump but not a full renegotiation.
“3. It seems like the ACC’s market value could be bumped up by the Big12′s payout. The Big12 owns the state of Texas, but the ACC has a LOT of major TV markets in the footprint (NY, Pittsburgh, entire states of NC and Va, Boston, Miami, etc.). Ratings of the games do need to improve, tho.”
Until the ACC improves on the field, they aren’t going to get a pay raise. They could, perhaps, earn one through increased ratings, though. Another core issue is the playoff money. The B12 is projected to make significantly more from it (Sugar pays more than Orange, B12 gets more playoff spots).
“The Maryland lawsuit also looms large.”
Agreed. Nobody in the ACC is moving until that’s settled.
“I grew up in NC, so my gut feeling is that everyone wants to stay. UNC, Duke, UVa and even GT are so dyed in the wool ACC and, since none of them are on the verge of bankruptcy like Maryland, there is not much motivation to jump.”
As an outsider I’ve got the same impression of VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, WF and NCSU. They’d prefer to stay in the ACC no matter what. I don’t know that BC, SU, Pitt or UL are loyal so much as content to stay and they don’t have better options anyway. On the southern end, Miami and FSU would leave for the right opportunity. Clemson and GT are a gray area for me. I know they both have strong ACC ties, but they also see what the SEC has done for their in-state competition. Again, I think they might leave for the right opportunity.
The real question is what is a good enough opportunity to draw those schools?
SEC – maybe/probably
B10 – maybe
B12 – questionable
LikeLike
Brian – good comments and points
1. Being from NC, I can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as popular as SEC football is in Alabama (where I now live). When you grow up in NC, you play bball every day in gym class, recess and then you play at home in the driveway. I remember playing with numb hands in 20 degree weather in the winter. Basketball is life in the ACC’s footprint. For that reason, I would expect the ACC network to provide a nice bump in revenue. Not huge, but nice. The B1G network is in a category of its own. They caught lightning in a bottle and kudos to them for it.
2. I might have misunderstood the contract renegotiation process. I was thinking that everything is fair game in the renegotiation – not just ND. In other words, the ACC would be able to point to the Catholic 7’s contract to make an argument for a higher market value for ACC basketball. That’s a bargaining chip I’d bring to the table if I were Swofford.
3. Totally agree, the ACC needs to step it up on the field. However, Maryland’s president made the comment that the dollars are made with eyeballs on TVs. The two are correlated since more people watch good teams. The Chicago Cubs are the exception 😉
4. I believe the biggest flight risks are FSU and Miami with Clemson not far behind. However, the B1G is a horrible cultural and geographical match, so that leaves the Big12, which is only a viable option if the ACC collapses and 4 or 6 ACC teams come over. At that point, your division looks a LOT like the ACC, so why jump? Throw in road trips to Ames, Manhattan (not NY!) and Lawrence…no thanks!
5. Stick with me on this one. My suspicion is that UVa turned the B1G down on the recent Rutgers-Maryland move. Does anybody really think they chose Rutgers over UVa? Highly unlikely. Couple that with the Iowa president or AD saying that geography was a big factor in expansion and that would seem to cut the B1G off from the southern part of the ACC for potential candidates. Could be wrong, but there is my speculation. Will they look north for ACC newbies who have less allegiance to the ACC? Syracuse, BC, Pitt? I have no inside info, just connecting dots.
LikeLike
ACC just has a “look-in.” That means they only get more money if they figure out a way to make ESPN more money. There’s no re-negotiation. That’s the same issue the SEC faces. CBS doesn’t have to up their contract just because the SEC added two schools.
LikeLike
Jon,
“5. Stick with me on this one. My suspicion is that UVa turned the B1G down on the recent Rutgers-Maryland move. Does anybody really think they chose Rutgers over UVa? Highly unlikely.”
I’m not sure. The lure of NYC is like a siren to the BTN. Even without NYC, NJ is a big state with tons of fans of RU, PSU and MD. I think RU has a lot of potential value for the B10, just not athletically right now. If UVA was ready and willing to join now, I agree that the B10 likely would have taken MD and UVA now and saved RU for #16 because they are always available.
“Couple that with the Iowa president or AD saying that geography was a big factor in expansion and that would seem to cut the B1G off from the southern part of the ACC for potential candidates. Could be wrong, but there is my speculation.”
Geography is a factor, but it would be ignored for the right school. The B10 wouldn’t turn down UF because of location, trust me. The question is whether the school brings enough value to justify the location. Clemson would be a no. FSU and Miami might be yeses if their academics were acceptable. GT is great academically so it might be a yes. UNC would be a yes even without UVA. Remember, I’m only talking about the B10’s view of these schools, not whether they would ever apply.
” Will they look north for ACC newbies who have less allegiance to the ACC? Syracuse, BC, Pitt? I have no inside info, just connecting dots.”
I highly doubt it. Syracuse dropped out of the AAU, indicating they aren’t the same type of school as the B10 wants. BC isn’t AAU and is in a worthless market since nobody cares about them or CFB. Pitt is inside the footprint so they add no TV value.
LikeLike
I could be wrong (often am), but I don’t think UVA turned the B1G down; if you read any of the comments from Maryland’s president, the whole thing came together really fast. It had to be fast if it was going to work. There wasn’t much time to consult anyone else (including Maryland alumni at large which became a sticking point later). Rutgers was a move waiting for years to happen. And the B1G’s goal was to break the hold on the Eastern seaboard the ACC was creating with the additions of Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame. I think UVA only became a possible real target later.
LikeLike
Also, if Delaney had authority to start talks with contiguous, AAU Institutions, he could keep in ongoing contact with Rutgers, while he would have been waiting for UVA to come to him. With UMD joining, UVA falls within the terms of that hunting license.
And Rutgers is more interesting on its own sake to the Big Ten among the Major conferences, given Penn State and its Philadelphia fan base. There’s something to be said for taking the bird in the hand.
LikeLike
“Don’t understand why WVU bloggers are so obsessed with the ACC’s demise other than their feelings are hurt over WVU being spurned by the ACC (which was a huge mistake by the ACC IMO).”
Hurt feelings are a part of it.
But check out a map of the Big 12. They’re out on an island…any ACC school that gets added to the Big 12 makes them feel more connected.
LikeLike
“I really don’t think UVa, UNC and Duke want to be the only southern schools in the B1G”
Yep. That why I think that if UNC is agreeable, the B10 will add all 4 of UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech together to go to 18.
LikeLike
10 team Big East in 2013 season.
8 game scheduling with the 5 pairings of teams missing each other as follows:
“Big East teams that will not play each other in 2013: UCF and Cincinnati; UConn and Houston; Louisville and SMU; Memphis and Rutgers; and USF and Temple.”
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8856617/big-east-10-team-league-divisions-2013-sources
LikeLike
Sounds like everyone is set for 2013 except CUSA and Sun Belt who are discussing whether MTSU and FAU leave early.
LikeLike
Maybe McMurphy read this. He’s tweeting that its official that those 2 leave early.
LikeLike
More Dude musings. Enjoy
http://www.eersauthority.com/big-10-and-sec-race-to-add-acc-schools
LikeLike
I don’t care how close Duke is to UNC — I can’t see that school’s officials signing off on a move to the SEC. Were UNC to head there, its in-state partner more likely would be NCSU, with Duke finding its way to the Big Ten if only one of UVa or Georgia Tech joined.
LikeLike
The UNC+Duke to the SEC makes it seem like if that is actually what came from sources actually inside UNC, its much more likely to be smoke cover for whatever is actually going on.
LikeLike
Per the article, those rumors came from SEC sources. I wouldn’t doubt SEC would make a hard push for those two. Duke has some significant benefits for SEC – basketball, academics, etc.
I agree with you though (vp19). It’s hard to understand NC thinking they were part of a package with Duke.
LikeLike
The thing with Duke is, if the writing is on the wall and the ACC is going to fall apart, they won’t turn the SEC down just for the sake of turning it down. That would be suicidal.
LikeLike
They would turn them down if they think the B10 would take them even without UNC, though (and the B10 very well might).
LikeLike
Duke’s students and alumni are national in scope, with many from the northeast and mid-Atlantic. The Big Ten would be more attractive to the school compared to the SEC.
LikeLike
One of these days something that the Dude says might actually end up sticking to the wall. Heck you throw enough crap against a wall, something is bound to eventually stick.
LikeLike
Why do I find it so interesting to read speculative “insider information” pieces from completely unreliable bloggers? Perhaps the same reason I read this blog…hmmm.
LikeLike
At least we don’t generally claim to have sources.
LikeLike
The difference between this blog and the Dude’s blog is that the Dude is predicting (or at least trying to) specific events such at when and which schools will be moving conferences based on professed inside contacts. Frank, on the other hand, is just giving his 2 cents worth on current realignment (and other college sports topics), and normally doesn’t claim any real inside information.
But with that said, I do read the Dudes specualtion. It is interesting to read. But I just don’t put a whole lot of stock in the specifics of his predictions taking place.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“As for the Big 10 my sources tell me on paper UNC looks like a perfect fit but Georgia Tech has enormous support from both Illinois and Purdue. So much support that Delany has been forced to rethink his choice of UNC.”
I found this interesting. Is it the engineering pull that has PU and IL on GT’s side, or something about Atlanta/GA versus NC?
Also, at least he put another fake timeline for UVA out there. If UVA isn’t invited by Wednesday, his sources are wrong again.
LikeLike
@ Brian – I noticed that too, and didn’t quite know what to make of it. There are plenty of other strong engineering depts. in B1G, so why would PU and U of I be pushing GT any more than the others? Besides, if I were looking at it from the B1G POV, I would rather lock down UNC first (assuming they are a target) since, if rumors are accurate, they are also being pursued by SEC and not liable to be on the open market much longer. GT will still be available later, NC probably not.
LikeLike
Quacs,
“@ Brian – I noticed that too, and didn’t quite know what to make of it. There are plenty of other strong engineering depts. in B1G, so why would PU and U of I be pushing GT any more than the others?”
Well, Purdue and GT are very similar in terms of being engineering/science schools while the state flagship does the rest. And while their are many strong engineering departments in the B10, the best grad schools are IL, MI and PU (obviously it varies for different majors). GT is just a touch better than those 3, and it’s grad school is huge (>4600 in engineering compared to ~3000 at each of the B10 schools).
They also might prefer a more southern school so travel is more equal than UNC which would be much closer to the eastern schools.
“Besides, if I were looking at it from the B1G POV, I would rather lock down UNC first (assuming they are a target) since, if rumors are accurate, they are also being pursued by SEC and not liable to be on the open market much longer. GT will still be available later, NC probably not.”
1. You’re assuming the B10 has a choice in which to add. UNC could easily be saying no (to B10 only or to both).
2. Unless they want 18, this would be an either/or decision assuming UVA is #15.
LikeLike
I wish scenario #2 was closer to the truth.
LikeLike
Most of his sources are probably related to Te’o’s ex… 🙂
LikeLike
Supposing (hypothetically) that both were available, I have trouble believing the Big Ten would prefer Georgia Tech. UNC is one of the most valuable brand names in collegiate athletics, albeit not for football. It is also contiguous to the B1G footprint, assuming UVA as #13.
UNC has a larger enrollment, a larger endowment, and higher athletic department revenue than GT. The best GT can ever be is the #2 school in its state. Just looking at athletics revenue alone, UNC has about $75 million per year, good for third in the ACC behind FSU and UVA. GT has $54 million, behind everyone in the ACC except NC State. Even Rutgers makes more money than GT.
See: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Supposing (hypothetically) that both were available, I have trouble believing the Big Ten would prefer Georgia Tech. UNC is one of the most valuable brand names in collegiate athletics, albeit not for football. It is also contiguous to the B1G footprint, assuming UVA as #13.”
It would be a consideration of Atlanta/GA versus Charlotte/NC for TV and growth and perhaps an academic choice. GT is a top 5 engineering grad school, slightly better than any in the B10 (and larger, too, at over 4600 students). The COP/C may see a lot of value to that.
More GT ranking info from http://www.gatech.edu/about/factsandfigures.html :
“The university is a national and international leader in scientific and technological research and education. Over the past decade, overall research expenditures nearly doubled, increasing 93 percent to $655 million in 2011, while federal research expenditures increased nearly 158 percent. Georgia Tech now ranks among the top 10 in research expenditures among universities without a medical school. In addition, Georgia Tech has an estimated $3 billion annual impact on the metro Atlanta economy, according to a 2011 study.
Rankings
Year after year, Georgia Tech is consistently the only technological university ranked in U.S. News & World Report’s listing of America’s top ten public universities. In addition, Georgia Tech’s College of Engineering is consistently ranked in the nation’s top five by U.S. News. In terms of producing African American engineering graduates, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education ranks Tech No. 2 at both the doctoral and bachelor’s levels, based on the most recent rankings for 2011. These impressive national rankings reflect the academic prestige long associated with the Georgia Tech curriculum.
Tech’s National Rankings
U.S. News & World Report
No. 7 public university in the country
No. 4 graduate engineering college
No. 5 undergraduate engineering college
No. 1 industrial engineering program
8 undergraduate engineering programs ranked in the top 5
11 graduate engineering programs ranked in the top 10
“Programs to Look For” Listing: Internships and Co-ops, Senior Capstone
Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, Top Degree Producers (2012)
Bachelor’s
No. 1 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to All Minority Students
No. 2 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to African Americans
No. 3 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Asian Americans
No. 8 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Hispanics
No. 8 in Computer/Information Sciences Degrees Awarded to Native Americans
Master’s
No. 4 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to African Americans
No. 4 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Hispanics
No. 4 in Physical Sciences Degrees Awarded to African Americans
No. 5 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to All Minority Students
No. 6 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Asian Americans
No. 10 in Physical Sciences Degrees Awarded to All Minority Students
Doctoral
No. 1 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to African Americans
No. 1 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Asian Americans
No. 1 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to Hispanics
No. 1 in Engineering Degrees Awarded to All Minority Students
No. 7 in Physical Sciences Degrees Awarded to Asian Americans
No. 8 in Computer/Information Sciences Degrees Awarded to Asian Americans”
LikeLike
That’s nice, but the B10 is still foremost an athletic conference (albeit with good academics/research). I believe the B10 brass thinks that way as well.
Anyway, this is TheDude, so I just can’t put much stock in to his musings.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree, I’m simply saying that would have to be the justification if they did prefer GT – academics and another top 10 media market.
LikeLike
Realignment news:
@McMurphyESPN: FAU & Middle Tennessee leaving Sun Belt year early, will join C-USA this fall, sources told @espn
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8857198/florida-atlantic-middle-tennessee-state-headed-conference-usa
LikeLike
Very odd given East Carolina and Tulane aren’t leaving till next year. Wonder what the rush was (maybe they assumed they’d be gone quicker). If I figured it right, that will leave the Sunbelt with only 8 members next year meaning 7 conference games instead of 8. Everyone will have to find one more replacement game.
LikeLike
Could be MTSU and FAU were the ones in a hurry.
LikeLike
Definitely best to grab the best possible seat as early as you possibly can.
LikeLike
If you want to be considered for possible inclusion in the NuBigEast, is easier to make your case from C-USA.
And then, if you play your cards right, you can join the NuACC after its ripped to shreds by the combined B12, B10, SEC.
LikeLike
Movements on the ACC lawsuit and Maryland
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/baltimore-sports-blog/bal-maryland-fights-back-against-acc-exit-fee-20130118,0,7068709.story?track=rss
Douglas Gansler is the State Attorney General and the suit filed in PG County is the County in which UMD resides. The iceberg has begun moving…
Nemo
LikeLike
Finally going to get some clarity on this; also good to see they have the state AG on the case; wasn’t sure it would actually be like that (given that schools have their own legal counsel).
LikeLike
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-15/local/36343633_1_gansler-report-anthony-g-brown
Also worth noting that he seems to be gearing up for a run to be the next governor of Maryland; a good resolution of this exit fee situation would probably end up looking good for him.
LikeLike
@zeek
You have no idea just how much of a political animal Gansler is! He’s from Montgomery County which sends a large contingent of students to Maryland and is one of the big bedroom counties for D.C. I figured he’d be on this, but suggests he could use it politically if it works right. Perhaps a “sealed agreement” would be best for all concerned? That might stem the tide of defections perhaps. I am convinced that Maryland is willing to pay the full amount if necessary, but others believe there will be some kind of settlement although the amount may be kept confidential if that is possible. I’m not an attorney so I don’t know how this could work. Just left the FSU board and they are talking about all kinds of scenarios, and Texas Orangeblood has a “pay” post entitled “Miami is on the phone.” Something is up, I think.
LikeLike
A. Maryland is a public university so I seriously doubt they could keep a settlement (which willing likely be at least $20 million) a secret. They are subject to public disclosure laws and have an obligation to the taxpayers to inform them where their money is going.
B. Even if the settlement could be kept undisclosed from the public, the other ACC schools would still know how much it was for so I can’t understand how that they would dissuade them from leaving.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see of the ACC is steadfast set to go through all of these lawsuits. I would think that it will probably be a long drawn out ordeal, and aren’t assured to win one of them, much less both. It’ll be interesting to see if they end up settling in the end. The problem with settling though in my mind is it my open the flood gates that end the ACC. If they don’t settle, this could get tied up in the courts for some time, which might delay expansion for a couple of years.
LikeLike
This will never see a courtroom. The ACC will settle. And even if they didn’t it still wouldn’t do much to dissuade future schools from leaving. $50 million isn’t even close to a prohibitive exit penalty in major college athletics.
LikeLike
Agree. After a courtroom victory or two like WVU got, the ACC will have to settle.
There’s no way that they want to fight this on Maryland’s turf if that’s what it comes down to…
LikeLike
By this, I mean courtroom victory for Maryland…
LikeLike
WVU was a settlement. Both sides filed lawsuit, but they reached a deal before the case went to court.
LikeLike
There were still some rulings on motions is what I meant. I agree it will be settled but some judges may make some rulings before then.
LikeLike
Not sure what victory WV got – they paid $20M to leave when the exit fee was $5M
LikeLike
@Mark
They got to leave 2 years early.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/01/18/iowa-a-d-no-current-big-ten-expansion-plans-geography-heavy-factor-in-2014-football-realignment/
Some info from the IA AD:
1. No current intentions to expand beyond 14
“We’re going to make decisions based on 14 schools,” Barta said. “That’s what we are. And we’re going to base it on the principles because that’s who we are. If someday the world changes again and we have to add or subtract schools, we’ll keep our principles in play. But we’re 100 percent on adding Rutgers and Maryland to the schools that we have, and that’s it.”
So for those saying they are looking at 16 and should plan long term while ignoring the short term problems with divisions, this says the opposite.
2. Geography will play a major role in the division alignment
That’s the most definitive statement we’ve had so far on this issue. From him, I take it to mean WI and IA will almost surely be together again.
“I think it’s clear that geographically we have a chance to readjust with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland,” Barta said. “So maybe we can get back to a little bit more of a geographical, keep more of the rivalries in play. If we can do that and have good competitive balance, that would be the home run. That definitely would be my preference.
“I just want to make sure that if we do it, we’re not too far out of whack in terms of competitiveness. But I think if you look at what likely could be two or three scenarios related to geography, I think we have a chance. We’ll be doing that in several meetings here.”
And another quote:
“… I’m much more focused on making sure that whatever we come up with is competitive, is as fairly balanced as possible and keeping rivalries.”
Notice that they aren’t going to just ignore balance. If they go east/west, which is clearly what Barta wants, look for at least MSU to go west.
3. The ADs meet in person in February to discuss this and other things, like going to 9 games.
LikeLike
Subtract schools!?!?!?!?
LikeLike
Saw that. Assumed he misspoke while meaning to say eliminate candidates.
LikeLike
I just woke up from the most bizarre dream (I think I’ve ever had) a couple hours ago (went to bed way too late and not entirely composed – was watching Heat/Lakers with some friends on the East Coast and the game started at 10:30).
Besides having a whole bunch of crazy situations involving a theater and my grandparents and groups of people stacking chairs, there was this really interesting stretch in this dream where I walked through a hotel and saw Delany demanding entrance into a conference room where Purdue was set to announce that they were dropping out of the Big Ten to join UChicago/WUSTL in the UAA.
Purdue ended up dropping out of the Big Ten to join the UAA. I stuck my head in and heard an administrator at the podium talking about academics and all the typical blah blah blah.
When I turned back around there was a big mob of Purdue alums trying to get in yelling about changing the outcome, so I ran out of there.
Thankfully though it was just a dream.
I wonder if Barta had the same one last night.
LikeLike
The weirdest part of this is that I haven’t even really read much about conference realignment in the past two weeks (not like when the Big East was imploding just two months ago). I just check the new posts in here every few days and made one or two here and there.
LikeLike
@Brian: No current intentions to expand beyond 14
You could be reading too much into this. If you’d asked him in November, he’d have said the same thing: no current intentions. That will probably be the Big Ten party line from now on. Numerous other Big Ten sources have said on the record that they don’t think the league is done at 14. They’re just not going to telegraph their intentions, as they did before adding Nebraska. The process for adding Maryland, which hardly anyone saw coming, is more likely to be the new normal.
Of course, I do agree that the divisions need to be treated as if they’re permanent, because Delany can’t assume that #15 and 16 will shake loose when he wants them to.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: No current intentions to expand beyond 14
You could be reading too much into this.”
I’m not reading much into it except that the Dude’s rumors of UVA being invited early next week seem even more unlikely. I don’t think the ADs know the COP/C’s long term plans. I’m not even sure the COP/C really has a long term plan right now.
“Of course, I do agree that the divisions need to be treated as if they’re permanent, because Delany can’t assume that #15 and 16 will shake loose when he wants them to.”
That’s the other point. They aren’t approaching the divisions like #15 and 16 are right around the corner. They plan to live with these new divisions long term, possibly permanently. That means PSU’s penalties have to be a smaller factor than many people here want to believe. After 4 years in the new divisions, PSU’s penalties will all be done (bowl ban after 2, 15 kid limit after 3, 65 team max after 4). By 2020 (after 6 years in them), PSU should be back at full power. I don’t see them doing an intentionally short term alignment and planning to change it again in 2020.
LikeLike
Brian-
You’ve now entered Manti Teo levels of self-delusion if you really believe much of what you just wrote.
If you don’t think that the COP/C, Jim Delany and the conference officials along with the university ADs have a long-term plan for where they want to take the B1G, then you’d better ask that girl friend you only talk to on the phone or swap tweets with to meet you in person.
Delany was given his marching orders when this entire process started a few years ago. The COP/C has always been interested in expanding the membership of the CIC as its primary goal while leveraging the success of the BTN in order to make the B1G athletic departments financially more self-sufficient in the face of increasing state budget cuts for education.
The schools we’re talking about now we’re initially vetted a few years ago and some of them had even been looked at in detail before 2009.
And do you actuallyl think that they’re planning on living with these divisions long-term? Really? Did you also say that when the Leaders and Legends came out, because it looks like that divisional alignment is going to last a whole three seasons before we go onto something else.
Let me give you a little advice. When your imaginary girl friend tells you she was in a car accident and is in a hospital being treated for leukemia, it’s time to get just a little skeptical.
The final form for the B1G is still to be determined, but the goals for further expansion are still out there. Does the CIC become a more powerful consortium with Virginia and Georgia Tech in the fold? Will adding those two programs help the bottom line for the athletic departments in the B1G or will an 18-team conference be optimal in that regard? Start looking at this through that perspective and you’ll be putting yourself on the right track.
LikeLike
cutter,
“If you don’t think that the COP/C, Jim Delany and the conference officials along with the university ADs have a long-term plan for where they want to take the B1G,”
1. Goals, yes. Plan, no. Contingency plans, yes, but not super detailed. There are too many moving parts outside of their control to have a plan.
2. COP/C and Delany, yes. ADs, no. ADs don’t need to know what might happen in 15 years.
“And do you actuallyl think that they’re planning on living with these divisions long-term? Really?”
I think they’re prepared to live with them long term, yes.
LikeLike
Cutter: self-delusion is Brian’s specialty. If you notice, he always manages to spin whatever facts are out there to fit whatever he prefers rather than keep an open mind of what is most likely.
He would make a terrible investor.
He was adamant that the B10 would not take RU and UMD as well.
LikeLike
Brian-
You are so far off in your assessment that it’s hard to know where to start.
First off, the COP/C did have an initial expansion plan that was put in place and which they thought they would have 12 to 18 months to begin implementation. Like any good military strategist will tell you, plans can often fall apart upon first contact with the enemy. In the case of the B1G, the timetable was moved up a year because (1) Notre Dame was contacted at the very beginning of the process and indicated no strong interest and (2) Nebraska became available as the next best option when the Big XII started having its problems. The conference was actually in a position to move relatively quickly on the Cornhuskers because they’d actually been vetted prior to Delany’s announcement about B1G expansion. And guess what? When Notre Dame made the jump to the ACC, the conference moved quickly to invite Rutgers and Maryland to the conference because they were prepared to make the move in advance.
The larger plan has always been ruled by demographics and television revenue as main drivers that have not changed through the entire process. Those factors always pointed to where the B1G was interested in going, i.e., along the northeast corridor through the mid-Atlantic region. Were feelers put out to Texas early in the process? Yes, and like Notre Dame, their interest wasn’t even lukewarm. I know Andy likes to think Missouri was a strong contender, but when someone writes the definitive book on this, they’ll learn that they were never more than a backup contingency for the B1G (on par with, if UT and ND had joined the B1G, perhaps Mizzou would be #14 in that scenario).
Have the athletic directors been involved in this? Absolutely. Many of these guys have business backgrounds, all of them have a bottom line to deal with and all of them have multi-year plans and budget forecasts that push out at least five years and in some cases, beyond that. What happens regarding expansion touches on their budgets in any number of ways. Also keep in mind that the B1G does not want to repeat 1991 when PSU joined the conference and the ADs were told about it after the fact. The process works a lot better if all the stakeholders are at the table and fully understand the conferences plans, goals and vision.
If you really think these ADs believe that these divisions are a long-term proposition, then you must think they don’t look around and see what’s happening in college sports. As I wrote before, the Leaders and Legends lasted three years. The SEC expansion caused that conference to go through a realignment of divisions, not to mention the Pac 12 and the ever changing entities that we know as the Big East and Mountain West (and Conference USA and the Sun Belt and the MAC)..
I realize Iowa’s AD said the B1G has no plans for expansion and that the conference is planning strictly for 14 members, but come on, do you really believe that? This blog has been in place for a handful of years now and the list of public pronouncements by some conference official that was, shall we say, “less than accurate”, could probably be the subject of another of Frank’s blog posts.
I stand by what I originally wrote about the B1G’s marching orders to Delany about the CIC and leveraging the BTN and the upcoming television negotiations (which when the first announcement came out was perhaps 6-7 years away yet) to maximize the athletic department’s revenues in order to ensure greater financial self-sufficiency. When you look at future B1G expansion candidates, always keep that in mind.
LikeLike
Richard,
“He was adamant that the B10 would not take RU and UMD as well.”
No, I’ve never claimed to know what Delany and company will actually do. I talk about what I think they should do, or about what facts are out there. “Would” and “should” are not the same thing.
LikeLike
cutter,
“First off, the COP/C did have an initial expansion plan”
That wasn’t what you asked.
“The larger plan has always been ruled by demographics and television revenue as main drivers that have not changed through the entire process.”
Like I said, goals.
“but when someone writes the definitive book on this,”
Do you really think we’ll get that book? I think Delany would go old-school mafia on anyone that talked. He keeps secrets just to keep secrets.
“Have the athletic directors been involved in this? Absolutely.”
Again, not what you asked.
