Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby came out of a meeting with his conference’s athletic directors on Monday with some standard general non-news about any possible expansion plans. However, he reinforced some reports that the Big 12 was evaluating alliances with different conferences, including the ACC. Why would the Big 12 openly suggest an alliance with a conference that many believe would be the primary target for a raid?
People that relish in ACC Armageddon rumors point out that proposed alliances have led to raids in the past, such as the old Big 8 and Southwest Conference discussing that scenario (and the Big 8 subsequently taking Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor from the SWC) and the Big East and ACC exploring the same (leading to the ACC in a decade-long bludgeoning of the Big East). The ACC Armageddonistas surmise that the Big 12 is following the same playbook of luring Jim Swofford to hand over sensitive conference information in “alliance talks” and then stab them in the back in a few months with a raid. Of course, that assumes that ACC schools want to join the Big 12.
Certainly, there’s a chance that the leadership of the Big 12 is leveraging the prospect of an alliance publicly while engaging on a reconnaissance mission behind closed doors to poach the likes of Florida State or Clemson. More likely, though, is that the Big 12 can’t expand with anyone that they deem worth having (according to Bowlsby, schools that would be worth in excess of $26.2 million per year each in additional revenue) on their own. The Big 12 is in a position where it can’t be “proactive” – a school such as Florida State isn’t going to be open to the Big 12’s overtures without the Big Ten and SEC first (a) confirming that neither wants to invite the Seminoles themselves and (b) raiding other ACC members to the point where staying in the league would be unpalatable.
As a result, the Big 12 can’t be the first mover here no matter how much their fans may want them to be. That’s why the news out of that conference over the past month has been about alliances with the ACC and finding ways to change NCAA rules so that they can hold a conference championship game with only 10 teams. The University of Texas might have leverage with other conferences as an individual school, but the Big 12 as an overall entity has much less leverage than what many conference realignment observers seem to believe.
The dilemma is that the ACC schools that the Big Ten and SEC most likely want in expansion happen to be the ones that are least likely to move. I’m often accused of having Big Ten bias as an Illinois alum (by the way, the least 3 weeks of the basketball season have been excruciating), but I’ve been pretty consistent over the past couple of years in stating that Jim Delany doesn’t have complete poaching power over everyone in the ACC. Virginia and North Carolina are the real potential prizes for the Big Ten and it’s probably the same for the SEC. (Football-focused fans often see Virginia Tech and North Carolina State as the most likely targets for the SEC out of the current ACC membership, but make no mistake that UNC and UVA are ultimately the most valuable additions as old money academically elite flagship institutions.) The problem is that neither UNC nor UVA really fit well in either the Big Ten or SEC – they are too Southern to be really desire being in the Northern-based Big Ten and too wine-and-cheese to enjoy being in the SEC. There is also a large split between the academically-minded leaders of these institutions that would prefer the Big Ten while T-shirt fans would want the SEC. The ACC provides the balance of being Southern and the perception of having an academically-oriented league (never mind the fake grades for athletes in Chapel Hill) that schools can’t find anywhere else, which will make it very hard for either UNC or UVA to leave. (Count Georgia Tech and even Florida State in that equation, too.) In essence, UNC and UVA are to the ACC what Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12: the league lives as long as both of those are schools are still there (and those schools know it).
So, that’s where I see the threats of the ACC becoming completely coming apart end up failing. UNC, in particular, has Texas-esque influence (even if it’s more perceived than real) in the ACC, and the actions of Deloss Dodds and the Longhorns have shown that power and big dog status can be even more important as making the most TV money from a conference. (Notre Dame feels the same way.) As a result, the thought that UNC and UVA are going to bolt because they are scared that the ACC will collapse doesn’t hold water with me. Those 2 schools can keep the ACC together alone and they have enough powerful alums with massive pocketbooks and politicians backing them where getting more TV revenue isn’t going to carry the same weight with them as it did with Maryland.
Now, once again, I can never say never in conference realignment. Maybe Jim Delany’s projected revenue figures for a Big 16 or Big 18 are so outrageous that he can put the smackdown on the ACC more than I’m giving the Big Ten credit for. Maybe Mike Slive is freaked out enough about the thought of either the Big Ten or Big 12 getting into the state of Florida by adding Florida State that the SEC would take the Noles in an act of self-defense. In either event, it’s really up to the Big Ten or SEC to make a move. The Big 12 would then have to hope that some other valuable pieces would fall their way. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, but the speculation will continue.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Atlantic Coast Conversation)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
#3 Iowa hosts #1 PSU, Friday night, 8pm, BTN.