“If you really think these ADs believe that these divisions are a long-term proposition,”
I didn’t say that.
“I stand by what I originally wrote”
Was that in question?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70120/smith-favos-osu-michigan-in-same-division
And some input from Gene Smith (OSU) and Dave Brandon (MI), via ESPN.com
Smith said he has had informal discussions with Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon about the two teams being in the same division and that both sides were open to the idea. In an email to ESPN.com, Brandon said, “I would certainly not be opposed to being in the same division as OSU if it was in the best interest of our conference. I look forward to the discussion with my colleagues and our conference leadership.”
“Going into the meetings, we would be leaning toward being in the same division,” Smith said. “But there might be something that comes up in the [AD meetings] that could change our minds.”
Both are willing to do it, but it’s not carved in stone.
“The first time, we really focused a lot on competitive balance, and I think that’s still important to do,” Smith said. “But with Rutgers and Maryland and Penn State in the East, we may need to rethink and sacrifice some competitive balance in order to make sure we integrate those two new teams in the East the right way.”
Smith said he would prefer that Ohio State be placed in the same division as the Eastern teams, both for travel purposes and to give the Buckeyes a presence in that region. But he also said that Ohio State would agree to whatever is in the best interests of the league overall.
Smith previously said he didn’t want to play IL, IN, PU, MD and RU annually, so there are limits to his preference to play in the east.
As with many things, I tend to disagree with Smith. But it’s not my job to balance the OSU AD’s budget and I don’t have all the data he has. There really aren’t any good alignments from OSU’s POV with these 14 teams, just some less bad ones.
LikeLike
It’s hard getting a good reading on a lot from released statements, but this kind of makes me think Smith/Brandon were strongly in favor of being in opposite divisions before. It doesn’t sound to me like Smith is quite as firm in wanting in the east as Brandon, but he probably doesn’t need to be.
LikeLike
Eric,
“It’s hard getting a good reading on a lot from released statements, but this kind of makes me think Smith/Brandon were strongly in favor of being in opposite divisions before. It doesn’t sound to me like Smith is quite as firm in wanting in the east as Brandon, but he probably doesn’t need to be.”
My guess is Smith thinks one of two things:
1. OSU wants in the east because Gee said so (for access to alumni and students)
2. OSU wants in the east because that seems to be the tone of the teleconference calls with ADs
And if pressed, I’d guess #1. When NE was added, there was no advantage to OSU being in the same division of the B10 as MI for almost anyone. Everyone got to play OSU or MI annually. OSU still got MI in the last game and PSU annually (closer than NE). OSU and MI could play for the B10 title, maximizing the money for everyone and letting The Game have it’s old importance on occasion.
RU and MD change that for Gee. Now he has a new batch of alumni to access and fertile grounds for recruiting new students. That trumps any athletic concerns from his POV. MI has the same approach. I don’t think either is excited to share a division so much as both schools want to be in the east for academic and fundraising reasons. If that means sharing a division, they’re OK with that tradeoff.
The rest of the B10 must be expecting a windfall from OSU and MI playing in the east to accept the tradeoffs they are making in balance and acclaim.
LikeLike
If you are the AD of a western B1G school, what is the min frequency Michigan/OSU must appear on your schedule? How valued are games vs Penn State? Is having Nebraska on the schedule every year good enough to compensate for having Michigan/OSU appear as few as 3 years in 7?
LikeLike
John O,
I think the answer varies. Having NE annually helps, but they’d also like MI or OSU annually (some prefer 1 to the other, others don’t). PSU means more to IA than some other western schools, I think. The biggest issue would be with IL, PU and IN, depending on who is in the west.
If you’re talking E/W with OSU, MI and PSU in the E, but no locked rivals and 9 games, you wouldn’t get many complaints. That’s 3/7 chance of OSU, and of MI and of PSU. That’s more than 1 per year (6/7 chance of getting OSU or MI), plus NE. The problem is, that setup won’t happen.
If they split that way, there will definitely be a locked game for at least 2 teams (IN/PU, IL/NW or MI/MSU has to get split). Also, the ADs don’t want the 9th game. If they do go to 9 games, probably all 14 teams have a locked rival to keep some rivalries like MI/MN and OSU/IL. That makes it 1/3 odds of getting OSU if you aren’t locked with them, not 3/7 (33% vs 43%).
If they stick at 8 games with no locked rivals except the split pair, it gets messier. The western member of the split pair drops to 1/6 odds of playing any one specific eastern king (except MSU vs MI) and thus 1/2 odds of playing 1 of them. Everyone else drops to just under 1/3 chance of playing any one specific eastern king and 11/12 odds of playing one of them. Some might complain about that.
Don’t forget the other side of the coin, too. OSU, and presumably MI (maybe less so for PSU), want to see the western schools, too.
LikeLike
Yes, you are correct on these points.
It’s especially important to point out that Penn State doesn’t really travel to the schools in Illinois and to the West and doesn’t seem to draw out higher attendance at those schools.
That’s also another strike against Inner/Outer.
As far as draws go, it’s got to be Michigan or Ohio State. Penn State’s drawing power isn’t that different from Wisconsin or Michigan State as far as attendance (in my experience from Northwestern’s numbers).
LikeLike
While it’s probably true Penn State doesn’t draw as well in the west, inner-outer still gives the western teams more games against Ohio State/Michigan than any model that has either with a locked crossover.
LikeLike
Uh, by math, that can’t be true.
In any case, the notion that Inner-Outer would have less chance of having locked crossovers just isn’t realistic, no matter how much OSU fans protest that OSU-PSU does not have to be protected.
LikeLike
For instance, would Minny give up the Little Brown Jug game? Would Northwestern give up the Iowa game?
LikeLike
@Richard: Eric is correct. Inner/Outer is the only alignment that preserves all of the mandatory rivals: those the B1G would never, under any conceivable circumstance, allow to lapse.
OSU/PSU is certainly a desirable rivalry, but not a mandatory one. Michigan/Minnesota is farther down the list. Even before Nebraska joined, that rivalry was not protected, and there were some years it wasn’t played.
The main problem with Inner/Outer is that it loads up the eastern teams’ schedules with the “wrong” schools, insofar as fan interest goes. Every Big Ten source who’s spoken on record says they’re looking at a more geographically-based alignment, which almost certainly means East/West. The only drama now is which school leaves its natural group, and flips over to the opposite division.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Uh, by math, that can’t be true.”
Yes, it can. Note that he said that was compared to any model where OSU or MI had a locked crossover, and thus 1 fewer game to spread among the 6 other teams.
“In any case, the notion that Inner-Outer would have less chance of having locked crossovers just isn’t realistic,”
That’s crap. Of course it has “less of a chance” of having locked crossovers. That doesn’t mean 0% chance of no locked rivals, but the odds aren’t 100% either no matter how much you say it is.
“For instance, would Minny give up the Little Brown Jug game?”
Yes. They did before. They wouldn’t give it up with 9 games, but there is a less than 100% chance of going to 9 games.
“Would Northwestern give up the Iowa game?”
Yes. See above.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
I don’t disagree except about one little thing.
“Every Big Ten source who’s spoken on record says they’re looking at a more geographically-based alignment”
Inner/Outer is purely geographically based, more so than many E/W splits people are advocating.
LikeLike
The reason I brought up inner-outer was just to dispute the notion that Penn State not drawing as well out west was a reason for not having it. If Ohio State/Penn State is one they won’t sacrifice, then they won’t go for it as a locked crossover defeats the purpose of the model. If they were willing to though, then Ohio State/Michigan play the western schools more than in many purposed east/west set-ups.
Now for the record, I do believe Frank when he talks about the importance of the game to the conference and thus think inner-outer won’t happen. If access to Ohio State/Michigan is a big deal to western members though, this is the solution that, if they are in the same division, maximizes their games against the two. Even in the best of east-west set-ups where Ohio State/Michigan are in the same division, one team in the west will play them a lot less because of a locked crossover (likely Purdue).
LikeLike
Brian, there’s a giant difference between playing a rivalry game 75% of the time and 4 times in 14 years. A bigger one than playing that game 75% of the time and annually. I’m not sure if you are either willfully blind or truly stupid for not seeing that.
Also, the western 4 would play each other annually in an E/W arrangement anyway, so only an idiot would propse that as a reason to support I/W.
Finally, note who the Iowa AD said they wanted to play: a bunch of schools including Illinois and Northwestern. He did not mention Michigan and OSU. Unlike what you think, many schools would prefer playing a rivalry game over playing Michigan/OSU a tiny bit more often. So who would actually support I/O without locked crossovers over E/W with locked crossovers?
Not Iowa
Not Minny
Not Northwestern
Not the 3 eastern schools
Not Michigan (who want East Coast access)
Probably not Illinois
Probably not even your school (also East Coast access reasons)
UNL’s likely indifferent at best, but likely leaning towards E/W with a crossover with PSU.
So who’s left?
LikeLike
I think Illinois would definitely favor inner-outer over East-West. Annual games with OSU, Michigan, and the Indiana schools far outweighs Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa.
Actually, it wouldn’t be all that close.
LikeLike
Richard,
That was a nice rant, but it was completely unrelated to anything I wrote.
You said Eric’s math was wrong, and I (along with Marc) pointed out that you were in fact wrong about that. Don’t try to spin that any other way than you were factually wrong and multiple people caught it.
You said Inner/Outer has no less chance of having locked rivals than E/W, and I said you were wrong. There is a greater than 0% chance the B10 would choose to not lock OSU/PSU in that situation.
In your next comment you asked if MN would give up the LBJ game. I said they would, since they have before.
You later asked the same about NW/IA, and I gave you the same answer.
There was no advocating for one alignment or the other, just a discussion of facts. You didn’t ask if MN would be happy to give up the LBJ or if they would prefer to give it up to play OSU/MI more, you asked if they would give it up.
LikeLike
frug,
You forget that Richard and only Richard is allowed to speak for what all schools want. No other opinions are valid.
LikeLike
Brian:
1. No matter what the arrangement is, if the western schools are not in the same division as OSU and Michigan, they will play Michigan and OSU the same number of times on average. That’s simple math.
2. Playing a school over 50% of the time is not giving up a rivalry in my book. Playing a school less than 50% of the time definitely is.
3. Whatever. Realistically, the league giving up PSU-OSU or even the LBJ game is about nil in my opinion. Debate semantics with yourself to your heart’s content.
Finally, it’s not just me who prefers E-W. Some people prefer Inner-Outer, but we see from the Rittenberg/Bennett poll that both East-West plans trounce Inner-Outer.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. No matter what the arrangement is, if the western schools are not in the same division as OSU and Michigan, they will play Michigan and OSU the same number of times on average. That’s simple math.”
You’re still wrong. Eric compared I/O to any alignment where OSU or MI have a locked rival. Just because you keep wanting a locked rival in that case doesn’t make it part of his scenario. Accept that you misread or misunderstood and move on.
“2. Playing a school over 50% of the time is not giving up a rivalry in my book. Playing a school less than 50% of the time definitely is.”
That’s wonderful. It’s completely irrelevant to anything that we were discussing, but good for you in defining things to suit your future arguments.
“Finally, it’s not just me who prefers E-W. Some people prefer Inner-Outer, but we see from the Rittenberg/Bennett poll that both East-West plans trounce Inner-Outer.”
That’s wonderful, but it’s completely irrelevant to anything that we were discussing. Way to try to spin your way out of being wrong.
LikeLike
Brian:
I do not believe Minny would be willing to play Michigan less than half the time, and Northwestern and Iowa would not be willing to play each other less than half the time. They also have not been willing to any time before as well. So do you understand why what I said is germane now? In other words, are you deliberately being obtuse, or are you just obtuse?
Also, as I see the chances of the OSU-PSU game being not played annually as about zero, the odds of I/O without crossovers are not better than those of E/W without crossovers.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I do not believe Minny would be willing to play Michigan less than half the time, and Northwestern and Iowa would not be willing to play each other less than half the time. They also have not been willing to any time before as well. So do you understand why what I said is germane now?”
No, because we weren’t discussing which plan was better. You should have said that to someone you were discussing the merits of the two plans with instead of to me.
“Also, as I see the chances of the OSU-PSU game being not played annually as about zero, the odds of I/O without crossovers are not better than those of E/W without crossovers.”
About zero isn’t zero, and the fact that multiple people have indicated that game might be droppable shows the odds are non-zero of it being dropped.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Yes, you are correct on these points.”
Woohoo!
“It’s especially important to point out that Penn State doesn’t really travel to the schools in Illinois and to the West and doesn’t seem to draw out higher attendance at those schools.
That’s also another strike against Inner/Outer.”
I disagree. The point of Inner/Outer isn’t to get cross-conference travel, but to assure the western schools of playing their 3 neighbors annually all of which should pack the house. The tradeoff is 3 games against the eastern schools which probably won’t travel well but will provide eastern access for recruiting. They’ll still rotate through OSU and MI quite often, especially since no locked rivals are needed (that’s the key to this plan). With 8 games, that means playing 2/7 against any one team so 4/7 chance of playing OSU or MI. On top of a 100% chance of playing PSU (good for TV if not travel) and your neighbors annually, that’s not bad. If you go to 9 games, Inner/Outer makes less sense because frequency of play is a lesser concern.
“As far as draws go, it’s got to be Michigan or Ohio State. Penn State’s drawing power isn’t that different from Wisconsin or Michigan State as far as attendance (in my experience from Northwestern’s numbers).”
For fans, maybe, but it helps with TV which is also important. MN wants to play on ESPN, too.
LikeLike
True, as to that last point, that’s probably an important consideration that we’ve overlooked a bit too much.
If you put Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State in one division, that means the Eastern division will get most of the ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 slots (I’m looking especially at the ESPN/ESPN2 slots for the purposes of this discussion).
That’s important in terms of their opponents’s TV appearances. If Rutgers and Maryland get all 3 of those schools on their schedule every year, they’re far more likely to end up on ESPN or ESPN2 for those games than Minnesota who only has Nebraska on their schedule annually as a king.
LikeLike
Brian, others can have an opinion. Not everything has to be called out and trashed. I like this blog because it generally doesn’t get personal and occasionally someone has a nice expansion tidbit. No need to always look for offense – there is a world of it out there on other blogs. Don’t bother to reply – I’ll not be back for awhile.
LikeLike
Yep. As an Northwestern fan (and IL native), PSU just doesn’t register emotionally. It’d be the same as playing some other generic “Big School”. Beating Michigan still means something special in the Midwest, but playing UNL means more than playing OSU to me already.
BTW, even if 8 conference games and locked crossovers (Minny-Michigan, Illinois-OSU, and UNL-PSU), the difference in frequency in facing a king would actually not be that different between East and West for the first 8 years if Michigan, OSU, and PSU are rotated between Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue (and by then, I think the B10 would have expanded).
Over the first 8 years:
West:
Minnesota & Illinois face 2 kings a year.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue face 1.75 kings a year.
UNL faces 1 king a year.
East:
OSU & Michigan face 2 kings a year.
Rutger, UMD, IU, and MSU face 3.25 kings a year.
PSU faces 3 kings a year.
Everyone faces at least an average of 1.75 kings annually.
However, if PSU isn’t considered a king (and performance-wise, I don’t think they will be the first 8 years), then
West:
Minnesota & Illinois face 2 kings a year.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue face 1.5 kings a year.
UNL faces 0 king a year.
East:
OSU & Michigan face 1 king a year.
Rutger, UMD, IU, and MSU face 2.25 kings a year.
PSU faces 3 kings a year.
Other than PSU (which can’t or won’t be in any shape to challenge for a divisional crown the first 8 years; though they’d get plenty of high-profile games), the difference in competitive balance is slight, especially when you consider that the middle class in the West is more potent than the middle of the division in the East.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Beating Michigan still means something special in the Midwest, but playing UNL means more than playing OSU to me already.”
OSU/NW never meant anything to either side. OSU doesn’t have many alumni in Chicago relatively speaking but we’d still sell out the stadium for you.
“BTW, even if 8 conference games and locked crossovers (Minny-Michigan, Illinois-OSU, and UNL-PSU), the difference in frequency in facing a king would actually not be that different between East and West for the first 8 years if Michigan, OSU, and PSU are rotated between Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue (and by then, I think the B10 would have expanded).”
If you skew the schedule and time period and really stretch the meaning of “not be that different,” that might be true.
“Over the first 8 years:
West:
Minnesota & Illinois face 2 kings a year.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue face 1.75 kings a year.
UNL faces 1 king a year.
East:
OSU & Michigan face 2 kings a year.
Rutger, UMD, IU, and MSU face 3.25 kings a year.
PSU faces 3 kings a year.
Everyone faces at least an average of 1.75 kings annually.”
No, NE faces 1. 1 < 1.75.
W average = 1.71, E average = 2.86
Difference = 1.15 king per year (E plays 67% more kings)
And that's during your cherry-picked time period. It gets worse after that.
"However, if PSU isn’t considered a king (and performance-wise, I don’t think they will be the first 8 years), then
West:
Minnesota & Illinois face 2 kings a year.
Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue face 1.5 kings a year.
UNL faces 0 king a year.
East:
OSU & Michigan face 1 king a year.
Rutger, UMD, IU, and MSU face 2.25 kings a year.
PSU faces 3 kings a year."
W average = 1.43, E average = 2.00
Difference = 0.57 kings per year (E plays 40% more kings)
"Other than PSU (which can’t or won’t be in any shape to challenge for a divisional crown the first 8 years; though they’d get plenty of high-profile games), the difference in competitive balance is slight,"
You have a weird definition of slight.
LikeLike
Related to the conversation above, but I’m going to post it here so that I can find it, as there are way too many posts right now. Brian posted a report by Nebraska that had the rankings of candidates for the AAU, but it’s only a partial list and it’s partially redacted. It’s too bad they don’t show the whole list, but it seems to be heavily weighted towards federal research dollar rankings:
Click to access research2011.pdf
Plus some of the stuff the USNews ranks. So let’s compare a combination of federal research dollar rankings and US News rankings for D1 AAU schools and AAU aspiring members:
First those that are already in the AAU:
School/ (research rank) / (US News Rank) / (average of the two)
1. Stanford (9)/(6)/(7.5)
2. Duke (12)/(8)/(10)
3. Michigan (2)/(29)/(15.5)
4. Northwestern (27)/(12)/(19.5)
5. USC (19)/(24)/(21.5)
6. UNC (13)/(30)/(21.5)
7. Vanderbilt (22)
8. Wisconsin (6)/(41)/(23.5)
9. Washington (3)/(46)/(24.5)
10. UCLA (10)/(24)/(27)
11. Georgia Tech (22)/(36)/(29)
12. Pitt (11)/(58)/(29.5)
13. PSU (16)/(46)/(31)
14. UC Berkely (34)/(21)/(27.5)
15. Pitt (11)/(58)/(34.5)
16. Texas (24)/(46)/(35)
17. Virginia (44)/(24)/(34)
18. Minesota (6)/(68)/(37)
19. Ohio State (20)/(56)/(38)
20. Illinois (32)/(46)/(39)
21. Maryland (39)/(58)/(47.5)
22. Florida (42)/(54)/(48)
23. A&M (35)/(65)/(50)
24. Iowa (38)/(72)/(55)
25. Purdue (52)/(65)/(58.5)
26. Rutgers (57)/(68)/(62.5)
27. Tulane (74)/(51)/(62.5)
28. Michigan State (55)/(72)/(63.5)
29. Rice (114)/(17)/(65.5)
30. Colorado (40)/(97)/(67)
31. Arizona (33)/(120)/(74.5)
32. Buffalo (56)/(106)/(81)
33. Missouri (69)/(97)/(83)
34. Indiana (96)/(83)/(89.5)
35. Iowa State (83)/(101)/(92)
36. Kansas (100)/(106)/(103)
37. Oregon (109)/(115)/(112)
Now ranking aspiring members (requirement: must be among top 100 in federal research dollars):
1. Wake Forest (60)/(27)/(43.5)
2. Miami (53)/(44)/(48.5)
3. Virginia Tech (58)/(72)/(65)
4. Georgia (77)/(63)/(70)
5. Cincinatti (43)/(139)/(86)
6. Florida State (71)/(97)/(84)
7. Utah (49)/(125)/(87)
8. North Carolina State (62)/(106)/(88)
9. Colorado State (45)/(134)/(89.5)
10. Kentucky (59)/(125)/(92)
11. Tennessee (87)/(101)/(94)
12. South Carolina (75)/(115)/(95)
13. UMass (94)/(97)/(95.5)
14. Nebraska (93)/(101)/(97)
15. Hawaii (46)/(156)/(101)
16. Arizona State (63)/(139)/(101)
17. Washington State (84)/(125)/(104.5)
18. Oregon State (70)/(139)/(104.5)
19. USF (50)/(170)/(110)
20. LSU (91)/(134)/(112.5)
21. New Mexico (65)/(179)/(122)
(for reference) Syracuse (198)/(58)/(128)
So we’ve seen recent departures of Nebraska with an average of 97 and Syracuse with an average of 128. That would seem to mean that Oregon, Iowa State, and Kansas are at risk. If they decided to get really strict, then the next group at risk would be Indiana, Missouri, and Buffalo.
Recent additions include Georgia Tech with an average of 29 and Texas A&M with an average of 50. That would indicate that Wake Forest and Miami are fist in line for membership (among D1 football schools) with Virginia Tech and Georgia as the other two that are within striking distance if they can make some significant progress in the coming years.
LikeLike
Kansas and Iowa State may end up being more at risk because of the mix of dollars. The Ag dollars don’t count but the Ag professors do count (it’s like a double negative in the AAU’s eyes to be Ag research heavy because it shrinks your numerator and increases your denominator). Just from my limited understanding of the situation.
LikeLike
Yeah, same problem for Missouri and Indiana, but they’re in somewhat better shape.
LikeLike
A 2:1 ratio in favor of research is probably more realistic (or a column with a count of National Academy of Sciences Fellows).
LikeLike
Also, you have Pitt there twice.
LikeLike
Yeah, there are a few errors in there, Berkeley is listed out of order for instance. I threw it together pretty quickly. But it should be close enough.
I’m sure it could be done more accurately if I looked at more data and spent more time on it, but that was good enough for me. Feel free to put together your own list.
I think this is pretty good for a rough estimate.
LikeLike
Great job, but I wouldn’t have weighted the USNews ranking so highly, since it’s pretty clear the AAU doesn’t look at that. Buffalo, with its research ranking of 56, would seem to be absolutely safe. Kansas could be in a bit of trouble, though.
LikeLike
Before I made this list I found this report, put out by USF:
Click to access AAU%20Presentation_10-2010.pdf
USF is 50th in federal research dollars, so they see themselves as a candidate for AAU, but the things they want to focus on for improvement are the kinds of things measured by USNews. USF is 170 in USNews, so will probably not be invited to the AAU any time soon. All recent AAU additions have fairly high USNews rankings.
Rather than make a guess at the actual weight between factors I just averaged those two for a rough estimate.
LikeLike
And there are several others that would be in line before those schools. Since they aren’t in any hurry to add schools, that is relevant. Dartmouth, Utah and probably UC-Santa Cruz and RPI based on their scores are all above Wake Forest. UAB, UM-Baltimore County and Tufts are also all higher, but that is probably due overwhelmingly to their medical schools.
LikeLike
Why are you against medical research? This would appear to be the most valuable research a university can perform.
LikeLike
I don’t think @bullet was saying that he had anything against medical research. He is just recognizing that the AAU weighs medical research more highly than other kinds of research. While no doubt valuable, I am not so sure it’s the most valuable research a university can perform.
One factor that hurt Nebraska is that the AAU considers different campuses within a state university system as separate institutions—and the state medical school is in Omaha, rather than Lincoln. The Lincoln campus excels in agricultural research, which the AAU did not value as highly as the Nebraska faculty believed it deserved.
Since we all gotta eat, the de-valuing of agricultural research does not seem “obviously” correct, but those are the AAU’s priorities, and Nebraska paid the price.
LikeLike
Actually, it has nothing to do with priorities. The criteria the AAU uses is competitively awarded federally funded research, but USDA funded research is not competitively awarded.
LikeLike
I’m saying they look at the whole university. For example, UAB has a great medical school. That makes them high in the rankings. But UAB is not great in the rest of the university, so they aren’t likely to be an AAU candidate.
LikeLike
UC-San Francisco is 2nd on their list, but it is only a medical school and is not eligible. Read somewhere that Rockefeller University, #1 on their rankings list, is not eligible. Don’t really know that much about Rockefeller University.
LikeLike
@bullet
UM-Baltimore County is a totally separate entity from University of Maryland College Park! The new special relationship with the Medical & Professional Schoosl ONLY involves UMCP and the UM Professional campus located in Baltimore City. Just so that is on the record.
UM-Baltimore County is ranked so high because it has really high scores from admission and includes the best Chess Team in the USA. It actively recruits chess players from all over the world and has gone head to head with Harvard and all other comers. It once wanted to change its name to Maryland Institute of Technology but was shot down by the Legislature. It really is a fine school with a decidely unfashionable name! ;-o)
LikeLike
I realized it was a separate entity and had a good chess team. The medical school component I assumed because of a belief that UMBC was a commuter school with relatively unrestricted admissions. I’d never seen them mentioned like you see urban schools like UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego. Thanks for the info.
LikeLike
Also, a mini rant about USNews. What’s with those rankings jumping around every year? They must just change around the formula every year to that their rankings will change and they’ll sell more magazines. Missouri has jumped around from 86 to 93 to 101 to 89 to 97 in the last few years. At that rate they could just put +/- 7 next to everybody’s rankings and release them once every 5 or 10 years.
LikeLike
It’s because of the ranking system they use.
It’s based on a points system that scales up to the #1 school(s).
The problem is that after schools #30-40 the numerical points differences are extremely small and so extremely minor changes change the locations of schools significantly after that. That’s also why there’s so many ties among those schools in the 50-100 range and beyond.
LikeLike
So the Big XII left Nebraska alone and adrift in the North division, and we’re prepared to do the same here?
LikeLike
I don’t know if that is how I would characterize it… From 1987-1997 Nebraska was 2nd in D-1A winning percentage. Colorado was 8th. Kansas State and Oklahoma were tied for 36th and Texas was 39th. From 1993 to 1997, Nebraska was 1st, Kansas State was 7th, and Colorado was 9th. A&M was 11th, but Texas was tied for 35th and Oklahoma was tied for 63rd, Kansas was ahead of Oklahoma tied for 45th.
When the Big XII was formed the North was the stronger division ( it only lasted for a couple of years), and Nebraska wasn’t alone there. 1995, the last year of the Big 8, 5 Big XII North teams were in the top 10 including the National Champion. And as far as Nebraska being alone in the North…. They ended up playing in only 6/15 of the Big XII championship games.
I always keep the Big XII and the ACC Miami/Florida State examples in my mind that the divisions don’t always work out the way you think they will over a 10 year period.
LikeLike
It’s not about strength, it’s about rivalries. We’re assuming Nebraska fits into the Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin triangle, but as a Wolverine, I rather enjoy playing against them (and vice versa).
LikeLike
Whoops, this was suppoed to be a reply to Nostradamus above me.
LikeLike
Nebraska doesn’t have a rivalry with any Big Ten school. Obviously, as a fan you love the big games, but that’s not a rivalry.
The Huskers want to be in the same division as Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, because their fans travel well, and those are the three closest games. I’m sure they’d enjoy playing Michigan too, but they can’t ask for everything.
Michigan’s top priorities are maintaining annual games with Michigan State and Ohio State (preferably in the same division) and playing in the East (which likely implies an annual game with Penn State). That’s about as much as Michigan could ask for, and hope (realistically) to be satisfied. If they’re greedy, they’d probably like annual games with Northwestern and Minnesota too, but they’re not going to get all that.