LikeLike
That will be a great match!
LikeLike
#3 Iowa 22, #1 PSU 16 in front of 15,077 at Carver-Hawkeye Arena. Fun night, hopefully we can repeat the success in the B1G and national tourneys.
LikeLike
Great match. BTN should show more wrestling, especially at Iowa. Few others can match the atmosphere.
LikeLike
Can’t disagree with anything you wrote Frank. I guess there’s just a feeling out there that 14 teams in a conference seems awkward.
LikeLike
14 IS awkward ~ and for static divisions, 16 and 18 is awkwarder.
For two static divisions, 12 schools without locked cross-overs is the smoothest option, followed by 12 schools with locked crossovers.
Pod fans will point out the elegance possible with 4, 4-school pods without locked crossovers, but if you thought Legends and Leaders causes complaints among T-shirt fans, wait until they get their first taste of a conference using pods. Until the NCAA allows confernece elimination semi-finals, which opens up four static divisions and three static divisions with a wild card, the most feasible alternative to two static divisions is two anchor groups and two swing groups, for which in the Big 10’s case, 14 is better than 16 or 18, because the frequency of schools in the two anhor groups and in the two swing groups seeing each other is higher.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
I think the significant conference distribution differences will likely force UVA and UNC to make a move. They may not want to move but they’ll have no choice. Their alums will demand that they be competitive nationally and the academics certainly don’t want to fund athletics through the general fund or student fees.
LikeLike
But it could take a while for the revenue gap to grow to the point that the ACC schools would be put at a true disadvantage. UNC & UVA may try to hold out as long as they possible can, which could be 10 years from now as far as we know.
LikeLike
In addition, most of the ACC schools aren’t football schools. They’ll accept being bowl eligible every year on a smaller budget. Boise does just fine on a pittance, and most ACC schools would love to be as good as Boise in FB. The issue would have to be with Miami, FSU, Clemson or GT, I’d think. The NC and VA schools are happy in the ACC and those farther north lack options.
LikeLike
This is what underlays the 4-school raid scenario. (1) The SEC gets a firm “not even if you are the last FBS conference left on this earth” answer from UNC and UVA, and goes from some combination of FSU, Clemson, NC State and VTech. (2) That plus evolving conference payouts is enough to swing UVA and GTech on the Big Ten. (3) UNC and Duke determine that swapping the four football schools that have left with UConn and UC is good enough, and stand pat there.
Remember that there are two things that can shift the conference realignment landscape in the decade ahead. (1) Basketball gets a substantially smaller share of college basketball TV revenue than football gets for college football TV revenue. If an effort to hold onto the goose that lays the golden eggs requires the NCAA to make concessions on what share of NCAA BBall tournament net revenues that go to participants, that could shift a bit, and that would obviously rebound to the benefit of the ACC. (2) College sports are getting a slice of the sports slice of TV advertising revenue. The sports slice of TV advertising revenues has been growing much faster than the total amount spent on TV advertising has been dropping (in real terms). Growth based on a growing share of a shrinking pie cannot go on indefinitely, so projections of future conference revenues based on the last decade or two of growth may be over-estimating future opportunities for growth. Its a lot easier for a conference at a payout disadvantage to stand pat if it assumes that the difference is going to be stable going ahead, rather than continuing to grow ever larger.
LikeLike
Reminds of ohhhh…2 years ago, when the Pac contract (sired by Hanson) was horrific in comparison to the rest of the BSC conferences. Primary difference is that Pac schools for all intensive purposes have no where to go (geographically). ACC has some options.
Does give me some pause to think though….If 20 is end game for B1G (and who knows if it is or isn’t), and the SEC keeps pace by dividing up ACC. Wonder if alliance would not be coming by way of Big VII and Pac 12 combining in some way….as they would be the lesser (at east in size) of last remaining power conferences.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
MHVer3 with an update from the Big 12 meetings:
Tuesday update!!
Stuff happened and people talked.
Ok ok here it is for real
-2 conditional offers made today
-Miami and FSU
-both have until June 30th to decide but it’s conditional on both schools acceptance.
-TX schools want no more than 12 for now but still think 10 is ideal.
-also formed a committee to explore and negotiate an alliance with one of the other BCS conferences that will report their findings on, get this, June 30th.
-B12 sees that there is real momentum for 20 team leagues with fox even letting us know that it’s something they would definitely be interested in financing.
-talks of this alliance have many ACC schools excited and even served as a catalyst for UNC to cool on SEC talks. UNC wants to keep their little band together and with the alliance seeming to be a way to placate the football schools SOS concerns, UNC now hoping for a GOR.
-I’m told UVA also has already verbally accepted a BIG offer but nothing will be public until number 16 can be decided upon.
-alliance wont end B10 expansion but the talks of one can certainly slow things down to a grind and give Bowlsby a chance to work on securing defections under the guise of negotiating this alliance…or back up plan C: Merger/takeover of ACC.
A lot still in the air but wow are things getting crazy!
I’ll post some more on this later tonight on Twitter.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the ‘alliance’ will entail?
LikeLike
Big Jim just called me and confirmed all of this.
LikeLike
Is this why the penn state – UVA game was cancelled? (2014?) I wonder…..
LikeLike
Also this
LikeLike
I said also because my attempts to post a link to the Scout message board this guy posts to keeps getting lost in comment land. If you Google MHver3 it will pop right up.
Between this guy and the Dude I’m starting to suspect that fracking really is having an effect on the water in WV.
LikeLike
Hmm. Hope Hopkins didn’t turn down the B10 in lacrosse. . .
LikeLike
I’m afraid they may have. They are on TV more than 10 times a year as it is, so the Big Ten Network is just not the temptation that it would be for any but 3 schools (including Maryland among that three).
Or Iowa and Nebraska insisted that Kansas be included on the long list, and as a courtesy to them Delany asked Kansas, informing them in no uncertain terms that it was as a pair to an eastern school and no way, no how was Kansas State coming along for the ride.
Kansas would then say no, and Delany would pop open a nice craft brew that evening to celebrate Kansas being scratched off the long list.
LikeLike
What would be the problem with ESPN retaining the “LAX tier one rights” and BTN supplementing it as it does with other sports? They could chose have biding for the other B1G games now, or wait until contract expires.
LikeLike
So you’re saying Kansas, who publicly said they’re not tethered to Kansas State in any way way back in 2009 and was/is flirting with the Big East, of all conferences, would turn down a B1G invite?
Crack is whack, yo.
LikeLike
@Matt
All Kansas said is they aren’t legally required to be in the same conference as KSU.
And guess what, V-Tech and Baylor weren’t legally obligated to be in the same conference as Virginia and Texas and look what happened.
LikeLike
St. Mary’s College in South Bend?
LikeLike
Well, that’s a load of shit. He won’t say who it is, and the no league would run the legal risk of poaching a school without some interest on the school’s part.
LikeLike
What legal risk? “My Conference has authorized me to open talks with you.” “Thanks for thinking of us, but we’re not interested.”
The “my conference has authorized me” is in the public record, after all.
LikeLike
Hint: You’re an idiot.
LikeLike
Appreciate the info! What’s your twitter name?
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Why do you keep posting this like a derp?
LikeLike
Like many people, he makes a short comment so he can check the “Notify me of” box to be kept up to date via email.
Why don’t you know that?
LikeLike
“Wise Owl” should change his moniker to M*therF*c*ingAngryOwl.
LikeLike
No, you’re a derp!
LikeLike
Wise Owl – Here’s a helpful hint. Why don’t you try to figure out how this blog works before you start making smartass comments.
LikeLike
Go Bucks!
LikeLike
Ditto.
LikeLike
I think you’ve hit on the point why the ACC might survive this. UVA and UNC really don’t want to move and the SEC and B1G want those two schools. I don’t see any way UNC moves first. Maybe the B1G projections are good enough to get UVA to move. If so, I think the ACC falls apart quickly. But I’m also inclined to believe UVA doesn’t move first.
FSU holds the key. Is the $ advantage of the Big 12 enough to get them to be a first mover? I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t decided that yet. But there’s no reason for them to be in a hurry. They can sit back and see what the SEC TV deal ends up looking like and see if the SEC or B1G is interested in them.
LikeLike
Did any reporters ever answer your questions from the last post?