LikeLike
Personally, I would put Ohio State in the west and Michigan in the east. If every team gets one locked game, The Game can be that one for the two of them. It seems a little unbalanced to have Penn State playing Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Nebraska, and while it may be good TV, certainly assures they will be down. Not a good way to preserve league asset values. The real question for me would be what system best protects old rivalries? I could never understand the logic of the Big XII eliminating Neb-Okla. I would watch that every year even though I had no interest in the games from that area otherwise (of course, there weren’t many on eastern TV in those days either).
LikeLike
Nebraska-Penn State crossover probably has to be removed in an East-West split.
It seems completely unfair to put Penn State up against those 4 schools annually.
LikeLike
4 schools? MSU isn’t any bigger of a threat than Wisconsin, Northwestern, or Iowa. I would be fine with a PSU-Iowa crossover, but it all comes down to what PSU wants. The Lions can’t or won’t be competing for a divisional title the first 6 years anyway, and I think further expansion by then is extremely likely. Plus, while UNL is a king in brand, I don’t think the difference in on-the-field performance between them and Iowa will be dramatically different. PSU may prefer playing another king annually over maybe 1 extra win over a 6 year period. Lions fans, want to chime in?
LikeLike
Richard,
“MSU isn’t any bigger of a threat than Wisconsin, Northwestern, or Iowa.”
I’d agree with WI. IA has fallen off and NW is your bias showing.
LikeLike
In the past 10 years, MSU had 41 conference wins. Northwestern had 40. Such a huge difference.
Looks like you’re the one who’s bias is showing, Brian.
LikeLike
And in the last 5, MSU leads 27-14 to 21-19.
LikeLike
Michigan State has as many resources in terms of attendance/$/recruiting as any school not among the 4 kings or Wisconsin.
Unfair for Penn State to have to face 3 kings and Michigan State annually.
LikeLike
Again, I’d prefer to hear from PSU fans instead of deciding what’s fair or not for them.
LikeLike
@Richard,
I’m one PSU fan that thinks it would be unfair to make PSU the only school to play the other 3 kings every year. Adding MSU just makes it worse. If we end up with an alignment that puts PSU, UM and OSU in the same division then PSU and UNL should not be played yearly but the scheduling should be tweaked so that UNL plays 2 of the other 3 kings yearly.
LikeLike
FWIW, most NE are kind of indifferent at best about playing PSU every year. Difficult to travel to, not particularly friendly fans, doesn’t benefit recruiting much.
LikeLike
The elimination of Nebraska-Oklahoma (as an annual game) was one of the seeds of the Big XII’s undoing, although I am not sure there was a way around it. Three kings had to be split among two divisions. Any way you did it was going to cause a problem.
The Big XII was a Texas-centric league. UT wanted to preserve the Red River Rivalry (with Oklahoma) as an annual game, and they did not want to devalue it by setting up the possibility of re-playing it in a conference championship game. Oklahoma happily went along with this, because the Sooners liked the idea of playing all the Texas schools every year.
Of course, in any conceivable alignment, the four Texas schools were going to be in the same division. Geographically, culturally, and historically, the two Oklahoma schools made more sense in the Texas division than any of the other former Big 8 schools.
So that put Texas and Oklahoma in the same division, which clearly meant that the third “king,” Nebraska, had to be separated. The Big XII did not lock any cross-divisional games. Nebraska-Oklahoma was the only such game that would have had any special historical significance. But had they done so, the rest of the old Big 8 teams would have had less access to Oklahoma, which those schools (quite understandably) would not have agreed to.
LikeLike
Would you be willing to move the Michigan-Ohio State game to midseason in order to avoid the two teams playing back-to-back games? Or are you unconcerned about the prospect of UM playing OSU as the season ender with a followup game in the conference championship one week later?
If locked games aren’t possible, would you be willing to see an end to the annual Michigan-Ohio State game? Would you feel it’d be better overall if they only met either in the CCG only or as part of a rotation of cross-divisional games where they might play one another two years out of every four?
LikeLike
The Big Ten already considered moving The Game to mid-season, for exactly that reason, i.e., to avoid the possibility of a re-match the following week. The fan response in both states was overwhelmingly negative.
Fans tend to resist changes of that sort. As The Game is the league’s best known rivalry, by far, the ADs wisely decided not to mess with that particular tradition. Obviously, if fans were unhappy about moving the date of The Game, you can imagine the outcry if it were scrapped altogether.
I recall that the league ran some sort of simulation, and concluded that if the teams were in opposite divisions, a meeting in the conference championship game would be relatively uncommon. They estimated that it would happen about 30 percent of the time, or thereabouts, assuming the two teams continue to perform the way they have historically.
I haven’t encountered anyone who is happy about the prospect of playing The Game two weeks in a row, although Brian (who writes as an Ohio State partisan) claims he has. I think people rationalized that it was unlikely to occur very often. They’d rather have a guaranteed meeting every year on the last day of the regular season, than merely a possible meeting that might not even happen in most years.
Both ADs have said publicly that they’d prefer to be in the same division, and therefore eliminate the problem entirely, if that can be arranged without getting in the way of other valuable objectives.
LikeLike
I don’t want to see it 2 weeks in a row and I’ve heard it plenty. It significantly diminishes the value of the 1st one for one thing, particularly if it is known that 2nd will occur no matter what, and for the 2nd it prompts the “big 2, little 10” talk that isn’t good for the league. They are better off in the same division.
Inner/Outer is the only logical choice if the B10 stays at 8 games with no crossovers.
LikeLike
jj,
“It significantly diminishes the value of the 1st one for one thing, particularly if it is known that 2nd will occur no matter what,”
I just want to clarify that.
I agree with your second part that the game would lose something for the fans if both teams were assured of making the CCG. I don’t think the coaches or players would take it lightly, though.
But if the rematch isn’t assured, I don’t think the first game loses anything. It will lose something in retrospect when the other team wins the second time, but history shows the same team tends to win both games in other conferences.
“and for the 2nd it prompts the “big 2, little 10″ talk that isn’t good for the league.”
I think the main driver of that talk is recruiting. That said, splitting them because you think they would both dominate their own divisions seems like a bad move. You want your best teams each year in the CCG. You don’t design divisions to intentionally prevent that from happening.
“They are better off in the same division.”
If you believe they are the two best teams, how are they better off sharing a division instead of each winning a division more often?
LikeLike
It will probably be rare for The Rematch to be guaranteed before The Game. If anything, The Game is always 12pm, so other games that day can’t help decide it before they even kickoff.
The once per 10 or 20 years event of a guaranteed rematch won’t be a big loss anyways. I thought it was a blood rivalry? Then winning The Game itself has inherent meaning, not just what is on the line.
LikeLike
greg,
“It will probably be rare for The Rematch to be guaranteed before The Game. If anything, The Game is always 12pm, so other games that day can’t help decide it before they even kickoff.”
Exactly. They have to go into the game with a lead and the tiebreaker or a 2 game lead to assure the rematch.
“The once per 10 or 20 years event of a guaranteed rematch won’t be a big loss anyways. I thought it was a blood rivalry? Then winning The Game itself has inherent meaning, not just what is on the line.”
It is and it does. That’s why I think people are blowing this “problem” out of proportion.
LikeLike
@ brian
I think it’s personal preference to some degree, but the rematch to me is terrible enough to prevent it. Having the CCG slot on the line often is compelling drama. If ups the stakes.
LikeLike
jj,
“I think it’s personal preference to some degree,”
I’m sure it is. I hate all rematches personally, so I’m not arguing for one. I am saying they’re going to happen no matter how you align and this one is more valuable than most.
“but the rematch to me is terrible enough to prevent it.”
Did you feel the same way about the previous two rematches? Or is it the theoretical problem of a back to back rematch that bothers you? Also, how much do you think being an MSU guy factors into your thinking? I know the last thing most Spartan fans want is another week of MI getting all the attention, and OSU week is the worst of the year for that.
“Having the CCG slot on the line often is compelling drama. If ups the stakes.”
You’re more likely to have a CCG slot on the line if they are split than if they are together. Thus, more compelling drama and higher stakes on average. Playing for the division title will never be for higher stakes than playing for the B10 title, either.
LikeLike
Brian:
I think the back to back weeks certainly enhances the problem with the rematch.
Also, I will admit I generally enjoy watching UM and OSU lose games. Don’t read too much into that. Like I said before, I want to beat the best to be the best. I don’t want to back my way into Rose Bowls. But I’m not sure I care much about the “attention” factor. Any year MSU is getting attention in the last week it has generally been a good year for us.
LikeLike
jj,
“I think the back to back weeks certainly enhances the problem with the rematch.”
And I’d agree. This would be a very different discussion if OSU/MI had an early traditional date like OU/UT or AL/TN.
“But I’m not sure I care much about the “attention” factor.”
I asked because I’ve seen some MSU fans explicitly say they want OSU and MI together just because they can’t tolerate another week of that coverage in state.
LikeLike
JJ:
Complete nonsequiter. E/W (with or without crossovers) would also put Michigan and OSU in the same division.
LikeLike
@ Richard
There are many issues Inner/Outer addresses in terms of competitive balance, games and rivals played other than UM/MSU.
I doubt it will happen because I think we’ll see 9 games and an East/West plan of some sort.
LikeLike
Yes, The Game is not a mere rivalry, it is an event. It has a spot on the calendar, like Easter or Labor Day Weekend. Its not something slapped together seven days in advance.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I recall that the league ran some sort of simulation, and concluded that if the teams were in opposite divisions, a meeting in the conference championship game would be relatively uncommon. They estimated that it would happen about 30 percent of the time, or thereabouts, assuming the two teams continue to perform the way they have historically.”
Back of the envelope calculations estimate it would happen about once every 7 years. Looking back at the past 20 years, it would have happened roughly every 5 years (maybe less depending on schedules), IIRC.
“I haven’t encountered anyone who is happy about the prospect of playing The Game two weeks in a row, although Brian (who writes as an Ohio State partisan) claims he has.”
It depends on how you define happy. I think people have blown the problem out of proportion. Having your two biggest programs on the national stage for 2 straight weeks isn’t a bad thing. Fans will sell out the CCG. Neither team will sit players the first time even if they have their division title locked up, and it would be very rare for both teams to have their division titles locked up before the first meeting. I think it would be hard on the teams to play back to back, and tough on a team that won an upset the first time, but good for the B10 financially. I think it would draw good ratings both times, and that’s what Delany and company care about.
LikeLike
As long as you have static divisions of 7 teams each and an 8-game schedule, some teams will play less often (perhaps very less frequently). That’s why, although it may be confusing, I like the idea of changing divisions each year (using groups/pods). With 14 teams and and 6 game schedule, the following could be played every year: Neb-Wisc, Neb-IA, Neb-MN, IA-Wisc, IA-MN, Wisc-MN, Ill-NW, Ill-PU, Ill-IN, PU-IN, PU-NW, IN-NW, UM-OSU, UM-RU, OSU-RU, MSU-PSU, MSU-MD, PSU-MD, UM-MSU, OSU-PSU, and RU-MD. The games that weren’t played each year would be played every second year (i.e., Neb and PSU would play each other every two years – a home and home every four years). Main rivalries are played every year; lesser rivalries are played at least once every two years. UM, OSU and PSU (and MSU) have one game per year with an east coast team, and three games with an east coast team every two years. Everyone else gets to play an eastern school once a year. Everyone gets to play UM and OSU at least once every two years. The east coast teams get to play the western teams (Neb, IA, Wisc, MN once every two years, which means that in any given year they will only have to travel past Chicago two times.This type of set-up also avoids “fake” crossover games, pairing Maryland, for example, with Iowa or Minnesota, just because you need to balance out cross-over games.For competitive balance, every two years, OSU, UM and Neb will be in the same division, but in the alternate year, Neb and PSU will be one division and UM and OSU in the other. In short, it solves almost all of the problems of static divisions, albeit at the cost of being confusing (although I think that once you understand the pod system, it’s not any more confusing than the present set-up).
And, yes, I know that a pod system won’t be adopted!
LikeLike
That was an entertaining read, but I cannot imagine them doing it. They were definitely taken aback by the adverse reaction to “Leaders” and “Legends”. That fact alone would make them wary of introducing a confusing idea that does not resemble what any other conference has done.
(I am not going to comment much on the specific proposed list of rivalries that would be played every year. You’re missing PSU-RU, which I’m sure they would want to include; and you’ve listed some (like MSU-MD) that I don’t think they would feel obligated to protect.)
I do agree that it is desirable to avoid fake crossovers in the name of scheduling balance. Aside from Inner/Outer, the system I like best is a pure East/West split, where Indiana goes east, and their game with Purdue is the only protected crossover.
LikeLike
Marc, for 8 games I think you are dead on. 9 or the huge longshot 10 is where things can get really interesting.
LikeLike
That is the best compromise but how does Indiana & Purdue feel about not playing team outside their division much? Can these two teams swap divisions every four years?
LikeLike
I think that might actually be a good idea. Can’t see them doing it, but it would help them negate the fact they play the other division less.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/division+i+streamlines+rulebook
The NCAA approves some rules changes to streamline the rule book.
LikeLike
Interesting comments from the Georgia Tech AD:
Bobinski smiled when asked if Georgia Tech might be joining the realignment frenzy.
“That’s the ultimate loaded question,” he said, before quickly stressing he thinks the ACC is an “unbelievable home for Georgia Tech. It’s the right fit in today’s world for us.”
The Yellow Jackets’ goals — both athletically and academically — are aligned with conference rivals such as North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, he added.
“That’s the company Georgia Tech belongs in,” Bobinski said. “It’s the right alignment in a lot of ways. I don’t have any inclination at this point in time that there’s any different home in our future. Our goal right now — us and the rest of the members of the ACC — is be as good as we can be in football and strengthen the revenue base in and around the conference, so there’s no temptation for folks to start to be picked off. We’re all-in for the ACC.”
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8857721/mike-bobinski-new-ad-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets-says-committed-acc
I know it’s easy for people to be cynical but I say he’s sincere about staying put. However, I can’t help but think that the mention of the schools GT believes they’re in good company with may be clue of something else.
Just take as a FYI
LikeLike
Transic,
I tend to agree with you, but then ESPN muddies the waters by including this:
“Boosting revenue is vital for Georgia Tech’s athletic program, which has taken on heavy debt to upgrade its athletic facilities. In the past decade or so, the school has expanded its football stadium, built new practice facilities for football and basketball, renovated the baseball stadium and opened a new complex for softball. This year, the Yellow Jackets moved into a new basketball arena, the McCamish Pavilion, and a new tennis complex was dedicated Thursday.
In its 2011-12 annual report, Georgia Tech listed a debt service of more than $6.5 million on yearly revenues of just more than $60 million. A move to the Big Ten, which has its own television network and more lucrative broadcast deals than the ACC, surely would boost the Yellow Jackets’ bottom line.”
The lack of resources at GT was one thing that drove the previous AD to move to Clemson.
LikeLike
That doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the ACC to me (as opposed to a ringing endorsement of the schools the B10 would target). No mention of southern, neighboring football powerhouse FSU, fellow southern engineering schools NCSU and Clemson, or fellow AAU member Pitt.
LikeLike
I agree with @Richard: It doesn’t exactly sound like a full commitment to the ACC. I mean, if you’re really committed, expansion isn’t “the ultimate loaded question.” In that case, a simple “no” would suffice.
And yeah, he’s obviously casting his lot with the fellow-AAU schools, which means that if one or two of them jump ship, it’s a whole new ball game.
It would be interesting to survey the responses of various college presidents and ADs, 3-6 months before they switched conferences. I suspect many of them said something like the GT AD just said, expressing commitment to their current home, but not denying outright that they were open to moving.
LikeLike
Yes, the most noticeable part of his statement was that he explicitly tied Georgia Tech to UVa/UNC/Duke.
That’s a loud “hmmmmmmmm” considering that we’ve heard corresponding talk from Big Ten country that their eventual goal is likely 16 or 18 with some combination of some of all of those 4 schools.
LikeLike
It sounds like what Georgia Tech wants is a B1G 18 with GT, UVA, UNC, and Duke.
The question is what does the B1G want? And what do the other three schools want?
It could be the B1G ultimately decides 16 is enough.
Also, it could be UNC and Duke decide against joining the Yankee conference to the north. (The SEC is working on both of them right now.)
Or it could be that UVA, UNC and Duke want to stay put.
Or maybe it works out the way GA Tech wants.
We’ll see.
LikeLike
It would not be surprising if everyone is getting their ducks in a row in case UNC says yes to an invite. That doesn’t imply that any moves will actually take place if UNC turns down both invites.
LikeLike
It sounds like what Georgia Tech wants is a B1G 18 with GT, UVA, UNC, and Duke.
Yep. They won’t state it publicly but the implied message is “If you want one of us we go together as a package or no ones leaves.”
At least I hope that’s the message. ;0)
LikeLike
UNC, UVa and Duke will almost certainly leave the ACC as a trio, making either the Big Ten or SEC an unwieldy 17. The question is, who becomes #18? In the Big Ten, it would be Georgia Tech. In the SEC — assuming it wants to go to 18 at all (in terms of rivalries and football scheduling, it may be reluctant to do so), it would either be Virginia Tech or N.C. State, or possibly both if Slive can persuade UNC to ditch Duke.
LikeLike
@Transic
This was posted on the Maryland board about the “penalty option” vis-a-vis Maryland. Would like to have any comments from any attorneys on whether this even sounds feasible!
From Go Jackets.com a poster names A. Lincoln Posted his analysis of The ACC’s case against MD. Hope he is wrong
“The lawsuit by the ACC against Maryland was well thought out.
The ACC is chartered under the laws of the State of North Carolina (that was surprising to me, I thought it would have been Delaware). The laws of the State of North Carolina govern the management of the conference. The exit fee is a corporate by-law of the conference.
The first count in the complaint filed by the ACC is a request for Declaratory Judgement on the issue of the validity and legality of the corporate by law providing for the exit fee under North Carolina law.
There is only one court in the land that has the power to determine if a corporate by law adopted by a North Carolina corporation is binding under North Carolina law. That court is the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court can act to supercede the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court only if it finds the North Carolina statutes govening corporations and corporate by-laws violate the U.S. Constitution (in this case the Interstate Commerce Clause). Not likely to happen.
The ACC didn’t sue Maryland for $50M, it sued to get a North Carolina Court to declare that the corporate by laws of the ACC relating to the exist fee were valid and binding on the members. The ACC lawyers anticipated that Maryland would argue that you have to sue the University of Maryland in Maryland, which is possibly true. Maryland would have had a lot easier time of it if they were on their home turf. So the ACC took this step. They’ll have a judgment from a North Carolina Court declaring the exit fees binding under North Carolina law, (which will be a disincentive to UVA and GT and UNC and VT and Clemson and FSU to look anywhere else even if that thought came to them in a dream) then they’ll sue Maryland in Maryland for the money, and they’ll have to prove that Maryland was a member of the ACC and it joined the BIG, and under North Carlolina law (ACC will attach the certified copy of the declaratory judgment of the North Carolina Court) that behavior by a member of a North Carolina organization entitles the other shareholders of the corporation to $50M, and that they owe the conference $50M. Maryland writes a check because there’s not a lot of wiggle room in that set of facts.
That’s why Maryland couldn’t remove the case to Federal Court, the Federal Court would just have to submit the declaratory judgment queston of the corporate by law to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
So you have a North Carolina judge making a decision on whether the ACC exit fee is legal and binding under North Carolina law. I’m pretty sure I know how that’s going to come out. If s/he rules in favor of North Carolina it benefits the State of North Carolina, if he rules in favor of Maryland, s/he gets to explain that ruling in the next general election and nobody who benefits from the case benefitting Maryland gets to vote in said North Carolina election. The North Carolina Court is going to say corporations are free to run their business anyway they want unless they’re out killing people, and maybe the standard will be its o.k. unless they’re out killing people that didn’t need killing.
I think Maryland had to leave the conference before the vote on the bylaw became final if it wanted to pursue this anti-trust claim. Otherwise, they were members of the ACC for 5 months while the ACC was engaged in all this illegal activity they’re complaining about, so in other words, they were part of the illegal conspiracy that is the subject matter of the law suit they brought. I don’t think a court is going to allow a lawsuit by the getaway driver in a bank robbery to recover from his fellow bank robbers, his share of the loot. Bank robbers usually have to use guns to settle disputes.
Maryland couldn’t pull out of the conference before the by-law became a by-law because they couldn’t extort the BIG bribe they received to join the conference if they were a free agent, they would have to have begged the BIG to let them join and would have needed to take partial payouts for the first 5 years to join the club. But that’s what happens when you hire a bunch of incompetents to run your athletic program, you get yourself in a bad situation.
This lawsuit by Maryland is a plea to the ACC to come talk to them about settling for something less than $50M. The ACC probably needs to do that because they really need Maryland out of the conference sooner rather than later, everytime Maryland’s name comes up in connection with the ACC there is negative press for the conference. We need Maryland to get about its regular business of getting it’s athletics teams beat by Illinois and Minnesota on a regular basis.”
Note the post was made on a GaTech board….
LikeLike
Interesting what you are finding, Nemo.
LikeLike
It doesn’t take a lawyer to understand there is always a question with jurisdiction when you have entities in two states. And there is always an issue when you are suing a state entity. So there is a lot of wishful thinking in this post. There’s a lot of uncertainty for both sides. That’s why it will be settled at some point.
LikeLike
Nemo,
IANAL, but obviously you can ignore the last half of that comment as speculation and opinion. As to the first half, I’ll just say it’s a known legal issue that punitive exit fees can’t be enforced. The fee has to represent actual damages. Whether the $52M exit fee is punitive or not is for a judge to decide. The poster glossed over this point, as if the NC court would just decide that the concept of exit fees is OK and the amount irrelevant. There may be other serious legal issues involved, too.
LikeLike
Even if the ACC gets a judgement in a NC court Maryland will claim sovereign immunity and refuse to pay. There is not much the ACC can do about this except keep funds due Maryland that it has not distributed. Maryland could sue the ACC if funds are withheld but it is not likely to be successful at collecting from the ACC in a NC court. That is why all of these cases get settled out of court. Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse settled exit fees for most of the $$$ due but still in conference possession. WV was the exception and paid a $20M fee to leave immediately, more than double the distribution they were due from the Big East.
LikeLike
Federal Courts routinely apply state law via the Erie doctrine, and only have to certify questions to state supreme courts in limited circumstances. Furthermore, North Carolina is one of two states which does not accept certified questions from federal courts. So I think the above is a load, quite frankly.
IANAL, but I did get a B- in Fed Courts two semesters ago.
LikeLike
Gents,
Frankly, I just want this done! I am so psyched to get into the B1G I can taste it! ;-o)
LikeLike
I am a fan of the B1G that is emerging. Yes, traditional rivalries have to be considered when scheduling but I think, in the long run, the conference will be stronger when the new adds start contributing.
LikeLike
No, the B10 will get weaker with these addition. Richer but weaker.
LikeLike
Leggings and Lederhosen.
LikeLike
While we’re tossing out hypothetical division alignments, here is one I haven’t seen yet.
Multiple Big Ten sources have said on the record that they’re looking at some variant of “East-West.” The main problem is in the geographical center: to balance the divisions numerically, at least one school needs to leave its usual partner.
The problems are:
1) Schools split from their normal dance partners get the raw end of the deal.
2) Protected cross-divisional rivalries are needed, which reduces the frequency of seeing the other teams in the conference.
Suppose they organize initially in unbalanced divisions, as follows:
East: RU, MD, PSU, OSU, UM, MSU
West: WI, MN, IA, NE, IU, PU, IL, NW
Now, every two years, one of the “center” schools (IU, PU, IL, NW) flips to the east, but it’s only for two years. During those two years, of course, they maintain their in-state rivalry as a protected game.
So, for instance, Northwestern could be in the east for 2014-15 (maintaining their Illinois game). In 2016-17, they’d switch places with Illinois. In 2018-19, it would be Indiana’s turn, and then Purdue in 2020-21. (This assumes the Big Ten stays at 14 teams, which of course, probably won’t happen.)
This, it seems to me, solves most of the problems, and it’s simple enough that casual fans could grasp it, which I think is a requirement of any divisional set-up. Assuming they want an East-West set-up, as most media reports have suggested, this might be a way to do it without forcing any school permanently into a split from their usual rival.
LikeLike
Like that idea a lot, the ‘middle’ schools (Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern) play everyone an equal amount, keep their rivalries with the ‘middle’ schools and play a good amount of ‘east’ games.
LikeLike
For me, Michigan State all the time, Indiana a quarter of the time and Purdue a quarter of the time trumps both Indiana and Purdue all the time and MSU basically never ~ that is the “East / West” alignment that pretends Indiana is halfway between Ann Arbor and Lansing, Michigan.
Too clever by half to happen, but for the Buckeyes, I like it better than most East/West divisions.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“For me, Michigan State all the time, Indiana a quarter of the time and Purdue a quarter of the time trumps both Indiana and Purdue all the time and MSU basically never”
The whole point of those 3 games to me is that they’re short drives. None of the schools are heated rivals or anything. I’d rather have 2+ games against them than 1.5+ games against them. Besides, I’ll always taken a game with IN to soften the schedule.
From a purely selfish POV, I’d want these divisions (in order of locked rival):
Good – OSU, IL, PU, IN, MSU, PSU, MD
Evil – MI, NW, IA, MN, WI, NE, RU
I think most of those choices are obvious (proximity and rivalries). As for MD, they are closer than NE, IA, WI and MN and almost the same distance as NW, plus none of those 5 mean much to me. Plus, I might have access to MD tickets.
Of course those divisions can’t happen, as I ended MI/MSU and separated RU from PSU. So I’ll change the rules: 9 games with 2 locked rivals for some teams
MI – OSU, MSU
PSU – NE, RU
MSU – MI, WI
RU – PSU, MD
That would keep all the necessary games. Or to be slightly less crazy, swap MSU and RU so only 1 locked game is needed for everyone. Gene Smith would hate it, but I couldn’t care less. He doesn’t want 9 games, either.
LikeLike
MD & Rutgers makes it more than soft enough. I don’t want it too soft to land in a championship semi-final in a good year.
LikeLike
13-0 will always make it. 12-1 has a small chance. It depends more on how good the top of the schedule is than the bottom, IMO.
LikeLike
@Brian: I am curious why any Ohio State fan would want 9 conference games. A school like OSU is in the scheduling driver’s seat: it can set its own terms, much of the time. Having four games that Gene Smith controls is better than having just three.
I feel much the same way about David Brandon, especially as I don’t like the schedule that the Big Ten saddled Michigan with (both of the kings, Ohio State and Nebraska, on the road in the same year).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: I am curious why any Ohio State fan would want 9 conference games.”
Because I like playing B10 teams. The more they corrupt the B10 with outsiders, the more games are wasted on non-B10 teams. I want to play MN, WI, IA, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI and MSU. With RU, MD, NE and PSU cluttering up the schedule, that means we need at least 9 games to see the other 9 B10 teams on any regular basis. I’d love to play 8 games, but only if that also meant dumping the newbies.
“A school like OSU is in the scheduling driver’s seat: it can set its own terms, much of the time. Having four games that Gene Smith controls is better than having just three.”
Having nothing Smith controls is better than giving him any control at all over anything.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This, it seems to me, solves most of the problems, and it’s simple enough that casual fans could grasp it, which I think is a requirement of any divisional set-up.”
While useful theoretically, I don’t think this is simple enough to get the B10 OK. That’s 4 fan bases that might get confused about which division they’re in, and I doubt the B10 wants to risk that. I think the B10 will settle on divisions and just live with them rather than trying fancy tweaks to minimize the downsides.