LikeLike
@ Frank. thanks for the new post. we need one about every 700-1000 comments. LOL
I will chime in with this thought: the AAU schools available to the B1G are; UNC, Duke, Virginia, GaTech & Pitt. Some have persuasively argued that FSU is an addition worthy of an exception to the rule that a new member must be an AAU member.
Personally, I think the B1G wants to expand and will expand with the best schools that are willing to come aboard. UNC is not required for the B1G to expand; neither is UVa.
I disagree that the Texas example is relevant here because Texas (along with OKLA) is/was able to keep the BXII’s TV contract competitive (relatively speaking) with the B1G and SEC.
By contrast, UNC (even with Duke) cannot do that for the football members of the ACC. Put another way, the ACC has the Big East’s problem which is that football schools are being weighed down and drowned by basketball schools. Basketball doesn’t have enough power to pull in B1G or SEC money. This makes the ACC vulnerable to having its football “powers” raided.
I agree that the ACC will survive, if only as a Bball conference and a weak football conference.
LikeLike
I disagree that the Texas example is relevant here because Texas (along with OKLA) is/was able to keep the BXII’s TV contract competitive (relatively speaking) with the B1G and SEC.
By contrast, UNC (even with Duke) cannot do that for the football members of the ACC. Put another way, the ACC has the Big East’s problem which is that football schools are being weighed down and drowned by basketball schools. Basketball doesn’t have enough power to pull in B1G or SEC money. This makes the ACC vulnerable to having its football “powers” raided.
I agree that the ACC will survive, if only as a Bball conference and a weak football conference.
How much more impotent must the ACC get as a football conference until UNC and Duke change their minds about joining the Big Ten? I agree the ACC’s problem is the same the Big East faced, but as was the case for the Big East, ACC members (the North Carolina “big four,” at least) have this delusion that hallowed basketball can save the day. Sorry, folks, it can’t; get with it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the B12 contract is an accurate valuation of their individual content worth. It may be…or it may be that the maintaining the payout in spite of losing 1/3 of the conference, plus the LHN, was an overt move to prevent the onset of super conferences, or at least delay it. It succeeded in the latter, but not the former. Could the ACC have pulled an inflated contract had they been the first roadblock to super conferences? Probably.
LikeLike
Its not certain that any network is against superconferences as a general concept, but any would prefer to be on the inside looking out as opposed to the outside looking in. The Big12 Contract and Grant of Right makes the BigThree plus ESPN’s ACC as the four Superconferences much less likely. If the Five Majors collapse into Four Majors in the current decade (whether superconferences or a mix of superconferences and merely biggish conferences), Fox has at least some sort of insider position in three out of four, as the Big12 network, the Pac-12 co-network and the Big Ten’s partner in the Big Ten network.
LikeLike
I totally agree. I also don’t think ESPN, Fox, etc are either schools or conferences. I understand taking into consideration what value media entities would place on specific arrangements, but their motivation is not to maximize the schools positions. ESPN and Fox blocked an arrangement that arguably would have brought the kind of numbers we are talking about for the next B1G contract a few years earlier to the P16. The short term interest of an unamed school served to reduce the longer term costs for ESPN, Fox, etc. and the payments to all the other schools.
LikeLike
I don’t think this article was posted (sorry if it was), but it’s about West Virginia’s upcoming 3rd-tier deal with IMG. Doesn’t have the final dollar amount, but it lists everything IMG is purchasing and includes the value of some other schools’ 3rd-tier package.
Every so often people ask what’s in these deals, and this does a good job of going over that:
http://wvmetronews.com/how-imgs-third-tier-deal-impacts-wvu/
LikeLike
Final $ amount per the local paper was average of $9 million a year over 12 years.
LikeLike
Hopkins to the B1G for lacrosse only? I thought we’d never see something like this.
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/01/17/hopkins-draft
LikeLike
Seems nutty.
LikeLike
Only seems nutty if we keep insisting that this is only about football, instead of the CIC plus other considerations, including football in a major way. Bringing in Hopkins for lacrosse is a pretty cheap date to get at an additional Billion Dollars in research funds.
JHU is unique in a way that simply won’t be replaced elsewhere. It’s not cherry picking; it’s making another move consistent with the overall goals of the B1G. Some of us on this board have been advocating such for years.
LikeLike
Or they could just offer them membership in CIC without the Big Ten.