LikeLike
@Brian: Ultimately, I agree with you. I will be very surprised if they come out with anything other than static divisions. I did think it was useful, as a thought experiment, to see if it were possible to solve any of the much-discussed problems inherent in static divisions, without resorting to even funkier ideas.
LikeLike
Agree on the divisions remaining static, unfortunately I can’t see the B10 rotating teams.
LikeLike
Penn State perspective. It is a given we will have Rutgers & Maryland on our schedule, and combined with Temple and the return of the Pitt Panthers, we have a nice local component to our schedule (With the attendance decline at Beaver Stadium, and the fact that with the exceptions of our stops at Ohio State & Nebraska, we simply do not generate interest West of Pittsburgh very well. This is crucial both to us and the B10), I am also 99% sure that Ohio State will remain on the Schedule as well. Here comes the interesting part: If Michigan comes East, we will likely lose either Wisconsin or Nebraska from our schedule (But NOT both). I bet Wisconsin (Along with Illinois and Indiana (That would strengthen the Basketball Component out West)). Why? I cannot see the B10 wanting a top heavy Division of PSU, OSU, Michigan AND Wisconsin, so the Badgers would likely move. Without that, it would create the condition of leaving Nebraska on an Island, with Iowa and Michigan State. Beyond that, I would favor playing Nebraska on the post-Thanksgiving Friday game. Very important for the Huskers, and a stand alone National TV Game for us. In addition, I would like to see only three permanent protected match-ups which would be: 1: Penn State/Nebraska. 2: Michigan/ Michigan State. 3: Purdue/Indiana. The other games would be rotated (As they are now). This would allow the teams out West to see Ohio State more (Since they are losing Michigan). The other alternative is to NOT move Michigan, and when Maryland and Rutgers join, keep Wisconsin in the East, and simply send Illinois and Indiana West. I like that solution best of all, because the only Major change you see is creating Purdue/Indiana as a protected rivalry game (Replacing Illinois/Northwestern). I can certainly live with Wisconsin instead of Michigan on the Schedule (As long as we have one of the two (Plus Ohio State & Nebraska)).
LikeLike
Your proposal is a bit difficult to follow, but it sounds like you’re conceiving of realignment as a series of one or more adjustments to the existing Legends/Leaders division set-up. From the various public statements, it sounds like the Big Ten is just starting from scratch.
Just about everyone on this board is a fan of some school or other, but any proposal does need at least to attempt to recognize the different perspectives of schools other than one’s own. For instance, you didn’t mention Minnesota at all, which is Wisconsin’s main rival. Any alignment that doesn’t have those two playing every year is dead on arrival.
LikeLike
Under my scenario, Minnesota really does not have to be mentioned because if Wisconsin moves, they would be in the same Division (Just like Illinois and Northwestern (Assuming the Illini move with Wisconsin)). The most important teams to be protected are the ones I said:1: Indiana (Because they have no rival except Purdue (At least the Boilermakers have Notre Dame)). 2 & 2a Michigan State & Purdue (Because they play Notre Dame). 3: Nebraska (Because of Iowa on the schedule). So Indiana/Purdue, Michigan/Michigan State & Penn State/Nebraska must be protected. The biggest loss that the Gophers would have, would be no more Michigan (Because when it comes down to it, Michigan/Michigan State is more important).
LikeLike
David Brown,
You seem to be saying you’d like this:
E – PSU, RU, MD, OSU, PU, MI
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, IL, IN, MSU, NW
with only PSU/NE, MI/MSU and PU/IN locked. You moved 3 teams west (WI, IL, IN) but only 1 east, leaving 8 teams in the west. Which other team would you move, since you need to split them 7 and 7?
“Beyond that, I would favor playing Nebraska on the post-Thanksgiving Friday game. Very important for the Huskers, and a stand alone National TV Game for us.”
With all the complaints about OSU/MI having a possible rematch, I can’t imagine the B10 locking PSU/NE as a crossover game on the last weekend. It would either have to be earlier or in division.
I also think they are unlikely to lock 3 games. Maybe just 1, but once you’ve locked 3 why not follow through? OSU/IL is a rivalry, so that’s 4. The other 3 might be clearer if I knew which teams were where in your plan.
“The other alternative is to NOT move Michigan, and when Maryland and Rutgers join, keep Wisconsin in the East, and simply send Illinois and Indiana West.”
Umm. That would again put 8 in the west and 6 in the east. You only need to move IL or IN, not both. I’ll guess you’d prefer to move IL and not lock that game any more.
E – PSU, RU, MD, OSU, PU, IN, WI
W – NE, NW, IL, MI, IA, MSU, MN
“I like that solution best of all, because the only Major change you see is creating Purdue/Indiana as a protected rivalry game (Replacing Illinois/Northwestern).”
No, you’d have to keep WI/MN and OSU/MI locked, but both IL/NW and PU/IN would be in division.
LikeLike
I thought FTT might find this interesting. It’s an article about how sports blogs like MgoBlog, ElevenWarriors etc. may be the future of sports journalism.
http://www.neweconomyinitiative.org/is-mgoblog-the-future-of-sports-journalism
LikeLike
It’s the state of modern journalism now, especially as they grow and field their own reporters. Newspapers and television are corrupted by the biases of their owners and have every incentive to hide the truth, depending on the story.
LikeLike
Even this is a better ranking system than USNWR. Go U NU!!!
LikeLike
Interesting to see WashU up there. Then again, they’re like an NU in a much smaller metropolitan area. Portland’s surprising.
This list actually provides some evidence of which name schools tend to admit more because of legacy/connections as opposed to individual talent (hi Princeton!)
LikeLike
I did not see this discussed above, so I apologize if this is repetition.
If the B1G goes to TEN conference games, how does that affect divisional alignment, locked cross-divisional games and frequency-of-play?
Go with me and just assume. What impact does 10 conference games have? Again, just go with me and assume. I admit low chance of it happening. But curious if 10 conference games changes anyone’s calculations or thoughts about what conference alignment is most likely.
This idea was floated by Rittenberg on Friday. I have no idea how “connected” Rittenberg is, but he says “will be strongly considered.” http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70076/big-ten-friday-mailblog-124
“I can tell you a 9-game conference schedule certainly is on the table for Big Ten athletic directors, and a 10-game conference schedule — which creates an even number of home games and road games — also will be strongly considered.”
Let’s assume the B1G goes to 10 conference games. How does that play for schools like MI and OSU and PSU that need 8 home games?
LikeLike
Schools with large stadiums (PSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.) are resistant to 9 games, 10 games won’t happen as it means they’ll be unable to play road games vs strong opponents. We can play hypotheticals but they are pretty useless.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
If the B1G goes to TEN conference games, how does that affect divisional alignment, locked cross-divisional games and frequency-of-play?
Go with me and just assume.
The biggest advantage is that the divisions matter even less as you play 10 of 13 teams. I would take the opportunity to create balanced divisions (to make for better CCG match-ups) and use the crossover games to get more eastern exposure and preserve rivalries where necessary.
One problem is the CCG is even more likely to be a rematch. Another is the impact on OOC scheduling.
This idea was floated by Rittenberg on Friday. I have no idea how “connected” Rittenberg is, but he says “will be strongly considered.”
Not going to happen. The big stadium schools need 7 home games. 10 B10 games means 5 road games, so all OOC games would have to be at home. IA has ISU and MSU has ND, which would drive them to 6 home games half the time. The kings like to schedule a big name OOC game, but that requires a home and home or a neutral site game. MI gave up $2M+ to play AL in Dallas rather than have a home game. That’s not going to happen regularly, so you’re killing the OOC schedules for all the top teams.
LikeLike
The programs are not particularly happy with going from 8 to 9 games, 10 I just can’t imagine, that limits non conference games way too much, NCAA would have to increase the number of games per season for that to ever happen.
LikeLike
Due respect to Rittenberg, but he’s crazy: 10 home games won’t be considered.
All of the schools want a 7-5 split of home/road games every year. (The more powerful schools occasionally have 8 home games.) If you’re locked into a 5-5 split in the conference, the two remaining games can only be paycheck opponents, who do not demand a return game.
This is a problem for schools that want to schedule premier OOC opponents. Michigan has future home-and-homes with Utah and Arkansas; Ohio State with Virginia Tech, Oregon, Oklahoma, TCU, North Carolina, Boston College, and Texas; Nebraska with Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Miami; Michigan State with Miami, Boise State, and Alabama; Penn State with Pitt, Temple, and Syracuse; Wisconsin with Virginia Tech, Washington State, Washington, BYU, and Maryland.
Of course, Purdue and Iowa have annual series with Notre Dame and Iowa State. Michigan State’s series with Notre Dame is not quite annual, but it is recurring.
You get the drift.
And some of these games are scheduled out to 2022, so this is not merely a short-term problem.
There is no way the schools could play these games, and also play 10 conference games, without having six road games half the time.
Even 9 conference games severely limits the schools’ flexibility. And for the schools with a locked OOC rival (Purdue, Iowa), it leaves them with no realistic option to ever schedule an extra, non-paycheck, OOC opponent. That is why most of the ADs do not want 9 conference games. (The 4/5 scheduling imbalance is another reason.)
If they ever went to a 13th regular-season game, it would be another story, but I don’t think that’s anywhere on the horizon.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Yeah, I don’t see how a 10-game conference schedule is realistically viable. I’m pretty sure the 9-game conference schedule will eventually get passed, though. Remember that the Big Ten was willing to do it at 12 teams and only dropped it because of the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that eventually fell through. The skids have already been greased for 9 games and it has become even more desirable on a number of levels (e.g. continuing to play your existing conference-mates more, the new playoff system that will supposedly punish those that play too many cupcakes, etc.). As I’ve said in other posts, I don’t think the Big Ten is like the SEC where extremely long pauses in series between conference-mates in different divisions is going to be acceptable. The ACC also has a much larger number of “new” members from its raids of the Big East over the past decade, so that came into play with that league staying at 8 conference games.
LikeLike
@Frank: You are almost certainly correct that 9 conference games will happen eventually, although I continue to believe it is exceedingly unwise. (It probably won’t happen in 2014, as I believe some schools already have a 4-game OOC slate booked.)
One of the arguments in its favor is clearly specious: cupcake schedules. Schools are free to schedule as tough as they want, and many do. Ohio State is exemplary in this regard. No one forced Wisconsin in 2011 to face the murderer’s row of UNLV, Oregon State, Northern Illinois, and South Dakota. They did that to themselves. (The Badgers have lined up real OOC opponents in the out-years, but historically they seldom did.)
The problem with a 9-game schedule (besides the home-road imbalance) is that it drastically reduces the flexibility of the schools who actually want to go out and play real opponents. It tags half the conference with an extra loss that could have been a win, and will probably cost the Big Ten a bowl appearance or two every year.
I realize that the tide is turning the other way, but I can only continue to point out how bad an idea I believe it is.
LikeLike
Schools have been told to avoid scheduling 4 non-conference games beyond 2016.
LikeLike
I am certainly not in favor of a 9 Game Schedule unless the Conference Expanded or there were two protected games instead of one. If you have Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland, & Rutgers joining the Wolverines in the East, and Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Wisconsin out West, perhaps this makes sense: 1: Penn State plays Illinois and Nebraska. 2: Michigan plays Michigan State and Minnesota. 3: Purdue plays Iowa and Nebraska. 4: Ohio State plays Northwestern and Wisconsin. 5: Maryland plays Minnesota and Wisconsin. 6: Rutgers plays Northwestern and Michigan State. 7: Indiana plays Illinois and Iowa. Here is why it makes sense. A: Good balance between Divisions. B: Each team a hard game an an easy game. C: Rivalries are preserved. EX: Michigan/Michigan State, Michigan/Minnesota, Penn State/Nebraska. That schedule plus one Home & Home Series (Such as Penn State’s With Minnesota) might be the way to go. From a Penn State perspective, this allows me to keep Pitt & Temple (Games 9-10) a Payday game (Such as with a MAC opponent) and to schedule one difficult non-Conference opponent a year (Schools like Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Miami and (Prior to joining) Nebraska have popped up on the Schedule.
LikeLike
As a Buckeye fan who grew up in the days of the Big Two and Little Eight, the point of 9 games is to PLAY the schools in the other division, which will have the majority of the traditional Big Ten schools, more than once in a blue moon. Two protected games undermines the appeal of 9 games ~ playing nine with one protected game means seeing the balance of the west across three years, which is already one year longer than the preference that a given class will see the whole conference as either a junior or senior. Playing nine with two protected games means seeing the balance of the west across five years.
The ideal for the Buckeyes would be nine games with no protected games, so we’d see the whole of the Western division every two or three years.
How 10 games would affect that is neither here nor there, as between the big stadium schools, the schools with entrenched OOC rivalry games and the schools that need to play the little sisters of the poor to go bowling on a regular basis, there are more than eight votes against.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I am certainly not in favor of a 9 Game Schedule unless the Conference Expanded or there were two protected games instead of one. If you have Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland, & Rutgers joining the Wolverines in the East, and Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Wisconsin out West, perhaps this makes sense: 1: Penn State plays Illinois and Nebraska. 2: Michigan plays Michigan State and Minnesota. 3: Purdue plays Iowa and Nebraska. 4: Ohio State plays Northwestern and Wisconsin. ”
Let me just stop you right there.
1. See Bruce’s objections.
2. You lock 2 crossover games and OSU/IL isn’t included? I don’t think so. IL is by far the most important of the 7 western teams to OSU, and Illibuck is important to IL, too.
3. Most teams don’t have 2 teams from the other division they need to play. Why unnecessarily lock that many games?
LikeLike
Marc: Nitpick:
Not all schools require 7 home games every year. Northwestern, IU, and PU don’t (go look at past and future schedules). 99% certain that RU and UMD don’t either. That’s almost half the schools now.
LikeLike
@Richard: You are correct that some current and future B1G teams don’t play 7 home games every year. But a majority do, and that is what counts.
LikeLike
Regarding a 10-game conference schedule.
I agree that it is unlikely, but a 10-game conference schedule is not without SOME positives.
I do not have the numbers, but obviously frequency of play among the B1G schools would increase which might mollify the western schools if Michigan goes east (that is, although only one “king” is in the division, with increased frequency, the west teams still end up with a lot of “king” @home games).
Further, with increased frequency, the B1G increases the number of @ Rutgers and @ Maryland games that are with B1G teams thereby further increasing the B1G’s exposure in the East Coast markets.
Further, with increased frequency, the western teams get more exposure in the East Coast markets (for their away games) and thereby decreasing somewhat any actual or perceived unfairness of the east team having more access to the eastern markets and recruiting grounds.
Further, with increased frequency, there may be less resistance to “sacrificing” any given rivalry since the number of years “off” is less.
Further, in going from 8 to 10 conference games, 28 paychecks stay within conference.
Further, other than @home-revenue, what is the difference between a “body-bag” game against a MAC team and a “body-bag” game against Maryland or Indiana?
Further, the east is going to have a lot of bad-to-mediocre teams and the West teams want ‘easy’ games just as much as they want to see the ‘kings’ come play. Increased frequency means the western teams get to see the pasty teams more often.
Further, 9 games causes uneven home-away schedule and creates a real or perceived competitive imbalance since teams with 5 home games will be/may be at an advantage over teams with only 4 homes games. 10 conference games eliminates that problem. This competitive imbalance is a big concern with the ADs.
Further, from the television perspective, do conference games get better ratings (??) and if they do, does the B1G now have better inventory to offset the perceived ‘damage’ to the Brand that supposedly occurred when we added football lightweights Rutgers and Maryland.
Further, same set of questions for the BTN. Assume that B1G vs. B1G games are higher quality inventory for the BTN than B1G vs. “body bag.” Does that help the BTN with advertising and increasing ratings? Does that mean more $$? Does that offset the lost net revenues discussed below?
Further, going from 8 conference games to 10 conference games removes the B1G from the schedule of 28 lower level teams PER YEAR potentially hurting THEIR bottom lines. Over time, this further distances the B1G from the MWC, the MAC, C-USA and the Big East. Delany would like that.
Further, two OOC games are sufficient for the various locked OOC games (Purdue, MSU, MI (sometimes) and Iowa) and to schedule one home-home game with a marquee opponent. In the coming play-off era, it will be important for teams to have schedules entirely of power-conference games.
Further, with 10 games set, there are some minor transactional costs saved since a given school only has to spend staff time scheduling one or two OOC games. Plus you also lessen situations where an OOC opponent cancels and you are stuck playing Savannah State.
The only substantive reason offered against 10 conference games is the “need” for tOSU, MI and PSU to have eight home games. Which other teams need 8 home games to make their budgets?
Does any budgetary loss for a specific school get offset by more BTN $$?
I have many questions about this.
Is the budgetary loss absolute in the sense that it is simply gone or is that “loss” picked up as a “gain” by another B1G school when MI or tOSU or PSU or Neb or Wiscy comes to town and fills up the stadium.
In total, across the conference, how many home games are lost? It seems, every team would have six or seven per year with 10 conference games (5 conference and one or two OOC). So, let’s say 6.5. How many on average now with 8 conference games? I’ll guess and say 7.5 What is the net revenue loss from 12 (soon to be 14) home games and is that net revenue offset in any way?
What is the net revenue for a home game? For the big-stadium schools, let’s just say … $7million. First, what is the actual number? I am curious. But assume $7M. The tv revenue from the next round of negotiations is supposed to go up by what? … $10-15M per school. Well, there is your revenue offset.
In a conference supposedly guided by equality, why is something like this dictated by three teams with large stadiums. Right now, a team like Indiana gets 4 home games with B1G teams. How much more $$ does Indiana get with a fifth B1G @home game? By refusing to play more conference games, the bigger schools are, in effect, denying Indiana a source of revenue. That’s not equal.
As an aside, I do not consider it a valid concern that the B1G collectively suffers an extra 14 losses hurting various teams chances of making bowls. I just don’t care. Plus, I think any lost bowl revenue would be negligible.
LikeLike
Another point: with 10 games, and these teams in the east (tOSU, PSU, MI, MSU, MD, Rut, Indiana), I think there is almost no need for any team to have a locked cross-division rivalry game.
LikeLike
Still required Indiana/Purdue. And its easy to count the schools that would vote against 10 conference games and come up with a majority, so 10 conference games is not going to happen. All the big stadium schools would vote against giving up the million plus they earn for payday home games instead of home and home series. Schools with an OOC rivalry game, like Purdue / Notre Dame, would vote against. Schools that need to play the little sisters of the poor to be confident of going to a bowl game in a mediocre season would vote against. You’re already past 8 NO votes among those three.
LikeLike
i think it depends on who is voting. I’ll give you that 8 ADs are voting “no.” But what about the ladies and gentlemen on the COP/C? They are dealing with big numbers; a few million here or there is not that important. As long as the BTN keeps printing $$ and keeps the Athl. Departments self-sufficient, they may take less money now in exchange for more cohesion and comraderie (sp?) over the long-run. As we’ve said many times on this board, these are 50 year decisions being made.
LikeLike
Purdue would not vote against. 10 conference games and a permanent OOC rivalry isn’t doable only if you require 7 home games every year, and PU does not.
Definite votes against: Iowa, MSU, Michigan
Probable votes against: OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, UNL
10 conference games could get close to half the votes.
LikeLike
You don’t know what you’re talking about. OSU and PSU are automatic NO votes, and so are NE and WI. They lose way too much money giving up a home game.
LikeLike
All those probables are definite NOs.
LikeLike
Also, Richard, the fact is, the 7 smaller schools will not try to do anything that brings harm to the departments of OSU/Michigan/PSU/Nebraska/Wisconsin.
They’re not going to force a 10 game schedule on them when those 7 schools know that those schools need 7 home games annually.
LikeLike
Zeek: 99.9% is still “probable”, not “definite”.
Unlike Brian, I do not pretend to predict the future, and. I leave open the possibility of a future where the economics and playoff odds favor 10 conference games over 7 home games every year even for OSU.
LikeLike
“Purdue would not vote against. 10 conference games and a permanent OOC rivalry isn’t doable only if you require 7 home games every year, and PU does not.”
The conclusion does not follow from the argument … the conclusion does not rest on whether it is at all FEASIBLE for Purdue to play Notre Dame annually in a 10 conference game schedule, but whether or not Purdue would FAVOR having 11 out of 12 games locked down.
So add that to your seven no votes, there’s my “at least eight”, before even turning to schools that schedule OOC with one eye to bowl eligibility (there is some overlap there with the eight strong no votes), so it could easily be ten or eleven.
LikeLike
And, yes, Richard, that is in the current financial landscape. Changes in the financial incentives could always change the current scheduling trade-offs.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Unlike Brian, I do not pretend to predict the future”
Even for you that is a huge load of BS. You repeatedly tell all of us what will happen and shout down counter arguments.
LikeLike
Brian:
I don’t think anyone else would say that, but you do live in your own delusional world.
Bruce:A school that currently has to schedule HaH’s with Cincy and Marshall likely does not value OOC flexibility as much as you think they do. I’m also certain that PU would prefer an extra B10 game over OOC games with the likes of Cincy and Marshall. Texas isn’t exactly beating down the door to schedule the Boilers, after all.
LikeLike
“I don’t think anyone else would say that”
That doesn’t make it untrue. There are at least 10 comments on this blog post alone where you predict the future (basketball success, football success, etc) and many where you tell other posters they are wrong to disagree with your opinions.
LikeLike
@Richard ~ I didn’t say Purdue was a vote against 9, I said they were a vote against 10.
Purdue might well be happy with replacing the Bearcats and Marshall Home and Home with an additional Big Ten school Home and Home, especially if the unbalanced schedule offsets the Notre Dame cycle. But they are also a school that schedules Northern Illinois and Indiana State at home in 2013 to arrive at 8 home games ~ since their Away with the Bearcats by some coincidence happens to fall in the same year a their Home with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
PU has 7 home games in 2013:
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/purdue-boilermakers.php
Anyway, you may be right. We’ll find out more soon.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s the site I was looking at ~ I miscounted. For 9 conference games, as long as the Big 10 will schedule their alternating 4/5 Big Ten home games to offset their ND series, they retain 7 home games. At 10 conference games, they have to give up one of two payday games and drop to 6 home games in years they are at South Bend. I don’t see that Purdue loses much long term if the Big Ten goes to 9 ~ but I see them pushing back against 10.
And there was successful pushback against 9 conference games, when there was an effort to reinstate the 9 conference game plan after the Pac-12 agreement fell apart. If all of the schools opposed to 9 are also opposed to 10, and some of the schools with no serious objections to 9 object to 10, that makes 10 seem highly unlikely to occur.
Below somebody places 0.1% odds. That seems plausible. It seems like it is far enough from feasible under current conditions that it would take multiple unexpected changes to bring it into the frame.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Let’s correct some mistaken impressions you espouse here.
“Further, other than @home-revenue, what is the difference between a “body-bag” game against a MAC team and a “body-bag” game against Maryland or Indiana?”
Really? Other than several million dollars per game, what is the difference? That says you don’t understand the value of a home game. I bet the local businesses would also like to have a word with you.
“Further, 9 games causes uneven home-away schedule and creates a real or perceived competitive imbalance since teams with 5 home games will be/may be at an advantage over teams with only 4 homes games. 10 conference games eliminates that problem. This competitive imbalance is a big concern with the ADs.”
It’s very easy to have 1 entire division play 5 home games and the other 5 road games. That way there is no imbalance in making the CCG.
“Further, two OOC games are sufficient for the various locked OOC games (Purdue, MSU, MI (sometimes) and Iowa) and to schedule one home-home game with a marquee opponent. In the coming play-off era, it will be important for teams to have schedules entirely of power-conference games.”
You can buy games against AQ teams, too. Besides, most fans want more variety than only 1 new team per year on the schedule.
“The only substantive reason offered against 10 conference games is the “need” for tOSU, MI and PSU to have eight home games. Which other teams need 8 home games to make their budgets?”
It’s 7 home games, not 8. And OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, MSU and IA all need them. That’s 7 of 14.
“Does any budgetary loss for a specific school get offset by more BTN $$?”
No.
“Is the budgetary loss absolute in the sense that it is simply gone or is that “loss” picked up as a “gain” by another B1G school when MI or tOSU or PSU or Neb or Wiscy comes to town and fills up the stadium.”
There is an absolute loss. OSU seats 105,000 and charges $70 per ticket plus the required donation to order season tickets. Small stadiums seat 50,000 and usually tickets are significantly cheaper.
“What is the net revenue for a home game? For the big-stadium schools, let’s just say … $7million. First, what is the actual number? I am curious. But assume $7M. The tv revenue from the next round of negotiations is supposed to go up by what? … $10-15M per school. Well, there is your revenue offset.”
Wrong. You’re still losing the same amount of money. You need to show an increase in the TV deal above and beyond what it would be with 8 or 9 games and compare that to the lost revenue.
“In a conference supposedly guided by equality, why is something like this dictated by three teams with large stadiums.”
It isn’t.
“As an aside, I do not consider it a valid concern that the B1G collectively suffers an extra 14 losses hurting various teams chances of making bowls. I just don’t care. Plus, I think any lost bowl revenue would be negligible.”
You don’t have to care, but that doesn’t make it an invalid concern. Coaches lose jobs when they don’t make bowls. The B10 fills fewer bowls and gets a worse reputation. You also forget that the top teams will also lose more often. That means fewer playoff opportunities, and that’s a serious revenue loss.
LikeLike
@ Brian: what’s with the vitriol? I began my post by saying “a 10-game conference schedule is not without SOME positives.”
I listed a few that came to mind. You (and many others) do not agree. Fair enough.
My real point is that we, on this board, have not given it sufficient thought. We don’t actually know whether a 10 game conference schedule is feasible. We are just making assumptions about what some schools “need.” No one (including me) has done any research and/or calculations. How many home games are actually lost? Looks like 1 per school per year. Am I right or wrong? If it is only one home game per team per year, how much lost revenue is that and are there any offsets?
We also have no information on what trade-offs the PTB in the B1G are willing to make. As I said, this is a 50 year decision. Maybe less $$ today in terms of gate receipts is worth trading for more conference cohesion.
This Board generally eschews assumptions and tries to look a little deeper. I was hoping to jump start some of that.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“@ Brian: what’s with the vitriol? I began my post by saying “a 10-game conference schedule is not without SOME positives.”
I listed a few that came to mind. You (and many others) do not agree. Fair enough.”
Disagreement isn’t vitriol.
“My real point is that we, on this board, have not given it sufficient thought.”
Just because we haven’t talked about it on here much doesn’t mean we haven’t thought about it. The large number of negatives popped up to most of us so that we wouldn’t even bring it up as a viable idea.
“We don’t actually know whether a 10 game conference schedule is feasible. We are just making assumptions about what some schools “need.””
No, the ADs have come out and said they need 7 games. The only assumption is that they know what they’re talking about, but it is their job to know that.
“How many home games are actually lost? Looks like 1 per school per year. Am I right or wrong?”
8 B10 games – 7.0 home games average in 2012
10 B10 games – probably 6.5+ on average
What you’ll lose are mostly home and home OOC series. Some teams will drop buy games or don’t play many as is. The big loss is marquee OOC games as the big boys can’t afford to play them as often. The other loss is inventory. 1 B10 game equals 2 OOC games (call it 1.5 for ownership purposes).
“If it is only one home game per team per year, how much lost revenue is that and are there any offsets?”
Even at 0.5 games per team, you’re talking $20-30M+ lost plus all the local economic benefits.
LikeLike
You say: “Even at 0.5 games per team, you’re talking $20-30M+ lost plus all the local economic benefits.”