LikeLike
JHU actually helps solidify that entire DMV corridor. Lacrosse is pretty big there. Plus, I wouldn’t think we’d want such a valuable commodity elsewhere if we were affiliated. That’s kind of been the point of creating the B1G’s hockey and LAX leagues, right?
LikeLike
Plus, I wouldn’t think we’d want such a valuable commodity elsewhere if we were affiliated. That’s kind of been the point of creating the B1G’s hockey and LAX leagues, right?
Then why not grab BU and ND for hockey?
LikeLike
I’m fine with BU if they drop their other sports down to DivIII.
As for UND, they just don’t cut it academically (and don’t exactly address demographic issues). Might as well propose WVU for the B10.
LikeLike
LAX placates academics, because it really is student-athletes, it provides spring filler that keeps moving (why ESPNU signed its deal with John Hopkins) and its got a small but devoted following in exactly the east coast markets the BTN wants to move into. And a women’s Big Ten championship is almost sure to be starting, since Rutgers and MD makes six.
Seems most plausible as a lacrosse-only conference, retaining the ESPNU contract for Johns Hopkins home games and BTN picking up rights to the five schools that are Big Ten members.
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – Sweet that it looks like the Big Ten is actually considering this. Johns Hopkins is a unique situation with lacrosse being its only Division I sport.
LikeLike
And a major add for the CIC, if they go that route.
LikeLike
Yep. Still seems nutty.
LikeLike
Do you know how many Hopkins faculty are on NIH Review Boards or members of the National Academy of Science? This move is brilliant! If Hopkins comes they help form a lacrosse league and get into the CIC and will definitely deliver eyeballs in lacrosse. And Hopkins has an International reputation. Hopkins hospital fell to second this year after riding number one for I don’t know how long. They have alums everywhere.
LikeLike
I hate the concept of associate members. Heck, instead of having Penn State fielding an ice hockey team, the Big Ten could have added RPI or Clarkson, both excellent engineering schools with Div I hockey.
LikeLike
RPI’s a fine school, but neither are AAU.
LikeLike
I don’t really think of this as an associate member. This isn’t having Notre Dame join for ice hockey only. To me, the spin would be that this is the CIC adding another Chicago and allowing that school to have their (only) two Div 1 sports play in the Big Ten. If U of Chicago decided to “play up” to Division 1 in, say, men’s and women’s soccer, would anyone be surprised if the Big Ten allowed them to be Big Ten members in that sport? It could go either way, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Granted that’s a completely hypothetical scenario.
LikeLike
Yes….but the OSU chick seems to say associate membership could happen in other sports as well……given only 6 BIG hockey programs, how about Miami OH?
LikeLike
Not AAU. Maybe NYU should start a hockey program.
LikeLike
I really hope the Big Ten doesn’t do this.
Partial membership is just a bad idea in principle.
LikeLike
Agreed. A certain catholic school in Indiana will be all over this one.
LikeLike
That was a first thought I had. Would the B1G take ND for hockey?
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
They can’t. You’re not allowed to join two conferences that compete in the same sport and division.
LikeLike
“No” aka I hope not.
And I like ND. But I’m a no deals like that kind of guy.
If the B10 did this, they may as well start really cherry picking, take Toronto & McGill for Hockey, JH for Lacrosse, some other prestigious school for ping pong, etc.
LikeLike
@jj “…some other prestigious school for ping pong, etc.”
RICE BASEBALL!
LikeLike
“definitely”
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – No, at least now that the Big Ten has its own hockey league. Adding Johns Hopkins provides a way for the Big Ten to form a lacrosse league with an auto-bid for the NCAA Tournament (Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Michigan). Like I’ve said, I’m not quite as bothered by this since lacrosse is the sole Division I sport at Johns Hopkins, so this isn’t a matter where they’re sending basketball and their other sports to the ACC.
LikeLike
No. We’d take ND as an affiliate member in football, though.
LikeLike
@Richard
I doubt it.
LikeLike
Loki:
Would Rice drop their other sports besides baseball down to DivIII?
It may improve the school, actually. . .
LikeLike
frug:
I wouldn’t if ND was willing to drop their other sports down to DivIII (not happening, anyway).
LikeLike
@Richard Would Rice drop their other sports besides baseball down to DivIII?