Proof? Is that total? or $20-30M per team. For now, exclude the “local economic benefits.” I’d like to just focus on the team impact.
LikeLike
Total. Do the math. Number of seats times ticket prices.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau: “My real point is that we, on this board, have not given it sufficient thought.”
Excuse me, but what makes you think that “we” haven’t given it sufficient thought? Exactly how do you know how much thought I have given to a particular idea?
LikeLike
@ Mark Shepherd. Well, as I said in my original post, maybe I missed the comment thread(s) where a 10-game conference schedule was discussed. I apologized in advance if this was repetitive. I have not seen said discussion. So, it seemed that “we, on this Board” had not discussed, that is, “we” had not given the idea much thought. It was an inartful choice of words if it implied that I had any knowledge of what individuals spent their time thinking about.
LikeLike
@Brian: And to reply to a couple of your specific points.
I said/You said: “What is the net revenue for a home game? For the big-stadium schools, let’s just say … $7million. First, what is the actual number? I am curious. But assume $7M. The tv revenue from the next round of negotiations is supposed to go up by what? … $10-15M per school. Well, there is your revenue offset.”
Wrong. You’re still losing the same amount of money. You need to show an increase in the TV deal above and beyond what it would be with 8 or 9 games and compare that to the lost revenue.
Maybe I was not clear. Analogy. I need 10 apple to stay alive in the next week. You take one apple (“hate on you forever!!”) but FtT gives me an apple (“Love you, man!”). I still have 10 apples, so I can stay alive. Similarly, if tOSU’s annual budget is $100M, and $10M is removed (home game), but an extra $10M is gained (from the newly negotiated tv contracts with ESpin, ABC, FOX, BTN), then tOSU still makes its budget and the extra home game is no longer “needed.”
You said: “most fans want more variety than only 1 new team per year on the schedule.”
What proof do you have of what “most fans want?” and what relevance has that ever had for what the PTB do? I think “most fans” would probably rather see tOSU vs. Texas than tOSU vs. Kent State. But “most fans” did get what they “wanted.” I have no proof, but I think “most fans” would prefer tOSU vs. Rutgers than vs. Youngstown State. Further, even with 10 games and a locked OOC, the schedule still changes because of the cross-divisional games.
You said: “That says you don’t understand the value of a home game.”
I my original post, I guessed that the net revenue from a home game for the 100,000+ stadiums was $7M. What is the true number? I think I guessed high. Note: NET revenue.
LikeLike
should have been: “most fans did NOT get what they wanted …”
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
Wrong. You’re still losing the same amount of money. You need to show an increase in the TV deal above and beyond what it would be with 8 or 9 games and compare that to the lost revenue.
“Maybe I was not clear. Analogy. I need 10 apple to stay alive in the next week. You take one apple (“hate on you forever!!”) but FtT gives me an apple (“Love you, man!”). I still have 10 apples, so I can stay alive. Similarly, if tOSU’s annual budget is $100M, and $10M is removed (home game), but an extra $10M is gained (from the newly negotiated tv contracts with ESpin, ABC, FOX, BTN), then tOSU still makes its budget and the extra home game is no longer “needed.””
You forget the part where OSU is in competition with other people, so throwing away $10M matters. Hell, OSU could live on 5 home games if they just didn’t want to be competitive in any sport. OSU was going to gain $10M from the TV deal and the B10 throws away that gain by stripping them of a home game? No. The B10 has been expanding for the main reason of making more money. Why waste it on a game nobody wants?
“You said: “most fans want more variety than only 1 new team per year on the schedule.”
What proof do you have of what “most fans want?””
Thousands of comments on the internet. The number of fans advocating for a restricted schedule is a tiny minority.
“and what relevance has that ever had for what the PTB do?”
Is The Game played on the last Saturday of the season or in early November?
“I my original post, I guessed that the net revenue from a home game for the 100,000+ stadiums was $7M. What is the true number? I think I guessed high. Note: NET revenue.”
Ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, school stores, school restaurants, school hotels, parking lots, donations, pleasing alumni, sucking up to donors with good seats, … Then add in the impact on winning percentage (more wins equal more money), overall attractiveness of the schedule, impacts on TV (less inventory, fewer big OOC games in September). Then don’t forget that economic development of the local area is also part of a state university’s mission, and most of the B10 member are state schools.
Even if it only added up to $5M, why would any smart entity throw that much money away?
LikeLike
Yeah,
the problem here is even if you can offset the loss of a 7th home game revenue wise with a new television contract it is debatable whether you actually did that or not. What you are basically doing is asking Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State Nebraska, then to a lesser extent Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Iowa to give up a competitive advantage. Revenue wise, it is not an either or proposition in actuality. If the conference stayed with 8 or even went to 9 games, the big schools would still see the benefit of a new television contract and keep the revenue from the 7th home game.
LikeLike
@Brian: You said: “Even if it only added up to $5M, why would any smart entity throw that much money away?”
Because money is not everything and a university is not a for-profit corporation whose only goal is maximizing profit. Conference cohesion, theoretically fostered by a higher frequency of play, has a value that is not easily measured in money. As noted several times, the PTB might conceivably be willing to trade less money now for more conference cohesion over the arc of 50 years.
Further, even if conference cohesion is not easily measured in $$, such could be quite valuable. In theory, conference cohesion is a major factor in conference stability and stability is exceedingly valuable.
Further, “smart entities” constantly invest (or “throw away”) a few or more millions in the short-term in the hopes of accomplishing larger longer-term entity goals. Example: ESpin and the Longhorn Netword. Many have suggested in various ways that ESpin “invested” $300M in the LHN to prop up the BXII and keep Texas, et. al., from ending up in the “inventory” of FOX (via the Pac-12 Network). True or not, whatever. The point is that the B1G PTB might be willing to make a short-term investment to accomplish long-term goals. That might be very “smart.”
To be clear, as I have also said, I don’t think a 10-game conference schedule is going to happen. But just because something is unlikely does not mean it is not worth discussing. Rotating pods are unlikely to happen, but we, on this board, have spent a lot of time discussing them.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Because money is not everything and a university is not a for-profit corporation whose only goal is maximizing profit.”
No, but when ADs stop being in the black they steal money from the academic side of the university. Academics are the main point of the schools, yes? So why should they jeopardize the main mission of the school for a schedule almost nobody wants?
“But just because something is unlikely does not mean it is not worth discussing.”
Actually, depending on how unlikely something is it often does mean that. How many blog posts should Frank spend on the B10 adding USC and AL?
“Rotating pods are unlikely to happen, but we, on this board, have spent a lot of time discussing them.”
Rotating pods have been used before in I-A. Where is the precedent for 10 conference games out of 12? The B10 agreed on 9, then backed out when they got the P12 agreement instead. Then the P12 backed out and the B10 refused to approve 9 games again. A conference that won’t do 9 is highly unlikely to try 10 instead.
LikeLike
@Brian:
I said: “But just because something is unlikely does not mean it is not worth discussing.”
You responded: “Actually, depending on how unlikely something is it often does mean that. How many blog posts should Frank spend on the B10 adding USC and AL?”
I hereby respond:
Seriously, that is your response? If Frank wrote such a post, we would all happily read it and discuss it because we like the blog and enjoy what Frank has to write. Putting that aside, the standards for adding a comment and opening up a discussion are much lower for us non-Frank-the-Tanks. Finally, if my comments are so unworthy of discussion, why are you wasting a moment of your time responding. Feel free to cease and desist.
LikeLike
The value of the 8th home game is overstated. It only comes every other year these days anyway thanks to home/home non-cons.
The Michigans and Ohio States can still have a 7 game home schedule with 10 conference games, they simply need to lose the home/home marquee match-ups. Just as often as not, that 5th home game will be a high profile cross-divisional opponent such as Nebraska or Wisconsin. So – the question regarding money is “will an extra home conference game every season and the extra TV money be worth1.5 less non-conference homes games every year?”
LikeLike
Rich Baxter,
“Just as often as not, that 5th home game will be a high profile cross-divisional opponent such as Nebraska or Wisconsin.”
How do you figure? That’s only true if half of the B10 are high profile teams. A game against USC or Texas or OU (the sort of games that would have to be dropped for this plan) trumps playing WI easily.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Seriously, that is your response?”
Yes, it is.
“If Frank wrote such a post, we would all happily read it and discuss it because we like the blog and enjoy what Frank has to write.”
The discussion would be very short because everyone would say it’ll never happen and then move on to other topics.
“Putting that aside, the standards for adding a comment and opening up a discussion are much lower for us non-Frank-the-Tanks.”
Yes, but the same thing applies. Ridiculous notions get called ridiculous by several people and then everyone moves on to another topic. It’s happened many times on here.
“Finally, if my comments are so unworthy of discussion, why are you wasting a moment of your time responding. Feel free to cease and desist.”
Wasn’t feedback what you were seeking when you put the idea out there? Don’t comment if you don’t want responses. Not everyone is going to agree with you. I pointed out a few problems I had with your original comment (like saying teams need 8 home games when they actually talk about needing 7, and ignoring the millions of dollars a home game can earn) but left most of it alone. You also asked some questions and I answered some of them. I skipped over you insulting everyone by saying we hadn’t thought about the concept enough because I assumed that wasn’t quite what you meant. Now, I’m less sure of that.
LikeLike
I love the idea of a 10 game conference schedule and would go for it in a heartbeat. I put the odds of it though at about 0.1%. Going to 9 was something they wanted 6 years to get ready for and some schools get as many as 8 home games a year some years now. I just don’t see any circumstance that they agree to 10 conference games in a 14 team league.
LikeLike
yep, agree wholeheartedly. and I think you have the right percentage chance of it happening (0.1%).
But I thought it was an intriguing idea; kind of interesting to explore. I think it was Brian (way up this thread or in the last one) who spent a good deal of time exploring how an 8-game schedule vs. a 9-game schedule impacted how the divisions were drawn and how that impacted locked cross-divisional rivalries. I was sort of curious to see how all that was impacted in a hypothetical 10-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
Let another conference try it before the Big Ten does.
LikeLike
It actually would make more sense for a conference like the MWC to try.
LikeLike
SB Nation isn’t exactly the Algonquin Round Table, but since he and I agree that the B1G needs to jump all the way to 20 with Florida State, he gets my inestimable respect.
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/1/20/3897940/big-ten-expansion-realignment-acc-sec-big-12
LikeLike
20 is doable without sacrificing rivalries only if you play 10 conference games.
LikeLike
Agreed. An 18-member league is the realistic maximum with nine conference games.
LikeLike
I guarantee you one vote against this and that is Penn State. This is from the Pocono Record, July 28, 2012: “Regarding the schedule, both Joyner and O’Brien have proposed scheduling more high-profile teams to generate better competition and fewer one-game paydays for lower-level teams. Joyner said he has spoken with several schools, which he wouldn’t identify, about single games, home-and-home series and neutral-site games.” I happen to agree 100% with this. I would prefer seeing the likes of Texas (Alamo Dome?) or Florida (Georgia Dome?) as a neutral site game then an extra game against Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan State or Illinois. I would be shocked if Ohio State supported it either (Check out their non-Conference Schedule (Texas, Oregon & Oklahoma are coming up). I cannot speak for all Penn State fans, but the Games most of us are interested in are Ohio State, Nebraska, and at least one of Wisconsin or Michigan (I realize we cannot have both), and an out of Conference Game against Pitt. I cannot imagine the B10 forcing 10 Conference Games down our throats when they knew how upset fans were (Particularly as it related to not playing Pitt), and how much Penn State brings to the Conference (See Hockey & Wrestling), which is a major reason why Rutgers and especially Maryland were added. The most I can tolerate is 9 and that means Nebraska, Ohio State, Pitt and at least one of Wisconsin or Michigan is on the Schedule. My gut feeling is since Wisconsin will end the Season playing us for the next five years, and Michigan is a bigger priority for most schools (Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota & of course, Ohio State), we will keep the Badgers. A reasonably fair Schedule would be Divisional Games against: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Maryland, Rutgers and two others between Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern & Illinois, an annual game against Nebraska, an extra game against the West, and three Out of Conference Games: Pitt and two more.
LikeLike
The 12-team schedules are pretty much null and void going forward. Expect OSU, Michigan, and probably UNL on your schedule going forward.
LikeLike
I certainly do not have any problems with Michigan on the Schedule. The key is being able to balance things so that everybody gets something. From a Penn State perspective we know that 1/2 of the B10 do not care about us, because they do not sell out when we come to town (Why else did Indiana move a Home Game vs Penn State for $15m?) . As far as Michigan is concerned, we know they are keeping Ohio State and Michigan State, and we know Ohio State is keeping Michigan and Penn State, we also know that rivalries such as Illinois/Northwestern, Indiana/Purdue, Iowa/Minnesota, Iowa/Nebraska, and Wisconsin/Minnesota will remain. It is also a fair assumption that Penn State/Nebraska will as well. A fair solution should be this: Give a little leeway to Wisconsin because they moved East for the good of Michigan and the Conference. If Wisconsin wants to stay (And end the Season with Penn State) let them, if the Iowa Game is more important, let them move West, and send Michigan back East (They can live without Minnesota). Personally, I hope the Badgers remain.
LikeLike
@Dave Brown: Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some?
Seriously: I cannot conceive of a scenario where Nebraska and Ohio State both remain on Penn State’s schedule annually.
You seem to be envisioning an East division something like this: PSU, OSU, WI, MD, RU, plus two of the Indiana/Illinois schools.
Now, you need to remember the old SAT question: “Which of these things is unlike the others?” And the answer is, Wisconsin. They don’t belong in the East.
Your plan would probably have at least five or six no votes. Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, want to be in a division together. We know that Michigan prefers the east, and Ohio State prefers to be in the same division as Michigan.
Although decisions in the Big Ten can’t always be unanimous, I can’t imagine them adopting a plan that has five or six strong no’s, which yours almost certainly would.
LikeLike
Marc:
Actually, I can conceive of OSU and UNL being on PSU’s schedule pretty easily:
E-W with PSU-UNL as a protected crossover.
Wisconsin in the East with Michigan in the West, however, won’t happen.
LikeLike
@DavidBrown – I disagree that half of the B1G doesn’t care about PSU. I’m a Michigan fan and consider the ‘Lions are one of the great traditional football schools. I put them right up there with Notre Dame and Nebraska, never mind their current (fleeting) problems. PSU and Nebraska were both huge additions and the B1G is far richer for both of them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8866585/missouri-tigers-frank-haith-faces-ncaa-allegations-report-says
MIzzou’s BB coach receives notice from NCAA relating to his time in Miami. If memory serves me right this makes him the first coach to be formally implicated in the Shapiro mess.
LikeLike
Yeah, but the NOA is expected at Miami this week more or less.
LikeLike
He’ll probably be fired. Mizzou will be looking for a new coach soon. Hopefully we get another good one.
LikeLike
Pingback: Conference Realignment–Always Murky | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
My latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry compares Big Ten and ACC attendance in football, men’s and women’s basketball, and women’s volleyball. The results hold a surprise or two: http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/2218.html
LikeLike
vp19,
I was a little surprised you didn’t mention baseball and lacrosse. ACC baseball is much better than B10 baseball.
LikeLike
Relatively few schools play lacrosse, and it’s understandable that outside of the Sun Belt, college baseball doesn’t draw well. It will be a more even playing field for Maryland, whose baseball program in the past few decades has essentially been a lost cause.
LikeLike
I replied on your site as well, but one thing to note about Nebraska’s volleyball attendance is that it is about to jump up significantly next year when the team moves to the Devaney Center. They are still expected to sellout each game, even though capacity will be as much as 7,500. Folks take volleyball seriously up here.
LikeLike
Marc: The way Nebraska and Ohio State remain on the Penn State Schedule is simple: Ohio State is a Divisional Game and Nebraska a Protected Rivalry Game (Just how it is now). Although I would prefer Wisconsin to Michigan, I can live with The Wolverines as a Conference Game. I would assume that Illinois would be in the East (This way they can play Ohio State (With Northwestern as the Protected Game)), along with Purdue (Indiana being the Protected Game). I have 100% certainty that we will be playing Ohio State every year, and this will NOT be our final regular season game. My concern is we get stuck playing someone we really do not care about to end the season (Like we did against Michigan State). I have three teams that I would favor: 1: Wisconsin (As it is now). 2: Nebraska (On the Friday after Thanksgiving). 3: Pitt (This is what Georgia & Georgia Tech do).
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Although I would prefer Wisconsin to Michigan, I can live with The Wolverines as a Conference Game.”
I’m curious why you prefer WI. PSU insisted on playing MI for their first 10 years in the B10 despite that not officially being a locked rivalry. Did the long string of losses sour you on it, or did you never like the MI game?
“I have three teams that I would favor: 1: Wisconsin (As it is now). 2: Nebraska (On the Friday after Thanksgiving). 3: Pitt (This is what Georgia & Georgia Tech do).”
#2 isn’t happening. Not with all the complaining about a possible rematch requiring OSU and MI to be together. Pitt would be cool, but I didn’t think PSU wanted an annual game with them. Have things changed? The problem would be finding an OOC finale for someone else so all 14 teams play that weekend. IA/ISU, with WI playing NE on Black Friday?
LikeLike
Nebraska-Oklahoma
(with the Big 12 playing a regular conference game the next weekend…not impossible)
LikeLike
That would be great, but there’s no way OU would agree.
Imagine this weekend:
OSU/MI
PU/IN
NW/IL
WI/MN
MD/RU
PSU/Pitt
NE/OU
IA/ISU
MSU/???
I draw a blank with MSU. Beyond ND, the only other OOC schools they’ve played 10+ times are Syracuse and Temple (Marquette is #2, but no FB now). Give them a random OOC game, I guess.
LikeLike
PSU should play Maryland, establishing a new season ending rivalry between the border states. Nebraska should play Iowa – again, natural border state rivals, and MSU should play Rutgers, as the two leftover (call it Son of Land Grant Trophy).
IA/ISU, NE/OK and Pitt/PSU should be September games.
LikeLike
Frankly, your match-ups sound a lot less fun to me. More realistic, sure, but a lot less exciting. I like rivalry games late in the year, not early when you can make up for losing by having a good season.
PSU/MD will always be lopsided and MSU/RU would be boring for both sides.
LikeLike
Just unlikely (no matter how much fans may want it).
I’m still expecting a season-ending bitter rivalry game with Rice to be established.
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that during the first four years Penn State was in the Big Ten, PSU had a bye week prior to playing Michigan and went 3-1 during that time frame (1993-96). 🙂
Michigan is 9-3 since 1997 with the three loses taking place when Rich Rodriguez was head coach (2008-10). The series resumes this season with a game at Penn State in 2013. There is a game scheduled in 2014 in Ann Arbor which I anticipate will go forward post-division realignment as I expect UM and PSU will both be in the conference’s eastern division when the B1G makes their formal announcements later this year.
LikeLike
Michigan fan here with relatives who are PSU alumns/fans and my relatives Michigan is a close #2 behind OSU in importance.
LikeLike
I think the PSU fan base is very diverse in their opinions on many teams. Pitt means a lot to older fans and/or western PA fans, bu those from eastern PA don’t care as much. Vice versa on many of the eastern teams like MD and Temple. I don’t know where the consensus really lies on teams like WI, MI, NE, IA, etc.
LikeLike
@David Brown: It’s hard to tell if you’re just making stuff up that would please you personally, if it’s a loose consensus (as you perceive it) of what Penn State fans generally want without regard to other schools, or if you think it’s something the league as a whole (weighing the needs of ALL its members) might do.
Brian has already noted that the Penn State historically placed a higher priority on the PSU-UM and PSU-MSU games than on PSU-Wisconsin. The Nebraska game is obviously newly-minted, and doesn’t have much of a historical pedigree at all. So I’m not sure where any of that is coming from, except as an idea that you personally would like to see.
It’s pretty clear that in the system you’re proposing, Wisconsin would get the raw end of the deal, as they’d be separated from the three other western schools, something neither the Badgers nor their western compatriots would want. Is this something you seriously believe the league would do?
At this point, there isn’t even an agreement between PSU and Pitt to play annually again — much less to make it the last game of the season. All they have is a 4-year deal right now. I actually like the idea of in-state rivals playing the last week of the season, but a LOT of dominoes would need to fall, before that could happen. There’s no evidence that the league is even remotely considering that.
I agree that there is NO WAY they would schedule PSU-Nebraska as an annual Thanksgiving weekend game, if the two schools are in opposite divisions. And the only way for them to be in the SAME division is if they adopt the Inner/Outer plan, or if they screw the western schools by separating one of them from the other three. (With Inner/Outer, PSU would probably lose the Ohio State game.)
LikeLike
“Brian has already noted that the Penn State historically placed a higher priority on the PSU-UM and PSU-MSU games than on PSU-Wisconsin. The Nebraska game is obviously newly-minted, and doesn’t have much of a historical pedigree at all. So I’m not sure where any of that is coming from, except as an idea that you personally would like to see.”
Marc,
I think you are misreading the history here. While you may be correct numerically, it is not true in terms of Penn State fan sentiment.
Re: MSU: all Penn Staters I know considered that game to be a joke, at least since PSU entered the Big Ten. It is especially symbolized and enhanced by the god-awful “trophy”. I think Penn State fans certainly like the Wisconsin game better, even if there’s very little history there.
Re: Nebraska: I don’t think Penn Staters consider the Nebraska game to be “newly minted” from an emotional perspective at all. Although the PSU and Nebraska have only played a few games in the larger historical perspective, there are reasons why the game has a much larger emotional significance than that in Penn State fans’ minds. 1. The excitement of the 1979-1982 series. 2. The controversy of the 1982 game. 3. The role of the 1982 game in Penn State’s first national championship. 4. The perception that Penn State and Nebraska had similar athletic/academic cultures and that Paterno and Osborne both played by the rules. 5. The 1994 NC controversy. 6. Both being the new kids – new kings – in the Big Ten. 7. The 2011 game after the Sandusky scandal broke. (Lesser reasons are the 1983 and 2002 games, and Curt Warner’s big game at Lincoln in 1981.)
I don’t know how Nebraska fans view it, but I don’t think you’re right about Penn State’s perspective.
LikeLike
@Carl: I thought that PSU-MSU was a joke too. It was a made-up game, because the B1G wanted every school to have two protected rivals. Some of the protected games made sense, and others were just invented.
I’m just stating the empirical fact that the league never put a high priority on PSU-Wisconsin. Nebraska, Wisconsin, and the other two western schools have said that they want to play each other every year. To them, that’s a higher priority than playing PSU.
My reference to the Nebraska game being newly-minted was in the Big Ten context. I do realize that the schools go way back. I am just having trouble seeing how you and @David Brown could get everything you want, without the league sacrificing quite a few things that other schools want.
This isn’t the “Penn State and Everyone Else” league. PSU is getting back two formerly annual (or nearly annual) rivals that it very much wanted, Maryland and Rutgers. At some point, you have to at least try to recognize that there are 13 other schools who have needs too (not that RU and MD are in a position to demand very much, aside from playing Penn State).
LikeLike
Marc,
“I am just having trouble seeing how you and @David Brown could get everything you want, without the league sacrificing quite a few things that other schools want.”
Everything I want? – I’m confused. I didn’t say I wanted anything. I was just pointing out that your interpretation of history – from the Penn State perspective, at least – is inaccurate.
“This isn’t the ‘Penn State and Everyone Else’ league.”
What?! I didn’t express an opinion or desire about what future divisions or schedules should look like. Again, I was just pointing out that your interpretation of history is wrong. Just a reality-based data point. How this should play into divisional alignment and schedules is, of course, another matter altogether.
LikeLike
@Carl: Since you seemed to be backing up @David Brown’s position, it came across that your wants are the same as his.
As I said, I’m very much aware of Penn State’s history with these schools. I was attempting to balance @David Brown’s PSU-centric posts against what I believe the other B1G schools would want.
Basically, @David Brown wants PSU to play RU, MD, OSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin every year. I am not able to see a way the B1G could do that, without jamming an undesirable schedule down several other schools’ throats. This, I think they are unlikely to do.
I think the B1G would say: “OK, Penn State. We added two new schools in your back yard, and we’re giving you Ohio State every year. Now let’s start satisfying other people.”
LikeLike
“Basically, @David Brown wants PSU to play RU, MD, OSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin every year. I am not able to see a way the B1G could do that, without jamming an undesirable schedule down several other schools’ throats.”
Marc, just to be clear, David B.’s desires (supposing you’ve represented them accurately) don’t make sense to me.
Neither does the original assertion of yours that I was specifically responding to; I think it’s quite wrong (from a PSU perspective with respect to MSU and Nebraska):
“… Penn State historically placed a higher priority on the PSU-UM and PSU-MSU games than on PSU-Wisconsin. The Nebraska game is obviously newly-minted, and doesn’t have much of a historical pedigree at all.”
(Acknowledging that you then reinterpreted this remark like so:
“My reference to the Nebraska game being newly-minted was in the Big Ten context.”
I just want to double-check: you do understand that “in the Big Ten context”, all games involving Nebraska are “newly minted”, don’t you? – Just sayin’.)
Anyway, with the point you say you were trying to make, I don’t disagree.
BTW, were you by any chance a Curt Warner fan? (I used to know a Marc Shepard from Seattle or thereabouts who was a huge Curt Warner fan.)
LikeLike
“It was a made-up game, because the B1G wanted every school to have two protected rivals. Some of the protected games made sense, and others were just invented.”
I thought the protected rivals of the 11 team league were three geographic circles, and the inventions closed the circle. Out west, Iowa always played Minnesota who always played Wisconsin who always played Iowa. (Was Iowa-Wiconsin contrived? I know the Heartland Trophy is new.) In the middle, Indiana always played Purdue who always played Northwestern who always played Illinois who always played Indiana. (I always thought they wanted to develop a private school rivalry there. Was it not there before?) In the eastern circle, every year Michigan State played Michigan who played Ohio State who played Penn State. Since the league wanted to develop regional rivalries, they invented the World’s Ugliest Bowling Trophy game.
If the league still wants to maximize its income, I assume that there will be three guaranteed Kings vs. Kings match-ups ever year. Given Michigan-Ohio State, I was assuming Nebraska-Penn State for simplicity’s sake. If it makes more sense to play Nebraska-Ohio State, and those ratings looked really good this year, then it’s logical to see Michigan-Penn State on the schedule as the third annual King vs. Kings match-up.
LikeLike
“Was Iowa-Wiconsin contrived? I know the Heartland Trophy is new.”
Aaron, the Iowa-Wisky series is a nice, long, evenly played border rivalry between similar fanbases. They have played each other the second most times in both schools’ history, both behind only Minnesota. They’d played every year for 69 years before PSU’s addition caused the series to miss two years. After that happened, the Big Ten added the two rival rule.
Iowa leads the series 42-41-2. Iowa leads basketball 77-75 after winning the other day.
The Heartland Trophy is contrived. TPTB seemingly thought we had this really nice rivalry, and had to attach a trophy to it.
LikeLike
Aaron:
Northwestern-Purdue was never a rivalry. They also didn’t always play each other, meeting all of 4 times between 1952 and 1966.
Also, what private school rivalry? Purdue’s as private as Clemson, GTech, VTech, or NC State.
LikeLike
I am without question a Hard Core Penn State fan. That said, I would like to end the Season playing a team that is a genuine rival or at the worst, a competitive one we can build a rivalry with (See Nebraska & Wisconsin). It can never be Ohio State (Michigan & Illinois are their primary rivals), it cannot be Michigan (Ohio State, Michigan State & even Minnesota), and it cannot be Iowa (Minnesota). Please do not give me Maryland or Rutgers (They are like Temple in the minds of Nitt fans). Keep in mind, I am the first one to acknowledge that the University put a higher priority on Michigan & Michigan State (The infamous “Land Grant Trophy”) then Wisconsin, but as history has shown, that was a mistake (One of many in the later Paterno years). I also acknowledged that WISCONSIN who sacrificed for the Conference should be the one to make the determinaton, if they want to remain in the East or not. If the Badgers want to head back West (Instead of ending the Season with us) so be it. But ending the Season with Nebraska or Pitt (Coupled with the Ohio State & Michigan Games) is something most of us can live with.
LikeLike
@David Brown: I think you’re misstating the history. The last re-alignment was expressly ungeographical. Wisconsin didn’t “sacrifice for the Conference” by going to the East. There wasn’t any East or West.
From the beginning, they said that the priorities in re-alignment were competitive balance and preserving key rivalries, not geography.
LikeLike
From a Wisconsin perspective, If you consider playing Penn State instead of Nebraska a wash, you have to acknowledge they did make a sacrifice which was not playing Iowa (They have met 86 times before, more than anyone except Minnesota (106 times)). I think it is fair to say Badgers/Hawkeyes are a key rivalry to Wisconsin. Michigan by comparison, kept their three main rivals: 1: Ohio State. 2: Michigan State. 3: Minnesota. Even the pathetic Gophers kept their main rivals: 1: Wisconsin. 2: Iowa. 3: Michigan. The idea of Penn State playing Pitt as the final Game (If we cannot end with Nebraska or Wisconsin) is certainly a reasonable alternative, and one that Nittany Lion (And Panther) fans would look forward to. By the way, Penn State not playing Pitt was yet another major Paterno mistake (Worse than ending the Season with Michigan State, but obviously not on the failure to retire when he should have, poor recruiting and Sandusky cover-up levels), and something 99% of fans did not like. We need the Panthers and they need us more than ever (Particularly with West Virginia in the Big XII which ended the Pitt/West Virginia “Backyard Brawl”). This series should never again be allowed to die.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, Iowa’s desire to play Wisconsin annually was just as fervent as Wisconsin’s desire to play Iowa. The Hawkeyes were not happy about landing in the opposite division from Wisconsin. You keep portaying it as Wisconsin “giving something up,” but both schools did. Go on a Michigan board for a while, and you’ll find out all the things Wolverine fans did not like about it.
Minnesota, I would agree, probably got most of what they wanted, but they were a pawn in this game. After they’d split up the kings and princes (which was the REAL issue), it just so happened that Minnesota landed in the same division with Michigan.
One of the newspapers did a long, multi-part story on how they arrived at the divisions, with tons of insider information. You’ve invented a story that sort-of fits the facts, but it’s not what they actually did.
Basically, once they decided to split Michigan and Ohio State, everything was forced. You’ve got:
X: Michigan, Nebraska
Y: Ohio State, Penn State
Clearly, Michigan State had to go with Michigan. And there was no way to keep Iowa and Wisconsin together, without their division (whichever one it was) seeming to dominate the other. Likewise, there was no way to keep Minnesota and Indiana together, or their division would seem too weak. It made obvious sense to pair Iowa with their geographic neighbor, Nebraska, so that gives you:
X: Michigan, Nebraska, Michigan State, Iowa, Minnesota
Y: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana
The remaining three schools probably could have been aligned any way they wanted. But everything above was basically inevitable, once UM and OSU were split.
LikeLike
“The idea of Penn State playing Pitt as the final Game (If we cannot end with Nebraska or Wisconsin) is certainly a reasonable alternative, and one that Nittany Lion (And Panther) fans would look forward to.”
This Nittany Lion fan wouldn’t. I really don’t care much for playing Pitt regularly and certainly don’t want it as a season ending game. Like many PSU alumni/fan in eastern PA, I don’t really think of Pitt as a “rival” at all; there was a nice stretch in the 70’s/early 80’s where the series was interesting, but it’s been largely once sided since WWII. I’d rather see PSU play different eastern teams in the non-conference schedule (Syracuse, WVU, Boston College, etc. in addition to Pitt) than just play Pitt all the time. Just IMHO.
LikeLike
Assuming the B1G added, say Virginia and Georgia Tech… what would that do for the current scheduling problems? Better or worse?
And if you go with pods of 4, what happens with Penn State? Do they get shifted away from the Rutgers/Maryland/Virginia trio + Georgia Tech? Or does that mean that Georgia Tech gets slid into a pod with other teams to allow PSU to stay with the other Mid-Atlantic teams?
Or do you go with an E/W split–Michigan, MSU, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, GTech? Seems pretty unbalanced with a west of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, NW, Minnesota, Iowa. I suppose you could swap the Michigan grouping for the Indiana grouping, but then you need to “lock-in” Michigan-OSU. I guess that leaves things at a 7-1-1. That would mean OSU would play Wisconsin and the other B1G West schools once every 8 years. It seems to me that the Eastern shift is forcing a split of the original Big 10 teams, especially those in the West. At 14, it is already causing problems. The problems almost get worse with 16.
So then you go to 18… adding Duke, UNC to the mix. Now you can have an E/W split again. Slide Michigan/MSU to the West. So at least the West teams now get Michigan back on the schedule. But now Ohio State is on an island in the East. With 9 conference games, you now have the 8 divisional games plus 1 other game. So OSU would never get to play the Wisconsins, Iowas, etc. So I don’t see how you avoid a 10th conference game.
At 20, I guess you could slide Ohio State back West. Add two more teams to the East. Now the B1G has essentially borrowed Penn State for 20 years and then built an Eastern flank around them. With 9 conference games, there would be zero games between the divisions. Say you get the dream of FSU and ND for 19 and 20. ND goes West, OSU stays East. You still get zero conference games between the divisions unless you go to 10th conference game.
The other alternative is to break into 5 team pods. The end result of this still seems to be a conference that is mostly just an acquisition of other profit entities. If FSU never plays Michigan, Wisconsin, or Nebraska in football, what’s the point? Will bowl games convert to Big 10 East #5 vs Big 10 West #5?
How does it all work???
LikeLike
Let’s talk about 16 teams. With 9 conference games, you could still have static divisions. As long as there are no locked crossovers, they could rotate the schedule annually, and everyone would play everyone in a four-year period (though not home & home). Here are possible divisions based on that concept.
X: OSU, UM, MSU, PU, IND, NW, ILL, GT
O: PSU, RU, MD, VA, NEB, WISC, IOWA, MINN
Don’t focus on whether you like this particular version of X and O; there are a dozen more ways of doing it. I’m just pointing out that you could have static divisions, and everybody could play everybody at least once in four years. But obviously this involves some big sacrifices.
If you go to rotating pods, then everybody can play everybody in three years (though not home & home). The pods would need to look something like this:
A: OSU, UM, MSU, GT
B: PSU, RU, MD, VA
C: WISC, NEB, IOWA, MINN
D: PU, IND, NW, ILL
Once again, there are multiple ways of choosing the pods, but any way you do it involves sacrifices.
At 18 schools, it’s clumsy. Offhand, I don’t see a good way for it to work with static divisions, and I don’t see them going to 10 conference games. You’d probably need 6 pods of 3 schools apiece, and some kind of rotation. It would be very awkward.
LikeLike
The only way I see them adopting 4×4 groups is if (1) they go to 16 with static divisions and the constant, ongoing fight over division make-up that it creates leads them to adopt it as a compromise or (2) the NCAA approves semi-finals in FBS conferences, so that they can be four, four school divisions.
All I know for sure is that things are going to go even further downhill in terms of seeing the Buckeyes play traditional Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
Static divisions could work with 16 teams and a nine-game conference schedule. Since one of the main reasons for expansion is to maximize television revenues, then getting the BTN on basic cable in the newly expanded areas is one goal. In order to do that, I can see the B1G Conference putting as many of its most marketable teams in the eastern division while maintaining as many of the high profile games/rivalries as possible for Tier 1 games that some future network (ESPN, Fox) will want to acquire.
East: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
West: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
While a certain poster on this board just loves his Illinibuck and will be disappointed it might not be an annual affair, I’m sure there might be some Michigan fan living in Grand Rapids or Ypsilanti who feels the same about the Little Brown Jug that he can commiserate with in the future.
I trust the Big Ten schedulers would make sure that there will be as many opportunities as possible to have games between Michigan or Michigan State or Ohio State or Penn State versus Nebraska or Wisconsin or Northwestern or Iowa for the networks. In the meantime, the ADs can be happy that this set up tries to minimize travel distances so they can fill up their stadiums with fans from the opposing team.
As far as pods are concerned, I suspect we’re all agreed that one of them will be Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Those four teams want to play each other annually and this is the easiest way to make that work. Now what about the other 12 teams and how do you get the name brands on the East Coast as often as possible.
I recommend making the pod I mentioned above along with a second one compromising Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State both permanently assigned to a division. These two pods have the “kings” in them along with a number of the princes. The other two pods include the former Big East/ACC teams (RU, MD, VA, GT) and the teams from the Midwest (IL, IN, NW, PU). Those two pods swop divisions every two years, so everybody plays one another at least twice in a four year period.
What would a team from the BE/ACC pod expect on the schedule? In years 1 and 2, they’d have one home and one away with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois and Purdue. In years 3 and 4, it’d be one home and one away with Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern and Indiana. The other three games would be with the teams in their own pod.
For Ohio State, this might be the future conference schedule’s opponents:
Years 1 & 2 – Georgia Tech, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia, Wisconsin
Years 3 & 4 – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue
For Maryland, this might be the future conference schedule’s opponents:
Years 1 & 2 – Georgia Tech, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Years 3 & 4 – Georgia Tech, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Rutgers, Wisconsin, Virginia
Let’s assume Maryland has five home conference games in Years 1 & 3 and only four in Years 2 & 4. What would a hypothetical conference schedule look like for the Terrapins?
Year 1 – Michigan, at Ohio State, Penn State, at Michigan State, Purdue, at Illinois, Georgia Tech, at Rutgers, Virginia
Year 2 – at Michigan, Ohio State, at Penn State, Michigan State, at Purdue, Illinois, at Georgia Tech, Rutgers, at Virginia
Year 3 – Nebraska, at Wisconsin, Minnesota, at Iowa, Northwestern, at Indiana, Georgia Tech, at Rutgers, Virginia
Year 4 – at Nebraska, Wisconsin, at Minnesota, Iowa, at Northwestern, Indiana, at Georgia Tech, Rutgers, at Virginia
Both of these options (static divisions, pods) have merit. I have to imagine one of the questions that needs to be answered is how much do the teams in the western half of the conference want to play on the east coast. In a pod system, it means four games in a four year period with games at Rutgers, at Maryland, at Virginia and at Georgia Tech. With the permanent divisions and no protected rivals, it would mean four games in a seven year period.
The same sort of question could be put forward to the newest teams from the east. They could have regular games with Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State on an annual basis and look to fill their stadiums on a regular basis or they could diversify the schedule a bit more and vote for the pod system.
Of course, the whole discussion has to go back to the main driver, which is the revenue from the television contracts and the BTN. That would likely trump anything the schools might desire . . . .
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Assuming the B1G added, say Virginia and Georgia Tech… what would that do for the current scheduling problems? Better or worse?”
Which scheduling problems? Also, what scheduling patterns are you assuming (staying at 8 games, going to 9 games only with 16, going to 9 games now, static divisions, using pods only with 16, using pods now)? That’s a lot of variables.
“And if you go with pods of 4, what happens with Penn State? Do they get shifted away from the Rutgers/Maryland/Virginia trio + Georgia Tech? Or does that mean that Georgia Tech gets slid into a pod with other teams to allow PSU to stay with the other Mid-Atlantic teams?”
Potential pods:
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA
S – OSU, PU, IN, GT
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
These pods spread the newbies a little bit while keeping PSU with their neighbors. MD/UVA is a much stronger rivalry than GT has with either, so they get to play OSU instead. You have to lock OSU/MI, but that’s it (may lock others by choice, like PSU/NE).
“Or do you go with an E/W split–Michigan, MSU, OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, GTech? Seems pretty unbalanced with a west of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, NW, Minnesota, Iowa.”
Haven’t you heard? Balance doesn’t matter. All that matters is making TV money in the east.
“I suppose you could swap the Michigan grouping for the Indiana grouping, but then you need to “lock-in” Michigan-OSU. I guess that leaves things at a 7-1-1.”
For those schools, yes. Everyone else could be 7-2.
“That would mean OSU would play Wisconsin and the other B1G West schools once every 8 years. It seems to me that the Eastern shift is forcing a split of the original Big 10 teams, especially those in the West. At 14, it is already causing problems. The problems almost get worse with 16.”
No matter who you add, you have these problems. You used to have 8 games to play against 9 possible opponents. Now you’re talking 9 games against 15 opponents. Unless you segregate the newbies, all the old pairings suffer. Since some rivalries are too important to drop, the other match-ups suffer even more. This is why expansion sucks.
“So then you go to 18… adding Duke, UNC to the mix. Now you can have an E/W split again. Slide Michigan/MSU to the West. So at least the West teams now get Michigan back on the schedule. But now Ohio State is on an island in the East. With 9 conference games, you now have the 8 divisional games plus 1 other game. So OSU would never get to play the Wisconsins, Iowas, etc. So I don’t see how you avoid a 10th conference game.”
They would have to try pods at that point. Otherwise they’d need a really long GOR to keep OSU from considering leaving.
LikeLike
You have the pods right for 16.
With 18, I think they have to move to dynamic pods.
One choice is to go the full 6 pods of 3.
Or have two divisions of 6 that add a central pod to become 9 although it’s a tricky question of how to form the Eastern division (Penn State + 5 ACC schools).
I don’t think Ohio State would want to be in a situation where they’d rarely see the rest of the old-line Big Ten, and I don’t think there’s any way they’d form 9 team set divisions to do that.
LikeLike
Or maybe you break Georgia Tech off the East Coast, but I don’t think they’ll want that. I think they’ll keep the 5 ACC schools together in an 18 team setup.
LikeLike
With 18, I think they have to move to dynamic pods.
One choice is to go the full 6 pods of 3.
Or have two divisions of 6 that add a central pod to become 9 although it’s a tricky question of how to form the Eastern division (Penn State + 5 ACC schools).
The five ACC emigres would probably team with Rutgers, not Penn State.
LikeLike
See, I think they’d want to keep Penn State with the East Coast schools as an anchor, like Nebraska is in the West.
I’m not too sure about it though. You could be right that they’d toss Rutgers with the Eastern 5.
LikeLike
zeek,
“You have the pods right for 16.”
Woohoo!
“With 18, I think they have to move to dynamic pods.”
It probably would be best, but they might not be willing.
“One choice is to go the full 6 pods of 3.”
I struggle to see casual fans accepting that approach, but it clearly has advantages.
“Or have two divisions of 6 that add a central pod to become 9 although it’s a tricky question of how to form the Eastern division (Penn State + 5 ACC schools).”
I see a few options here:
A. W/Cx2/E
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C1 – OSU, MI, MSU
C2 – PSU, PU, IN
E – RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
9 games = 8+1 schedule
The two pods play a rotating crossover game against the other pod of the same size. The balance stinks because the west is a lot better than the east, though.
B. W/C/Ex2
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
C – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN
E1 – RU, MD, GT
E2 – UVA, UNC, Duke
9 games = 8+1 schedule
The two pods play a rotating crossover game against the other pod of the same size. The balance is still off a little, but it’s better. It also gives everyone equal exposure to the newbies.
C. W/Cx2/S
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
C1 – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL
C2 – PSU, RU, MD, PU, IN
S – UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
9 games = 8+1 schedule
The two pods play a rotating crossover game against the other pod of the same size. The balance is off again.
I’m sure there are plenty of other ideas if a similar nature.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think they have to go with one of those approaches though.
I don’t see any way that they go with set divisions of 9. Teams would never see each other under a 9 game schedule with a fixed crossover. Even without a fixed crossover, you’re still talking about 18 years to play a home-home with the other division’s teams.
So one of those 6/6 divisions with two rotations pods of 3 is the best answer.
LikeLike
Evidently, for 18 schools with 9 conference games and 6/3, the anchor groups require 6 years to play once through (home or away) the other anchor group, the swing groups require 3 years to play once through. With 5/4, the anchor groups require 5 years, the swing groups 4 years, and with 4/5, the anchor groups require 4 years, the swing groups 5 years.
4/5 is comfortable on the anchor western side:
Western Group: UNL, IA, WI, MN
On the “Southern Group” side, supposing the most common selections of ACC invites, the four new schools would seem like a reasonable eastern side group.
Leaving: IL, NW, PU, IN, MSU, TSUN, OSU, PSU, Rutgers & MD to split into two groups of five. Which doesn’t give me a headache by virtue of not trying to sort it out right now.
If IL & NW is a clump, PU & IN is a clump, and MSU to TSUN to OSU is a clump, then if PSU, Rutgers and MD were to be considered a clump, one way to split them up is:
Northern Group: IL, NW, MSU, TSUN, OSU
Eastern Group: MD, Rutgers, PSU, IN, PU
From a one-eyed Buckeye fan perspective, that would give the Game in division every year, the Illibuck every year, we’d see the westenr traditional Big Ten teams every second year, and would play through MD, Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana and Purdue once every five years. It would also give the “new” ACC schools (as opposed to the “old” ACC school of Maryland) every second year, but better than being stuck in a static 9-school division with very few Big Ten schools in sight.
LikeLike
That is simply not happening. 1: Does anyone really think Penn State will vote to be stuck with Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers and Maryland, while Ohio State gets marquis teams? We all know that Ohio State has utter disrespect for Penn State, and probably put us below Illinois in the dislike department (Sort of the same way Steeler fans (Like me) feel about the Bengals (Below Baltimore, Cleveland & Dallas in the hating category)), while we play the role of the Bengals and despise Ohio State. But this schedule is disrespectful and one sided, that it is something that only the most rabid Buckeye fan boy, could actually think has even a .0000000000000000001% of actually being enacted.
LikeLike
Yeah, it would suck to be Penn State in that scenario, every year having to play the kind of teams that Penn State pushed to have in the Big Ten. The OSU/tsun/MSU clump is a knotty problem in any rotating system without locked crossover games.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Does anyone really think Penn State will vote to be stuck with Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers and Maryland, while Ohio State gets marquis teams?”
Marquee teams like MSU, NW and IL? OSU and MI would have to be together to avoid locked rivals (locked games really screw up the pod system), and MSU has to be with MI for the same reason. Meanwhile, PSU has to be with RU and MD. As for NW/IL versus PU/IN, MSU has made a big deal out of playing NW while OSU/IL is a rivalry and MI/IL is also a big game. MSU/IN is a minor rivalry (neither side cares much, but there’s a trophy). PU and IN are also closer to the eastern 3, reducing travel.
Would PSU vote for it? Maybe not, but that leaves 15 other schools. No alignment could please all 16 teams. The western 4 stay together and so do the southern 4. All major B10 rivalries stay together. PSU gets to play the southern and western schools regularly while rotating through the northern group of marquis teams one at a time. It’s not ideal for PSU, but what is your better alternative that is still realistic? I’m not saying there isn’t one, but what’s your proposal?
“We all know that Ohio State has utter disrespect for Penn State,”
Um, no. Almost none of us know that. I’m not sure anyone but you knows that, frankly.
“and probably put us below Illinois in the dislike department”
Heaven forbid some OSU fans consider our second most frequent opponent (MI – 108, IL – 98, IN – 82, … , #10 PSU 27, #11 Pitt 25) and only trophy game a bigger rivalry than a team that just passed our most frequent OOC opponent in games played. Many younger fans consider PSU a bigger game already.
“But this schedule is disrespectful”
Really? Where is the disrespect in putting you with the schools you wanted added to the B10 and the 2 nearest B10 schools not locked into another pod?
“and one sided,”
1 sided? It’s good for the majority of teams, I’d think. And again, what’s your better alternative? I’m sure there are many viable plans, but I don’t see you proposing or supporting one, just denigrating this one.
LikeLike
With respect to the likelihood of that 4 anchor, 5 swing arrangement happening … I never actually claimed that it was likely, I was just looking at who it might roll out. I do not in fact either know or have a reasonable guess as to the likelihood of the Big Ten going to 18, nor given that the likelihood of swinging groups to address the “half the conference almost never plays the other half” problem, nor given that the likelihood of settling on a 4 anchor, 5 swing group arrangement.
But on further reflection, if there was to be one, I think that’s the one. The western four want to play together. The Buckeyes, that school up north and Michigan State is a clump in any system without locked cross-division games. The Fighting Illini and Northwestern are a clump. Indiana and Purdue are a clump. Like it or not, after Penn State got the eastern schools it was clamoring for, Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers is a clump. And if the Big Ten got the four AAU ACC schools, UVA, UNC, Duke and GTech, their first preference would clearly be to play each other every season.
And while both the State of Indiana pair and the State of Illinois pair would likely prefer the States of Ohio/Michigan group, with MSU’s rivalry with NW and OSU’s rivalry with the Fighting Illini, the States of Ohio/Michigan group would likely push for the Illinois pair.
I just can’t make a western 5 work at all: either both Illinois schools are in the western anchor, or both are in a “northern” swing group.
6 groups of three runs into a similar problem: you have to break up the western four, and if OSU/TSUN/MSU is one group, it has 8 schools to its west and 7 schools to its right, so one eastern school has to be in a group that crosses over to a central group. Add the fact that if they are going to swap groups into two championship divisions, a 2-year alternation is a lot easier to keep straight in terms of “we play X every year, we play Y every other year” than the shuffling 3-school groups..
So I think 6/3 and 4/5 are more likely than shuffling 6×3 school groups, which is more likely than 5/4.
As far as it sucking for Penn State, you’d get the Huskers, Hawkeyes and Whiskey every second year, and in the alternate ones you get to play up and down the eastern seaboard. It surely wouldn’t be ideal from Penn State’s perspective, but your school had to expect it would end up playing Rutgers and Maryland annually after lobbying to get more east coast schools in the conference.
LikeLike
As to your first comment, it seems to me that there is a ton of posting and debate over how the 14 teams should be divided into two divisions. Who goes to the East, who misses out on a rivalry. Is it really a rivalry. And so on.
Moving forward, if 14 is hard to figure out, I thought maybe 16 or 18 or 20 would make it easier—but it really does not. Maybe 20 is the best… with Penn State and 9 eastern partners. But that is more like a merger than expansion, regardless of the money involved.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“As to your first comment, it seems to me that there is a ton of posting and debate over how the 14 teams should be divided into two divisions. Who goes to the East, who misses out on a rivalry. Is it really a rivalry. And so on.
Moving forward, if 14 is hard to figure out, I thought maybe 16 or 18 or 20 would make it easier—but it really does not.”
I think the problem is more with the available choices than just the number. Having all the options be in the ACC just continues the current problems. If there were viable candidates in-footprint, or in the west or north or south, things might change.
The B10 suffers from several issues here:
1. Having a lot of old rivalries (many lopsided, too)
2. Valuing tradition and rivalries more than normal
3. Having knots of rivalries that are hard to untangle
4. Having 10 midwestern schools as old members while expanding almost entirely with eastern schools (cultural fit issues and desire to keep teams together)
5. The eastern schools, except PSU, being below average in football (balance issues)
6. Having the two biggest programs be huge rivals located near each other (not clear how to split them)
7. OSU/MI always being the last game of the year (make sit hard to split them despite the problems that causes)
8. Schools really liking to play each other frequently (nobody wants to get stuck with all the newbies)
9. Business concerns potentially trumping football decisions (putting teams in the east for TV rather than FB reasons)
“Maybe 20 is the best… with Penn State and 9 eastern partners.”
I think you need 22 for that. The old 10 plus NE versus PSU and 10 eastern schools.
“But that is more like a merger than expansion, regardless of the money involved.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21599325/mountain-west-announces-inaugural-championship-game-for-2013
MWC announces divisions.
Mountain
Fresno St.
Hawaii
Nevada
SDSU
SJSU
UNLV
West
Air Force
BSU
Colorado St.
New Mexico
USU
Wyoming
No protected crossovers.
LikeLike
Also, is it me or did they get the names backwards? The Mountain Division has the Nevada and Pacific Schools while the West Division has the Rocky Mountain schools.
LikeLike
http://www.themwc.com/genrel/012213aaa.html
Never mind. CBS got it backwards. So just switch the names above (this blog needs an edit button).
Also, they will play 18 conference games in BB. No divisions.
LikeLike
They are pretty much straight East/West and they will use “computer scheduling models.” Sounds like no common sense scheduling. They apparently will use random to try to avoid any built-in bias, only random bias.
LikeLike
Sounds like a CYA decision ~ “Don’t blame us for your strength of schedule being too hard / too soft. It was the luck of the draw.”
LikeLike
Why am I hearing Oklahoma to the Big Ten chatter?
Is this Bill Bender’s article stirring the pot, or does anyone here know anything? Where’s our resident Sooner Redhawk?
LikeLike
Redhawk swore us off after we told him that the FSU to the Big XII were unlikely to amount to anything.
LikeLike
I should say these were the rumors last summer that started after the then Chairman of the FSU BOTs ran his mouth off about a bunch of issues he knew nothing about.
LikeLike
Wasn’t Redhawk the Sooner who keep seriously claiming that Tulane was on the B12’s expansion list? If that’s him, I wouldn’t put faith in what his ‘insider’ says…
LikeLike
metatron,
“Why am I hearing Oklahoma to the Big Ten chatter?”
Because you’re listening to uninformed rumormongers?
“Is this Bill Bender’s article stirring the pot, or does anyone here know anything?”
Ah, Sporting News. Rumormongering hacks. I assume you mean his column from 1/1.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-01-01/big-ten-bowl-games-michigan-wisconsin-nebraska-conference-expansion-texas-oklaho
It makes perfect sense if you ignore reality. OU and UT can’t realistically leave the B12 due to the GOR. It’s unclear either could leave their brethren behind, either. In addition, the B10 isn’t accepting the LHN. As a bonus, OU’s academics are unacceptable to the COP/C. That’s several major issues, and we haven’t even addressed why they would want to join or why the B10 would want OU. Is having 6 kings a good thing?
His proposed divisions are obvious:
W – UT, OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, MD
They aren’t great for a lot of rivalries with the old 10 split 5 and 5, but they are probably the easiest divisions. Pods might make more sense, but they aren’t easy without locked rivals. You could at least rotate NW/IL and PU/IN every 2 years.
Bender goes on to say that MSU is one of OSU’s 2 most hated teams, which shows how little he knows about the B10.
This smacks of click hunting, not informed reporting.
LikeLike
Thanks Brian, I figured I haven’t been talked down to enough for one day.
I said nothing of Texas, but I have heard the ever constant rumors that Kansas was quietly asking questions in Park Ridge. If they feel like they still have options, the Sooners could too.
As for your other point: you can never have enough marquee teams. It’s utterly absurd that some people here are claiming otherwise.
LikeLike
metatron,
“Thanks Brian, I figured I haven’t been talked down to enough for one day.”
Feel free to cite one reliable source saying anything about OU to the B10. You even questioned Bender’s motives/veracity in your original comment. Why is my agreeing with your concerns about him condescending? I mocked his opinions plenty, but you didn’t make any claims.
“I said nothing of Texas,”
No, but you named Bender and that’s the only relevant article from him that I found. He said OU and UT.
“but I have heard the ever constant rumors that Kansas was quietly asking questions in Park Ridge. If they feel like they still have options, the Sooners could too.”
The B10 didn’t want OU or KU before, so why would they want them now? Who is going to pay for the GOR settlement? How does KU plan to get away from KSU? How will OU get away from OkSU? Why would the B10 lower their academic standards all of a sudden to get OU and KU? You could make a case for UT being so valuable that taking OU was worth it, but not KU. TX would be great for TV markets and demographics, but OK and KS aren’t great for the BTN.
“As for your other point: you can never have enough marquee teams. It’s utterly absurd that some people here are claiming otherwise.”
I don’t think that’s true. If you had all marquee teams, lots of them would get beat up and stop being marquee teams and fans would be upset. You need plenty of beatable teams, too. And kings don’t stay kings if they don’t win conference titles regularly. There are also the ego problems of having lots of marquee teams. Everyone wants to be alpha, especially if they’re new and not used to the way the B10 works. I’m not saying 6/16 is too many, but it is probably the limit. Some of the second tier schools might not want more kings to go through to win titles. Not everybody is just looking to maximize money. Plus, NE fans seem to hate UT (and not in the healthy way), so I’m not sure you want that dynamic in the conference.
LikeLike
We haven’t heard a reliable word about anything, just a cacophony of rumors that happen to fit our idea of how expansion is supposed to play out.
And nobody wants to watch the basement programs flail against each other – that’s just a waste of TV and a drain on resources.
LikeLike
In a 16-18 team conference, you have room for 3+ teams to have 1-loss regular seasons.
LikeLike
metatron,
The BTN is based around showing those “undesirable” games, so clearly someone wants to see them.
If you just want power against power, go watch the NFL.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“In a 16-18 team conference, you have room for 3+ teams to have 1-loss regular seasons.”
Sure you do. That’s not the problem. The problem is all the team’s that don’t only have 1 loss but their fans expect titles regularly. It’s not that you can’t have a bunch of good teams together, it’s having 6 of the 10 (or so) kings.
Fans of OSU, MI, OU, UT and NE all expect to win conference titles at least 3 times per decade (PSU isn’t as hooked on titles after being an indie for so long, but they expect similar success). That’s 15+ expected titles per decade, and ignoring everyone else like WI and MSU which also expect to win one on occasion. Several fan bases are going to be upset, especially as they lose king status if upstarts from other conferences move up. You’d need a lot of playoff berths and titles to appease fans of teams that don’t win the conference. You’d also need that success to rotate frequently so nobody has a prolonged dry spell. It’s not impossible, but it’s a tough environment. It would be like the SEC, but worse.
LikeLike
And there’s a reason why the NFL is more popular…
LikeLike
Lower their academic standard to take Kansas? Kansas is an AAU member. Its the lack of market (small population state with divided sports loyalties).
LikeLike
The Jayhawks are still one of, if not the national brands of college basketball.
LikeLike
“the brand?” I take it you’ve never heard of the Wildcats or Tar Heels where you live.
Kansas is without a doubt top 5, but is not anywhere close to “the brand.”
LikeLike
Now we’re squabbling over who’s dick is biggest.
I don’t care and the point remains.
LikeLike
@ Brian: You said: “Not everybody is just looking to maximize money.”
That is an excellent observation.
LikeLike
Why am I hearing Oklahoma to the Big Ten chatter?
“Chatter” implies some sort of discussion. Discounting fan message boards (none of us here really know anything), all you’ve got is Bill Bender’s article. Without more, there’s nothing to it.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/01/18921/ohio-state-mulling-football-ticket-price-hikes-introduction-of-premium-game-pricing#more
OSU is raising ticket prices again, but is also considering going to premium prices for up to 2 home games per year in addition to raising the minimum donation needed to buy season tickets. Face value will go from $70 to $79 normally and up to twice that for premium games. Student prices will go up from $32 to $36, but will not have the premium pricing.
The weird thing to me is that there will still be no price difference based on where your seat is. OSU feels you’re paying for the experience and you get that from any seat. I think that’s a load of crap, and so does every professional team since they price based on desirability. If they’re finally admitting that some games are more desirable, why not acknowledge the same with seating? They already save the worst seats for those who don’t donate, so it’s not like they are unaware of the issue. I think they should raise the price for the best seats but then not raise their donation as much. That would net the same amount of money but appease all the other customers.
LikeLike
That isn’t that uncommon, a lot of the best tickets are season ticket holders who pay a hefty donation just to keep season tickets.
LikeLike
wmwolverine,
“That isn’t that uncommon, a lot of the best tickets are season ticket holders who pay a hefty donation just to keep season tickets.”
By “That,” were you referring to the practice of charging the same ticket price for all seats?
LikeLike
The donation is tax deductible, but the ticket price is not. Pro teams do not have this tax shelter so they need to charge for seat location directly in after tax $$. Unless tax reform takes this away, colleges are going to take advantage of this.
LikeLike
There is revenue sharing in the B1G with ticket revenue and not with the $ collected through seat donations.
LikeLike
Ticket prices don’t really affect the revenue sharing formula for Ohio State though. The gate revenue sharing formula is 30% of ticket revenue for football capped at $1 million. Ohio State is always going to be above the cap.
LikeLike
Fox changes
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/sbj-fuel-to-become-fox-sports-2-fx-will-no-longer-carry-sports/
LikeLike
It’s not unexpected. I’m curious if they try to put enticing things on FS2 to drive carriage or keep them on FS1 to grow that brand first.
LikeLike
I’d imagine they’d split things based on viewership/importance.
Take the example of the UFC package which will likely be featured on both as it’s currently on FX/Fuel. Most likely the FX stuff will move to FS1 and the Fuel stuff will stay on FS2.
LikeLike
It’s Wednesday morning. Does UVA have their Big Ten offer yet?
LikeLike
Chip’s putting out teasers about Big 12 expansion. Its a West Virginian approach. I’ve got info, but I can’t tell you yet.
LikeLike
@bullet
I checked the Texas Orangebloods board and one of the posts listed was entitled “Miami is on the phone.” It had something like 1500 views. Also, checked The Sabre, a UVA board yesterday, and they were debating whether they’d accept a bid to the Big 12 and some were proposing following UNC to the SEC. Some level heads argued the B1G was far better because of the CIC option. So, maybe items are moving.
LikeLike
I am sure every ACC school has at least considered their options in other leagues. How could they not? I believe the Maryland president was talking casually to Big Ten sources for at least a couple of years, off and on, before they finally got serious. Even the Texas president had back-channel conversations with Ohio State’s Gordon Gee, a while back. These people are talking all the time.
I have to think the Big 12 would be a distant third choice for UVA. Between the Big Ten and the SEC, they’d probably want to be in whatever league UNC is in.
On message boards, it can be tough to distinguish the fans who are just sounding off, those who actually know something, and those important enough that the university would care what they have to say.
LikeLike
Actually its pretty easy. If they are posting, they aren’t important enough. The question is whether they reflect those that are.
LikeLike
🙂
Has anything happened to change UTs position on expansion?
LikeLike
I was trying to be nice 🙂 In reality, you can usually tell which fans are talking sense, and which are just being incoherent homers.
But of course, even those talking sense will be wrong a good deal of the time. It’s not as if everyone in a large university agrees with one another. You could have an impeccable inside source who tells you UVA prefers the SEC, which may not necessarily reflect the administration’s view. And that’s before we even consider what the SEC might want.
LikeLike
@Marc – One thing I learned from Maryland’s move to the Big Ten is that telling anyone outside of the trustees is one of the last things done. Even when people are telling the truth about their connections, the chances are the person they’re connected to hasn’t actually been informed.
LikeLike
At Texas you can be certain various important people will have different opinions.
As far as expansion, Texas admin seems to be the same place they have been for months. They’re in favor of expansion with the “right two.” They’re opposed to expansion for the sake of expansion. They are not enthused about going beyond 12.
LikeLike
The “right two” = FSU plus the best of VT, NC, NCSU, VA, Clemson, GT, or Miami that does not get invited to the B1G or SEC in most discussions.
LikeLike
I think that to get Texas’ vote, they’d need to get two strong football schools, i.e., two from the list of: FSU, Miami, Clemson, VT. I’m not so sure Texas would be in favor of, say, Miami plus NC State.
LikeLike
Yes, UVA may have different preferences depending on where UNC goes, while UNC may have different preferences depending on whether NC State is going to be taken care of one way or the other. The SEC may want UNC and Duke figuring that any “UNC Plus” gives them a dominant position in multiple growing NC media markets, and UNC and Duke better boosts their basketball clout and “winter inventory” … at the same time that UNC understands that NC State is unlikely to get an invite into the Big 10, so “UNC Plus NC State” is what they counter-suggest to the SEC as being more interesting.
And then there’s the game of whispers aspect ~ insider A says to insider B something is being “seriously considered”, insider B says to insider C that it is “on the table”, insider C tells blogger outsider “there is an offer”, blogger outsider writes “this is going to happen, I have an inside source”.
And AFAIR, Delany has said he has been given permission to talk to contiguous AAU schools, which boils down to permission to approach UVA and Kansas. So if he wants to talk to other schools, he has an incentive to generate chatter in different channels that gets ACC schools further south to make informal contact with the Big Ten. That makes me tend to be even more skeptical about take any chatter sourced to “Big Ten insiders”.
LikeLike
Chip’s talking about it again:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1463673
Obviously he thinks something is there, otherwise he’d be talking about signing day only a week and a half away.
LikeLike
“Larry Scott, commissioner of the then-Pac-10, attempted to lure Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Colorado to form a 16-team superconference in June of 2010. And Scott nearly pulled it off. But Texas A&M balked, showing more interest in the SEC.”
Is this the first time Chip’s attributed the Big 12 staying together to A&M refusing the Pac-16 offer? I thought he followed the storyline put forth by most Longhorn supporters that they turned it down without even considering whether A&M would follow.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m shocked, shocked I say, that nothing has happened. It’s almost like the Dude just posts rumors.
LikeLike
Sorry if this was posted before, but I just learned the ACC is withholding money from Maryland. The story was posted a week ago, but there is an update I was not aware of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/01/18/maryland-attorney-general-moves-to-dismiss-accs-lawsuit-against-maryland/
In a telephone interview, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said the ACC has notified the University of Maryland that it has begun withholding shared revenue payments as “collateral against the [exit fee].”
So far, the ACC has withheld $3,067,255.27 in Maryland’s “respective share of the initial distribution of gross television revenues for 2012-13,” according to a letter from ACC associate commissioner Jeff Elliot to Athletics Director Kevin Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2012.
“They sent us a letter saying they are withholding royalties, the amount of money [the University of Maryland is] entitled to,” Gansler said. “They’re doing this because the University of Maryland owes them $53 million.
“When they sent us the letter, that triggered the ability for us to bring a lawsuit in court, saying you owe us this money. That’s what we filed. We filed it for the money and for the antitrust implications.”
LikeLike
Nemo,
I think it’s a normal tactic, but the ACC is wrong here to me. MD doesn’t owe the exit fee yet as far as I know. Thus, the ACC shouldn’t have the right to withhold the money yet. Once MD actually leaves, then the fee is due. That’s when the ACC should get to keep the money pending a lawsuit or settlement.
LikeLike
Maryland hasn’t even given their “official” notice, which is part of their complaint. Official notice isn’t due until August 15th to leave in 2014.
LikeLike
Well this is interesting
http://miami.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1463518
In a move that threatens its entire inquiry in the Nevin Shapiro melodrama with the University of Miami, the NCAA national office has uncovered an issue of improper conduct within its enforcement program that occurred during the UM investigation.
Former NCAA enforcement staff members worked with Nevin Shapiro’s attorneys to improperly obtain information for the purposes of the NCAA investigation through a bankruptcy proceeding that did not involve the NCAA.
As it does not have subpoena power, the NCAA does not have the authority to compel testimony through procedures outside of its enforcement program. Through bankruptcy proceedings, the enforcement staff gained information for the investigation that would not have been accessible otherwise.
As it relates to the Miami investigation, the NCAA will not move forward with a Notice of Allegations until all the facts surrounding this issue are known.
Whole article is informative so I suggest you read it.
LikeLike
I will say that I was unaware that the NCAA even had rules of evidence (that phrase is never used, but it is what is implied).
LikeLike
I don’t think its a case of “rules of evidence.” I think its a case of not wanting to get sued again and whether they improperly obtained something that was not supposed to be public record.
LikeLike
Based on what has been reported the only thing that made the evidence “improper” is that the NCAA couldn’t have obtained it on their own. Nothing illegal occurred.
Maybe there is more to this story than is being reported (actually I’d be floored if there wasn’t) but based on what has happened the NCAA is setting a precedent for itself that it can only use evidence that it could obtain through “standard” means.
LikeLike
Improper doesn’t = illegal.
LikeLike
It’s been said the NCAA hired Shapiro’s lawyer so she could question people under oath about the NCAA case.
If not illegal, it’s unethical. The legal system’s power to compel you to be questioned under oath should not be used as a fishing expedition for anyone who has a beef with the person under oath.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
It’s sort of a cloudy issue, based on what was said when this was happening. Yes, the NCAA wanted the lawyer to ask certain questions in depositions, but Shapiro’s deal included finding as much of his loot as possible. The questions the NCAA wanted asked were about gifts (money or things) from Shapiro and thus the feds also had an interest since they should be trying to reclaim all such gifts.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8872992/ncaa-reveals-found-improper-conduct-investigation-miami-hurricanes
ESPN’s story. Emmert sounds pissed.
LikeLike
Amazingly it looks like Coach Frank Haith will get off scott free. Lucky for us.
LikeLike
It continues to baffle me that schools and conferences are so willingly compliant with the NCAA, given the obvious corruption and heavy-handedness in everything they do. One school alone can’t stop them. But if a whole conference or two just decided one day to secede unilaterally, the NCAA would be cooked. In my opinion, deservedly so.
LikeLike
The NCAA IS the schools…
LikeLike
Something so many people seem to overlook….
LikeLike
The NCAA IS the schools…
It isn’t…quite. The NCAA consists of its members, but this does not mean every member is happy (or has any good reason to be happy) about the way it is run.
LikeLike
As a voluntary association, members are free to leave now. Apparently the benefits out weigh the perceived negatives.
LikeLike
They are not realistically free to leave. Surely you understand that. It’s a closed system that no individual member can leave on its own. A set of members with sufficient critical mass could do so. One alone could not.
Of course, you pose a false dichotomy. Remaining exactly as-is and leaving aren’t the only two options that exist.
LikeLike
I’m sure they’re not…….I wasn’t happy with the PSU political correctness fiasco, nor the way self-reporting schools get hammered while defiant ones sometimes skate…..but the bottom line is no replacement for the NCAA will do any better…..the SEC schools, in particular, want to be allowed to run amuck…imagine a situation where they are self-policed….l
LikeLike
What alternative to staying (staying and changing the rules is what has been happening since the ncaa’s creation) or leaving?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“They are not realistically free to leave.”
Sure they are. The NAIA will take them. It would be a terrible business decision, especially for a football school, but they could leave.
LikeLike
I want to know why the NCAA is so shocked about this. There were articles written about this months ago. At least one account said their in-house counsel approved it, too.
LikeLike
BT wrestling ranked: 1. PSU 3. MN 4. IOWA 5. Illinois 6. OSU 14. NEB 18. UM 19. Wisky 21. NW 22. PUR…..Maryland is #23.
LikeLike
3 and 4 will flip on Saturday, 3pm BTN.
LikeLike
I fully expect many Maryland home matches to be moved from Comcast Center Pavilion (which seats about 1,500) to the main arena. The same should happen with volleyball, too.
LikeLike
Both bullet and Frank posted a link to Chip Brown’s OB realignment article, but I’m going to start a new thread on Florida St.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1463673
Big 12 sources said they believe Bowlsby’s attention was officially grabbed in December when Warchant.com, the Florida State site on the Yahoo!/Rivals.com network, reported the Seminoles had reached out to the Big Ten about possible membership.
The Big Ten, however, requires its members to be in the American Association of Universities, which represent the top research institutions in the country. Florida State is not an AAU school.
Was there ever a report that the Big Ten told FSU no?
LikeLike
The B10 turned somebody down because they didn’t meet academic standards, according to Barry Alvarez.
LikeLike
I’m still fascinated with that nugget. Some say that school was UConn other believe it was FSU. Did someone get a no thanks from Delaney or did it go so far that another team was discussed with school presidents? I don’t think UConn would get past Delaney, but FSU I think would have gotten serious discussion without the AAU status.
LikeLike
Why does Chip completely neglect to account for SEC expansion? If North Carolina goes to the B1G and Virginia Tech goes to the Big 12, then the SEC isn’t going to have any options. And what are the odds of that?
LikeLike
They would still have NC-State and Duke available and possibly Virginia (though I don’t see any scenario where UNC goes to the Big Ten and UVA doesn’t). They could also grab
That said, the only way I can see Virginia Tech going to the Big XII is if Virginia joins the SEC and the Big Ten holds to its AAU requirement. There is just no reason any ACC team would choose the Big XII over the SEC or Big Ten.
LikeLike
The unfinished sentence should have read:
They could also grab some combo of Miami, Georgia Tech and Clemson if they are available and the conference is willing to take schools in the current footprint.
LikeLike
Actually, the only way I see VTech going to the B12 is if the SEC grabs UNC and NCSU and the B10 takes UVa, Duke, GTech, and FSU, leaving Clemson and VTech (and Miami and Louisville and Pitt and ‘Cuse) for the B12.
LikeLike
Yeah, I meant to include that I was referring to scenarios where UNC goes to the Big Ten (which is what the article stated).
LikeLike
Also happens if the SEC grabs UNC and Duke or UNC and NC State, and the university side of the Big 10 balk at taking non-AAU schools, so end up at 16 with UVA and GTech. Then for FSU, Miami, Clemson and a 14th, the Big 12 can take VTech and praise its good fortune.
LikeLike
Interesting that Duke was omitted from the list of schools the BIG has contacted…leaving UNC, GT, VA…….Does this mean that in Delany’s beady eyes ND would still recieve ofer #18? Or perhaps some “better fit” candidate like Pitt, Mo, or Kansas? (I know there are issues with these schools). Perhaps the original 10 would prefer 1 western school? Or does it mean that the first 2 of UNC, VA, GT (if any came), and stop?
LikeLike
FWIW (perhaps not much), per the Tar Pit board Greg Swaim tweets today that Delany prefers UVA to Duke, while UNC prefers Duke to UVA. IF there’s any validity to this, it would seem to indicate the BIG was only looking to go to 16……..
LikeLike
For some reason Swaim likes to tease nervous fan bases with the news they want to believe is true. He was spouting fake rumors long before ‘The Dude’ was and now they tend to amplify each other’s rumors.
LikeLike
I said a while back that I still believe that Delany’s/B1G’s end game is only 16. When he first started talking about it, 16 seemed to be the number. Even MSU’s AD used 16 as the number that was better than 14. Plus I think that the design of the B1G logo was intended for the number 16 to be seen in it. I guess they could’ve changed their mind recently, but I’ll have to see a B1G official hint at it before I believe it.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod: Interesting that Duke was omitted from the list of schools the BIG has contacted…leaving UNC, GT, VA
Delany wants to add markets. Taking two schools in the same market would clearly be sub-optimal. Now, in the hypothetical case where UNC will only come with Duke, would the B1G take both? Perhaps. But it wouldn’t be Delany’s going-in position.
Does this mean that in Delany’s beady eyes ND would still recieve ofer #18? Or perhaps some “better fit” candidate like Pitt, Mo, or Kansas? (I know there are issues with these schools).
I think it goes without saying that ND would always be the fish Delany wants to hook, above all others. I am not sure that the loss of UNC, GT, and VA, is enough of a blow to the ACC that ND would be prompted to join the Big Ten.
If ND is unavailable, then Delany would take the next “best available” school, and it’s not clear who that would be. I don’t think Delany wants Pitt, for the same reason he doesn’t want Duke (duplication of market). Kansas is probably not available due to the GOR issue, and needing to stay with their in-state sister school. I sincerely doubt that anything would pry Missouri away from the SEC.
If he couldn’t get ND, I suspect the Big Ten presidents would not mind adding a superb academic institution like Duke, but that would be only after Delany concludes he cannot get something better.
Or does it mean that the first 2 of UNC, VA, GT (if any came), and stop?
It’s hard for me to believe that Delany would stop at 16, if he could continue to add schools that are financially accretive. But of course, every pair of schools added needs to be financially accretive, and that gets harder to do. There aren’t a lot of plums left, and Delany isn’t the only one bidding on them.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
The CIC aspect of conference expansion also has to be kept in mind here. What’s taking place here is the pursuit of two goals with the research/academic one being primary, but also working in concert with how to better make the B1G athletic departments more financially stable.
I wouldn’t set aside Duke too easily here. They’re one third of the Research Triangle in North Carolina and they’re potentially a real asset to the academic consortium side of the equation.
I do agree with you that the loss of three schools (UNC, UVa, GT) is not going to cause Notre Dame to go flying into the arms of the Big Ten. But there are six other ACC schools in the expansion sweepstakes here (VaTech, NCState, Duke, FSU, Clemson, Miami-FL). If those schools go to the SEC and/or the Big XII, what’s left in the ACC?
The remaining programs in the conference would be Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest and Louisville. A “new” ACC could be cobbled together from this group coupled with teams in the Big East, but is that the type of conference ND wants to be affiliated with? Would Notre Dame agree to play five football games per year with that group? Do they provide an anchor for their Olympic sports? How would Notre Dame operate in a college athletic environment with three major conferences having 14 or more members in it (all perhaps with nine game conference schedules)?
On a semi-related note, the fact that Fox is going to be launching not one, but two sports channels that are looking for content and will mirror ESPN is especially noteworthy. I can’t imagine what the bidding war will look like for the (expanded) Big Ten’s football and men’s basketball games will look like with Fox, ABC/ESPN and CBS (for men’s basketball) getting involved. Does the B1G look better or worse for those networks with the additions of UNC, UVa, GT and Duke (or Notre Dame)?
Somewhat unrelated to this discussion, but more to the question of pods and divisions is this–should teams be allowed to schedule “non-conference games” with conference opponents? For example, in years where they don’t play one another on the B1G schedule, should Ohio State and Illinois be allowed to schedule a “non-conference game” between one another? This matchup would show up in the non-conference and overall standings. The question is this–how would it be handled in case of a tie breaker for a division title, etc.? Would there be any complications surrounding such a set up?
If anything, it would allow the conference schools to play teams that happen to be in the B1G, but aren’t on the conference schedule that season. A few years ago when Michigan was looking at finding an opponent to play in the stadium re dedication game to open the 2010 season, UM AD Bill Martin approached Minnesota as a possible opponent. The Golden Gophers weren’t on the schedule and the UM-UMinn game would have been a non-conference affair–see http://mvictors.com/?p=3868
LikeLike
@cutter: I agree that the CIC would probably be giddy about bringing Duke on board. I am just suggesting a plausible reason why Duke would not be on the top of Delany’s list.
In the apocalyptic scenario, the ACC would still have these teams in all sports: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Louisville. This assumes that Miami, USF, Clemson, GT, NCST, UNC, Duke, and UVA, all bolt for other conferences, which is the ACC’s worst case, or pretty close to it.
I’m assuming they don’t lose all 8 at once, and as soon as they lose any two, UConn and Cincinnati will join within days. They would then take the best remaining Big East schools to get up to a credible number of teams, e.g., South Florida, Memphis, Navy, etc.. At that point, the “new ACC” would be comparable to the “old Big East,” which Notre Dame was happy to be part of for many years. They’d cancel the 5-game commitment, the Irish because they never wanted that provision anyway, the “new ACC” because they know they have no ground on which to stand.
So even in a nuclear winter, I think the ACC survives, as a combo of the current ACC teams the Big Four don’t want, plus the better Big East teams.
Regarding your last point: I don’t think the schools are keen on playing conference members as non-conference games. Yes, Michigan offered such a game to Minnesota, but as you noted, Minnesota refused, and I don’t think there have been any other nods in that direction. Each school has certain “must-have” rivalries, which they expect the Big Ten to preserve within a conference schedule.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Somewhat unrelated to this discussion, but more to the question of pods and divisions is this–should teams be allowed to schedule “non-conference games” with conference opponents? For example, in years where they don’t play one another on the B1G schedule, should Ohio State and Illinois be allowed to schedule a “non-conference game” between one another? This matchup would show up in the non-conference and overall standings. The question is this–how would it be handled in case of a tie breaker for a division title, etc.? Would there be any complications surrounding such a set up?”
I see no reason why they should prohibit such games. Just treat it as an OOC game in the standings.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard ~ you mean cancel the 5 game commitment as in reduce it to 4 games? Notre Dame surely needs 4 games late in the season in some years, and they can’t demand four games when they need them without committing to four in years when they wouldn’t necessarily need them.
And then add Navy to the ACC, and they are back to 5, because they will play Navy as long as Navy wants to schedule the game. That Navy game commitment is part of the Notre Dame mythos.
In the total ACC meltdown scenario, I was seeing the ACC with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest, Cincy and UConn. Take the six best remaining NuBigEast teams east of the Mississippi and call it a day.
LikeLike
@BruceMcF: Regarding Notre Dame’s 5-game commitment with the ACC:
This commitment is a compromise on both sides. The Domers clearly would have preferred to retain complete control over their schedule. The ACC clearly would have preferred to have ND join fully, in all sports. Both sides needed each other, for different reasons, so they met in the middle.
In the ACC apocalypse scenario, Notre Dame would likely say: “We committed to play 5 games in a conference that still had Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech. If you want us to stay in your denuded conference, which now resembles the old Big East, you have to let us out of that commitment.
Notre Dame would, of course, continue to play some of those schools. There are a number of them that ND has historically played anyway. They just wouldn’t agree to be bound to five games a year. I am reasonably sure that five games is a bit more than Notre Dame really wanted, and if they could find a way out of that deal, they would.
The ace in Notre Dame’s hand is that the Big XII still wants them on similar terms as they have with the ACC today (i.e., Olympic sports plus a scheduling deal in football). Right now, the ACC is preferable to ND, but at some point, if the ACC loses too many schools, they could hold the Big XII’s offer (assuming it still holds, as I believe it does) over heads of a reduced ACC.
LikeLike
@Marc
I seriously doubt that the Big XII would take ND as a non-FB school. In fact I’d be floored if they did. The ONLY people who have ever talked about ND to the Big XII are Texas and Texas mouthpieces like Chip Brown. Which makes sense because Texas probably views adding ND as the first step towards UT getting the same deal.
There is just no reason for the “lower” schools to ever set a precedent for UT to ever go indy.
LikeLike
Cutter:
B10 schools have played each other OOC before.
They count as OOC games.
LikeLike
Thanks–I didn’t realize there was a precedent there. As I wrote earlier, Michigan did invite Minnesota for the 2010 season opener/stadium dedication game, but the Golden Gophers also had USC on the schedule and didn’t want to commit scheduling suicide that season.
In the end, Connecticut accepted Michigan’s offer to play that game (which UM won 30-10) and in return, the Wolverines agreed to a return date at Rentschler Field. That game will be played on 13 September of this year. UM AD David Brandon tried to get the game moved to MetLife Stadium, but it was a no go–see http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/blogs/dog-house/Michigan-Wants-to-Move-13-UConn-Game-to-MetLife-167316165.html
In his recent blog entry on ESPN, Brian Bennett wrote about how the Big Ten is considering more neutral site games. OSU AD Gene Smith said “I would like to see more neutral sites in those scenarios, We’ve got a great stadium in Chicago, one in Detroit, one in Indianapolis, and now we have the East Coast. So I can see more neutral sites for conference games.” The scenarios he was talking about were about the conference adopting a nine- or ten-game conference schedule. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70328/neutral-site-league-games-in-b1g-future
I’d just add that in addition to Fedex Field (which is mentioned in the article), the Baltimore Ravens MB&T Stadium (capacity about 71,000) has also hosted a number of college football games (including Army-Navy). That gives Maryland two possible places to stage future games if/when Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State or Nebraska come calling.
I do expect the B1G will do its best to maintain the school’s “must-have” rivalries. Wikipedia has a listing of the conference’s rivalries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference#Football
These include the following 17 matchups (from my counting). The items marked in asterisks are games that would be played by teams in different divisions (six of the 17 listed) if an east/west split took place with Indiana in the East and Purdue in the West as part of a 14-team B1G conference (with Maryland and Rutgers):
Illinois-Indiana* (N/A)
Illinois-Northwestern (Land of Lincoln Trophy)
Illinois-Ohio State* (Illibuck)
Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
Indiana-Purdue* (Old Oaken Bucket)
Iowa-Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)
Iowa-Nebraska (Heroes Game/Trophy)
Iowa-Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
Michigan-Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy)
Michigan-Minnesota* (Little Brown Jug)
Michigan-Ohio State (The Game)
Michigan State-Penn State (Land Grant Trophy)
Minnesota-Penn State* (Governor’s Victory Bell)
Minnesota-Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan’s Axe)
Nebraska-Penn State* (N/A)
Ohio State-Penn State (N/A)
By schools, here are the number of conference rivalry games on that list:
Illinois (4) – Indiana*, Northwestern, Ohio State*, Purdue
Minnesota (4) – Iowa, Michigan*, Penn State*, Wisconsin
Penn State (4) – Michigan State, Minnesota*, Nebraska*, Ohio State
Indiana (3) – Illinois*, Michigan State, Purdue*
Iowa (3) – Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Michigan (3) – Michigan State, Minnesota*, Ohio State
Michigan State (3) – Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Ohio State (3) – Illinois*, Michigan, Penn State
Nebraska (2) – Iowa, Penn State*
Purdue (2) – Illinois, Indiana*
Wisconsin (2) – Iowa, Minnesota
Northwestern (1) – Illinois
The only game out of the six that is instate is Indiana-Purdue and that can be kept intact by having it a fixed cross-divisional game with the two schools opting for a 6-1-2 setup.
After that, it really all depends on how long the B1G stays at 14 teams. If it’s just two years (2014/5), then I suspect you might be able to schedule all the rivalry games if the other schools are on a 6-3 setup. For those two seasons, the conference could have the following cross-divisional games (six total) and that would cover all 17 games in the list above when you include the games within the division.
Illinois – Indiana, Ohio State, TBD
Minnesota – Michigan, Penn State, TBD
Penn State – Minnesota, Nebraska, TBD
Indiana – Illinois, Purdue, 1 TBD
Michigan – Minnesota, 2 TBD
Ohio State – Illinois, 2 TBD
Nebraska – Penn State, 2 TBD
Purdue – Indiana, 2 TBD
Or you could expand the number of annual protected cross-divisional games (6-1-2) with these rivalry games in mind to this setup:
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Ohio State
Minnesota-Michigan
Nebraska-Penn State
That would leave the Illinois-Indiana and Minnesota-Penn State rivalry games as the only ones that aren’t accounted for at that point. The remaining teams that could have protected crossover games at that point would be Maryland, Rutgers, and Michigan State in the east along with Iowa, Wisconsin, and Northwestern in the west.
One other thing to add to all this is what sort of rivalries will emerge with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The RU AD has indicated that Penn State-Rutgers will be an immediate “must have” game and I suspect PSU-Maryland will be framed the same way. That’s also something to keep in mind when it comes to expansion and divisional alignments (but, of course, the revenue is the big driver anyways).
LikeLike
cutter,
“I do expect the B1G will do its best to maintain the school’s “must-have” rivalries. …
These include the following 17 matchups (from my counting). …
By schools, here are the number of conference rivalry games on that list:
Illinois (4) – Indiana*, Northwestern, Ohio State*, Purdue
Minnesota (4) – Iowa, Michigan*, Penn State*, Wisconsin
Penn State (4) – Michigan State, Minnesota*, Nebraska*, Ohio State
…
Northwestern (1) – Illinois
…
One other thing to add to all this is what sort of rivalries will emerge with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The RU AD has indicated that Penn State-Rutgers will be an immediate “must have” game and I suspect PSU-Maryland will be framed the same way.”
So add the 2 newbies and their 3 rivalries, and that’s 20. And that’s only the official ones, not the other fun ones like NW/IA that fans like. And note that PSU would have 6 rivalries, 2 more than anyone else (yes, I know nobody counts MN and most don’t count MSU either). At some point, perhaps PSU shouldn’t dictate half the B10 schedule.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70234/qa-rutgers-athletic-director-tim-pernetti
ESPN.com interviewed RU’s AD. Most of it was their usual fluff, but I found two things interesting:
“Penn State makes a natural rival right away, and Maryland is a potential one. What about other rivalries in the league and how they might develop?
TP: Rivalries, they’ve got to grow organically. I think sometimes fans and the media, with all due respect, they kind of push the rivalries. But if they don’t grow organically, its tough to sort of make them happen because you want to make them happen. When I played at Rutgers, Penn State was always a rival. It was a great game. We used to go there every year and play them and go back and forth. It was always something our fans looked forward to and it was always circled on our schedule. And I think that’s going to be great to have back on our docket on an annual basis, because our fans are accustomed to it. So that will be terrific. It will probably already be the No. 1 rivalry for us right now, before we even play a game in the league. That’s the way our fans look at it, that Penn State is always our top rival.”
I didn’t know RU took PSU that seriously, but it makes some sense.
“Finally, there’s been a lot of talk about the New York City market. Some see it as the Holy Grail. Others say that’s overrated because it is a pro sports town. With your TV background, what are your thoughts on what the Big Ten can gain by getting into that market?
TP: Well, I think the market is ripe for the taking. And while you do have a lot of distractions in the market with professional teams, we have proven especially as we have had more and more success in football — you know there are a lot of claims about who is the college team in New York — I just point people to the ratings over the last several years. Because they speak for themselves. The viewership that Rutgers has been able to deliver in the market, I think it’s indicative that there’s a college football audience that’s passionate and loves their college football in this market.
For years, when I worked in programming at ABC, I used to sit there and decide which games we were going to put on in which region. And there was never a great, ironclad blueprint for New York City. So we always just used to put the Big Ten on in New York, because it had the biggest following in the market, and it always delivered really solid numbers. So I think the market is definitely there for the taking. It’s just that we have to do a really good job as a conference of educating people, building the brand, creating events, and then I think we’ll have the ability to control it.”
Interesting view from a former TV guy. Hopefully he’s right and the B10 can capitalize.
LikeLike
I nominate that guy for next BT Commish when JD steps down…..he is one smart, enthusiastic sob….
LikeLike
As long as he’s at Rutgers, he’ll have a big enough say in how the Eastern markets are developed for the Big Ten given that they’re located in the NYC market.
LikeLike
Not realignment-related but definitely a big development in terms of how we watch college sports. Fox is going to rebrand Speed and Fuel, to be completely around August.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/21/Media/Fox-Sports-2.aspx
LikeLike
If one just looked at geography one would assume the Big 12 would have a hard time picking up quality programs. I’m fascinated with the fact that based on Big 10 and SEC standard and agreements that Big 12 may have a shot at some real gems. Because of AAU status and agreement that no duplicate state schools are added by the SEC, Florida State, Miami, and Clemson could be snatched by the BIG 12 if the ACC was in fact vulnerable.
That makes a great 3. What about number 14? If I were West Virginia I would be lobbying for arch rival Pitt and possibly other rivals Virginia Tech and Syracuse (though I doubt SEC would pass up Virginia Tech if they were available and I don’t see Syracuse getting an offer to make it 14). The Backyard Brawl would be a nice addition, though I wouldn’t say Pitt is a gem, it would restore West Virginia’s most important rival and renew a series that had gone uninterrupted since 1942 until this past season.
That would make a pretty impressive 14.
To get to 16, Virgina Tech and North Carolina State would be nice, but likely not available. I could see ESPN pushing for UConn. With nothing left in the SE (assuming SEC and Big 10 grab everything else) the best last option would be Boston College, Louisville, and Syracuse. Not terrible, but also not slam dunks. There is also BYU, but if you make a move on the East Coast BYU becomes a bit harder to deal with. I don’t see Cincinnati being taken over BC, Louisville or Syracuse, everyone else would likely be unthinkable.
Obviously this is ACC apocalypse talk.
LikeLike
In the ACC apocalype scenario, you’d have rats scurrying for the last lifeboat. If you get to the point where the Big 12 takes FSU, Miami and Clemson, it’s a tough call as to who they’d see as the most desirable #14. These things are hard to predict: remember, most people thought UConn would be the ACC’s Maryland replacement.
Honestly, I don’t see any evidence that ESPN is carrying UConn’s water bucket. The Huskies are going to have to do that for themselves. Given their relatively brief history in FBS, and the fact that even the ACC took a pass on them, I think they’re going to have a rocky road ahead of them.
The most favorable scenario for UConn, assuming the ACC (as we now know it) collapses, is that the more desirable schools get scooped up by the B1G/SEC/B12, and the ACC reforms as a combo of the former ACC schools the Big Leagues didn’t want (Wake Forest, BC, Syracuse), plus the better Big East schools.
LikeLike
WF, BC and Syracuse do not add value. Pittsburgh or Louisville only work if paired with a more valuable school. The B12 will stop before 16 if the B1G and SEC take 5+ schools.
LikeLike
If, as some suggest, the final outcome of realignment is 4 super conferences that depart the NCAA, I would love to see non-conference schedules determined by the new entity and not the schools to make some compelling match ups, and maybe some easier match ups determined by recent team records. If each conference had 16 teams it would be great to have each conference team play another from each of the other conferences creating 3 non conference match ups. I don’t know if each conference will be 16, it looks like the Big 10 would like 18, not sure who SEC would take to get to 18, and the Pac 10 doesn’t have many options at all. So the conferences may be uneven, maybe there will be trading… who knows.
Anyways, this is getting to my main thought. Talk on this board about division lineups with the Big 10 pivot on retaining historic rivalries. Through conference realignments many great rivalries have been lost due to teams changing conferences. If 4 super conferences left to create a new entity and they only played teams in the four conferences, lets say 4 non-conference games, 3 of which came from the other three conferences (as best they can) and the 4th game was a protected rivalry across conferences, maybe each team would have two teams that switched every two years.
So just for fun, what cross conference protected rivalries would you want for you team? This may be hard for some schools. Does Vanderbilt have rivals in other conferences? I have no idea.
As a Nebraska fan I would like to see
Nebraska v Oklahoma
then either
Nebraska v Colorado or Missouri.
LikeLike
I don’t think any school would like to put their entire schedule in the hands of a bunch of centralized bureaucrats.
Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri are all free now to schedule Nebraska (assuming Nebraska wants those games). The main constraint is that if a school is going to play 7 home games (which most want), there isn’t room on the schedule for opponents that demand a return trip.
LikeLike
There were articles last year that OU was interested in scheduling Nebraska, but Nebraska was already full for the next several years. They’ve now scheduled a game many years off.
I wouldn’t be surprised if each of those 3 schools were willing to schedule Nebraska. Each of them have good recruiting bases inside their own conferences. It will be interesting if Nebraska starts scheduling them regularly, or they try to stick to schools that might open up recruiting (like UCLA) now they’re in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@m (Ag) – Nebraska and Oklahoma’s series was set up to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the “Game of the Century.” It wouldn’t surprise me to see a series with another former Big 8 foe announced once Big Ten schedules settle down a bit.
LikeLike
Does Nebraska care about any other Big 8 foe? They had decades long win streaks against several of those. Nebraska fans never seemed to care a lot about CU. ISU seemed to upset them on occassion, but that wasn’t a rivalry to Nebraska.
LikeLike
@bullet – There is some desire among Nebraska fans for a series between Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, or Colorado.* I don’t see any objection from the Athletic Department on those schools, but outside of Oklahoma, they aren’t a priority to get done. I don’t see much fan or AD interest in the “State” schools at all. The best chance for those schools to end up on Nebraska’s schedule is a neutral site game in KC unless they agree to do a 2 for 1. I don’t see that happening as long as the “State” schools are in a major conference.
IMHO – If it will ever happen, Nebraska will play at a former Big 8 school in years Nebraska is scheduled to play at Maryland or Rutgers. That way Nebraska will still have a “national” schedule for recruiting purposes. I don’t think you will see Nebraska play a series with a former Big 8 foe more than once or twice a decade.
*My list of the most desired non-annual opponents by Nebraska fans: Oklahoma, Texas, Florida St, Miami, and Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Frank,
I don’t view it as a rejection; more like a wait and see.
“Multiple sources in the Big 12 told Orangebloods.com on Wednesday the Big Ten has tried to gauge the interest of Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia about possibly joining Maryland in the Big Ten. But the sources said those schools have indicated to the Big Ten thanks but no thanks – for now.”
—————————————————————————————
Ga Tech, UNC, UVa all know they have spots in the Big Ten; the Big Ten made that clear to those 3 schools, and my guess is that they told the Big Ten that they would prefer to stay in a stable ACC but would keep the Big Ten’s offer in mind if something drastic happened (FSU/Miami bolting for the Big 12).
LikeLike
The only way I see FSU going to the B12 is if they can bring a least three ACC partners with them. Same with the B1G. I don’t see UNC or even GT (on its island) going anywhere without a pod’s worth of partners.
LikeLike
I don’t think it was any coincidence that the GT athletic director named three specific schools:
“The Yellow Jackets’ goals — both athletically and academically — are aligned with conference rivals such as North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, he added.
That’s the company Georgia Tech belongs in,” Bobinski said.
LikeLike
Unless Delany has a darkhorse #18 we know nothing about, he’ll have to go with Duke when push comes to shove.
LikeLike
Will FSU try to rebuild the ACC (old BE) if it loses 6 of its best to the B1G/SEC? At that point FSU will take the invite even if the B12 is only adding 2 schools.
LikeLike
I should have said, they won’t move first without three partners. Clemson, Miami and FSU would surely go to the B12 if the ACC collapses.
LikeLike
The most interesting schools most difficult to add to the Big Ten (academics) and SEC (market overlap) are FSU, Miami and Clemson.
The schools easiest to add to the Big Ten (academics) are UNC, UVA, GTech and Duke
The schools the SEC are angling after are UNC and Duke, and the SEC know they have NC-State and VTech as a Plan B.
If the Big 12 needs a fourth from the ACC to get those three: who could it be? In the “Big Ten expands to 16” scenarios, likely VTech and/or NC State are available in a shakeout.
By contrast, if the Big 12 were to instigate it, they might have to go with Louisville as a 14th, as a team willing to make the move without big requirements as to who else goes along.
So the difference between moving first and moving second could well be FSU, Clemson, Miami, VTech versus FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville.
And if moving second means that the “Big 10=18” scenario takes place, and VTech and NC State are off the table, then Louisville is still available.
So the game theory suggests that the moving first strategy for the Big 12 could well be dominated by the get your ducks in a row then wait and see strategy.
What would push moving first out of the shadow of get the ducks in a row and wait strategy? FSU being perceived as coming into the frame for the Big Ten or SEC would change the game. FSU brings everything that the Big 12 needs in an expansion: market, recruiting grounds, and a marquee football name in Eastern media markets.
OTOH, if FSU thought it was coming into the frame for the Big Ten or SEC, would it perhaps adopt a wait and see on any Big12 invite? The same thing that could shake the Big12 into a more aggressive play might also shift FSU away from any quick acceptance of a Big12 invite.
LikeLike
@zeek, and UNC and Duke know they have spots in the SEC if they want them. I think if UNC listens to their fans, they’ll join the SEC. If the academics get their way, they’ll likely go to the B1G. We’ll see which side wins, or if they stay in the ACC and decide to make a third as much money.
LikeLike
I agree, I think UNC-Duke will be the schools that have a choice to make among the two.
Their value as a pair to any TV package (cable and hoops) is huge.
LikeLike
Big East TV deal:
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4881
why tulsa?
If I’m thinking like a minor league football executive,
Where did the USFL, CFL, and UFL have teams which don’t
compete with the NFL or BCS teams?
I guess Tulsa was one of those places.
also,
San Antonio
Norfolk/Virginia Beach
Sacramento
Birmingham
If I’m the bigEast, I’d have a tentative long term plan of
UMass, OldDominion, UTSA (FB only),
and try to take the Atlantic coast away from the ACC.
The grouping of: UMass, UConn, Temple, Navy,
OldDominion, EastCarolina has some potential
to create of regional interest and rivalries.
LikeLike
Lead investigator in the tainted Haith investigation was a Kansas alum.
http://www.stltoday.com/print/sports-section/burwell-where-does-haith-go-to-get-his-reputation-back/article_68fd4eaf-9b81-5cc7-a828-04424cd27503.html
LikeLike
Interesting news that WVU will make $4mm a year more for its IMG media rights deal (which includes their Tier 3 fb/bb game rights) than a comparable ACC school NC State makes for theirs (which includes no fb/bbgame rights because of the bad ACC deal).
At what point does $3mm a year on the base TV contract, at least $4mm a year on the media rights deal, $1-2mm on your anchor BCS bowl (Orange v Champs) payout start adding to up a real difference for the FSUs and Clemsons of the world?
http://wvmetronews.com/how-imgs-third-tier-deal-impacts-wvu/
LikeLike
I don’t understand your math to find a $4mm a year difference.
NCSU is receiving $4.9mm a year. New WVU deal could range from $6.25mm to $10mm, we’ll see what it actually pays. Also note that its two years longer, tacking on two years that have a decade of inflation built in, which tips the AAV scales.
Also, it seems to me that WVU is a hotter property that NCSU with their fans. These deals include all radio rights, which would seemingly be a lot more valuable to WVU.
LikeLike
According to this WVU newspaper the WVU deal is $9mm per year.
http://dailymail.com/News/breakingnews/201301240050
LikeLike
Longhorn boards are having one because of The Dude:
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
The Big 12 knows what’s going on and will talk expansion. They have at least 2 ACC schools that have told them yes.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
If I were UVA & GT and I had made the decision to leave I would wait until the court ruled on the ACC’s practice of withholding funds.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
My Big 10 sources continue to say that at least UVA is days away from announcing their intention to leave the ACC.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
Once the courts rule on UMD’s lawsuit or give an indication of the direction of the lawsuit both should move.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
UVA, and especially GT, cannot afford 2 years in the ACC without receiving TV revenues.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
What may delay them is the ACC’s practice of withholding disbursements until the exit fee is paid.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
The exit fee is not delaying UVA or GT.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
Neither UVA or GT has told the Big 10 no. UVA would not have completed the process only to tell Delany no.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
At least UVA has completed the necessary steps to receive a Big 10 invitation. UVA has meet with the Big 10 within the last 30 days.
Expand
3h The Dude of WV @theDudeofWV
Expansion update coming tomorrow. Chip Brown and I mostly agree except for a few major differences.
LikeLike
The Dude’s informant is a second cousin of Te’o’s ex.
LikeLike
“Chip Brown and I mostly agree except for a few major differences.”
This is where I wonder whether The Dude has impeccable sources and he just mangles the information because he doesn’t understand carefully phrased statements. If there are “a few major differences”, then you don’t “mostly agree”, you “agree on several points, but with a few major differences”.
LikeLike
I think he has some connections somewhere. But I don’t think he understands this stuff real well and he’s realized he’s been used a few times. He’s not good at separating the wheat from the chaff. And even with good sources, those people are interpreting what they have heard.
LikeLike
As an example, memory triggered by Andy’s comment, he said for months that noone would move until the playoff format & distribution was finalized. Suddenly in June, he gave a date a couple weeks away, before the playoff format & distribution was finalized. Note that Maryland moved to the Big 10 not long after the playoff $ distribution was settled.
LikeLike
@bullet – that’s not going too far out on a limb. That’s good business sense. I don’t think he was the only one saying that either.
LikeLike
My point is that he said that for months and then he got some new information and suddenly ignored that and said it was all happening in two weeks.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I put the Dude with a few others including Greg Swain in the category of probably just making things up.
LikeLike
If you tell people what they want to hear they’re inclined to believe you. Some people will even believe a 20 something year old man is really a girl who they are in love with. For some reason some people relish in leading people on like that.
LikeLike
Why, after being proven wrong a hundred times by now on all of these very specific and ever changing predictions he’s making, does TheDude still expect us to believe him?
LikeLike
@Andy
Because the Dude is an optimist? ;-o)
LikeLike
Its the Internets. Just make the claim with confidence and the ring of authority. There’s always new suckers.
LikeLike
Are there any FSU people on this board who knows what’s happening with the football program? I see a fourth coach has left the program, this one a top recruiter.
LikeLike
That one left a mark.
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/01/politi_big_ten_network.html#incart_river
I found this very funny. Reporter named Steve Politi watched the BTN for 24 hours. Anecdotally (sp?) relevant to whether the BTN will be able to get $0.90 per subscriber from the NJ cable provider(s). Apparently, the BTN is on the basic tier for Politi, but no information on how much the BTN gets. I think we can assume it is in the 10 cents range as has been reported.
LikeLike
oh, hat tip to Rittenberg in his lunchtime links column. http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70314/big-ten-lunch-links-692
LikeLike
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/jj-abrams-set-direct-next-star-wars-film-exclusive-74596
JJ Abrams will direct Star Wars Episode VII.
It makes sense given that Abrams has a history in sci-fi, but I’m surprised he would take this gig given that
A. He already has Star Trek
B. He turned down an offer Star Wars last year
LikeLike
CONFERENCE WARS
Episode I The evil empire devours a whole Commonwealth.
Episode II The trade union attacks in two different places.
Episode III The force (also known as Bob Bullock) directs Raiders and Baptists to a new coalition.
Episode IV The evil empire and the empire of the west jointly attack the new coalition destabilizing it, before a new force (AKA Fox) saves the wobbling coalition.
Episode V The trade union and the empire of the west make another attack on the new coalition. The empire of the west is thrown back in confusion despite their expanding trade in mind altering drugs in the land of the huskies and buffalos, but the trade union expands its territory. Meanwhile the eastern alliance deals devastating blows to the northern alliance.
Episode VI The evil empire deals a deathly blow to the northern alliance and a surprising blow to the eastern alliance. We’re now at intermission.
LikeLike
I’d have given it to Nolan. That Batman trilogy was epic.
LikeLike
I’m a HUGE Chris Nolan fan, but that never would have worked. Nolan likes complete creative control (which Disney wouldn’t give him) and its hard to see him directing a screenplay written by someone else (he did it only once 10 years). Plus, I doubt Nolan wants to make a sequel to a movie he didn’t direct. Remember, when he made Batman Begins he insisted on starting over completely from scratch. No connection at all to the previous films.
Also, Nolan’s movies are just tonally different from Star Wars. He doesn’t make escapist entertainment. Even his sci-fi(ish) movies like The Prestige, Inception and The Dark Knight trilogy are set in as “real world” setting as possible.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70328/neutral-site-league-games-in-b1g-future
Gene Smith throws out the idea of playing more neutral site conference games if the B10 goes to 9 games. The idea is everybody makes more money if MI/RU is played at MetLife (82,500 vs 53,000) or if PSU/MD is played at FedEx (91,700 vs 54,000). He also mentioned Chicago, Detroit and Indy as possible sites.
It’s unlikely the big stadium schools (OSU, PSU, MI, NE) would drop a home game for it, but it might benefit the smaller stadium schools to do it once every 3-5 years.
LikeLike
Maryland has played Navy at M&T Bank Stadium and the place sold out (71,000). It is a nicer stadium than FEDEX and has easier egress to north, south, east and west. FEDEX is a parking lot for hours on end. The NCAA has been considering M&T Bank as the “home” of the NCAA Lacrosse Finals. It gets a very good draw.
LikeLike
Long, but we’re in a news lull…
I was playing around with four 4-team pods, assuming the Big 10 adds Virginia and North Carolina, and I noticed there isn’t perfect arrangement. You always end up with competitive balance issues (such as two kings in one pod) and breaking up geographical rivalries and cohesion (such as Penn St remaining in a central instead of eastern pod or breaking up the new eastern block.)
So you can call it over-complicated, but I devised a 16-team system that employs a 9-game schedule and has the following desirable attributes:
(1) Conference Unity – Teams face each other either every season, once every two seasons, or two times every five seasons, and the frequency decreases in direct correlation to geographic and historical importance.
(2) Geographic Balance – All five eastern schools play each other every year, as do five western schools.
(3) Competitive Balance – Each division always has two kings, and divisions are always by-and-large balanced all the way through.
(4) Rivalry Maintenance – All major rivalry games are played every season except the Illinois v. Northwestern game and the already-scrapped Michigan v. Minnesota game, which are played every other year.
The system has four groupings of teams. The first two groups are the five permanent members of the East Division and five permanent members of the West Division. The remaining central teams are then split into two pods. These two pods switch between divisions every year.
Each division plays a round robin schedule every year, accounting for seven games. The final two games depend on whether you’re an east/west or a central team. Permanent east/west teams rotate their final two games against the five permanent teams in the other division. Central teams have one protected game against a team from the other central pod, and their final game is alternated between the remaining two teams in the other central pod.
Below are the proposed groupings with any protected games in parenthesis. Note the reasonable competitive balance between the East Division and West Division, as well as the central pods, leading to overall divisional competitive balance. Also, Illinois is placed in the West Division while Northwestern is considered a central school in order for more eastern teams to visit Chicago.
EAST DIVISION
Penn St
Virginia
Maryland
North Carolina
Rutgers
CENTRAL POD A
Ohio St (Michigan)
Northwestern (Michigan St)
Purdue (Indiana)
CENTRAL POD B
Michigan (Ohio St)
Michigan St (Northwestern)
Indiana (Purdue)
WEST DIVISION
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Minnesota
To illustrate a east/west team’s schedule, Wisconsin would end up playing all its Western rivals every season, the six other traditional Big 10 teams every other year, and two games against the eastern members (four newbies plus Penn St) per season. They would also face two kings each season.
Ohio St would play Michigan, Northwestern, and Purdue every season, and they would alternate their remaining six games between the other 12 teams. They would also face two kings each season.
Lastly, if you wanted to increase the number of king-v-king games, you could protect one game between the East Division and the West Division teams as well, matching up Nebraska with Penn St each season instead of just 40% of the time. Then you would have 4 king-v-king games per season instead of 3.4, but some east/west matchups would decrease to once every four years.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Sam B,
I think NW and IL would complain. Within your plan, I’d swap IL and NW. The western schools need the Chicago access, IL isn’t a rival of any of the western 5 while NW is, and IL/OSU is a bigger rivalry than NW has in the central group.
LikeLike
One assumption seems safe to me:
UNC is the #1 choice for both the Big Ten and SEC right now. For the Big Ten, the preferred pairing option may end up being UVa and for the SEC it may end up being Duke. The Big Ten may end up having to go to 18 if UNC does want to go to the Big Ten in order to give UNC a full cohort of schools including Duke and Georgia Tech alongside UNC/UVa.
LikeLike
My concern is about the very open possibility of a tacit cooperation between the SEC and Big XII. Never underestimate the pull of cultural affinity. The Big Ten may face the possibility of ending up with zero or one more add and then it becomes a question of do they have to get one school in the NE to get to 16.
LikeLike
IMO, the SEC could really screw over the BIG if they manage to get UNC and VA, or, to a lesser extent, UNC and Duke.
If the SEC adds UNC and Duke and the BIG adds VA and GT….big win for the SEC…..and the last 4 schools added to the BIG, while all good schools and good fits, would include no fball or bball kings……
LikeLike
Pingback: A TV Network Killed the Big East (and It’s Not the One in Bristol) « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Back Home: Big Ten Division Thoughts and Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Top News Stories Acc Approves Grant Of Media Rights Until 2027 Gant Daily | Top News Stories