I would in a heartbeat. Tear down the football stadium and build a med school.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@loki_the_bubba – No, at least now that the Big Ten has its own hockey league. Adding Johns Hopkins provides a way for the Big Ten to form a lacrosse league with an auto-bid for the NCAA Tournament (Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Michigan).”
UVA plays lacrosse. UNC plays lacrosse. Why add JH if you think you’ll add one of them?
LikeLike
Brian and frug make a good point. Is the prospect of the Big Ten adding Johns Hopkins for lacrosse an indicator that there aren’t any imminent plans to add UVA and/or UNC (as both have elite lacrosse programs)?
LikeLike
. . Or just a BTN strategy for MD (and/or a CIC strategy).
Certainly, I don’t think that the B10 can plan on definitely adding UVa and UNC.
LikeLike
@metatron – Since the ACC doesn’t sponsor Hockey it’s my understanding that ND could join the Big Ten in Hockey only. It’s a similar situation to Boise St. wrestling in the PAC12.
LikeLike
Before Katrina, Tulane seriously considered dropping down to D-III.
LikeLike
@mike – Could be. It was my impression that you can’t play in another conference if yours already sponsors it. It’s independence or death.
How that works with affiliate members, I have no idea.
LikeLike
Metatron:
That’s what the NCAA allows. Missouri wrestling has landed in the MAC since the SEC doesn’t sponsor.
LikeLike
@frug – I think that it’s an important distinction that lacrosse is the only Division I sport that Johns Hopkins has, though. It’s not quite the same as, say, Notre Dame joining the hockey league (since all Irish sports teams are at the Division I level and have chosen to be in another conference).
LikeLike
I still think it’s a mistake. Big 10 has always been all in. Rationalizing the situation doesn’t make it any better.
LikeLike
Sure, I understand what you’re saying. I just see it as a very unique situation. Plus, the academics credentials are off the charts, so the presidents are likely looking at Johns Hopkins as a potential University of Chicago-esque addition to the CIC.
LikeLike
Hopkins would be all-in. Their other sports would be treated roughly the same way by the B10 as Illinois (club) hockey.
LikeLike
@Richard – Yes, that’s exactly how I’m looking at it. Johns Hopkins is contributing “all” of its top level sports to the Big Ten just like everyone else. It just happens to be that they only play one top level sport.
LikeLike
@ richard. that’s a good point actually.
LikeLike
@Richard
They couldn’t be a full member. The Big Ten requires members to compete in a minimum number of sports.
LikeLike
Hopkins would be Chicago +1.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
Everyone keeps assuming JH would also join the CIC. Would you be as positive if it was lacrosse only?
LikeLike
@Brian – I don’t think it’s an automatic assumption, but it’s also hard to see why the Big Ten presidents would object to it. That group may really want that association.
LikeLike
Frank,
You are, however, assuming that JHU wants it. Maybe they just want a home for lacrosse and don’t want to be tied down by the CIC in case they want to move again in the future.
LikeLike
Also, if the COP/C was looking for CIC members, why haven’t they added Carnegie Mellon and CWRU (2 AAU schools in the footprint)?
LikeLike
And then how does Johns Hopkins vote? This is complicated and messy.
LikeLike
Metatron:
How does JHU vote on what? How does Boise vote in the Pac?
Brian:
Maybe that’s why they’re taking their time thinking about it.
As for CWRU and CMU, they don’t bring any sports assets. If they did, adding them may make sense. Same goes for WashU and (especially) NYU.
LikeLike
JH *would* be all in. They would be all in for every DivI sport they sponsor, just like ever other B1G school.
LikeLike
As I mentioned above, the OSU chick talks like associate membership could be considered in other sports as well…..
Nobody has mentioned the complication with ESPNU contract cover all JH home games……it would seem that would have to be addressed before any decision/announcement could be made.
Met–I don’t think ACC has a hockey league, or does it? If not, couldn’t ND be added is that sport only (note-not talking wisdom of doing that..only the legality).
LikeLike
As far as ESPNU, a stand-alone LAX men’s conference, with Johns Hopkins rights as a distinct package ~ kind of as with the MWC and Boise State ~ is more compatible with that. But a Big Ten championship with an associate member would be more expansion-compatible. A Big Ten championship with six members would be one non-revenue sport expansion headache for the UVA AD crossed off the list, since it would be an AQ conference in two years after launch.
Maybe the Big Ten Network would be happy enough to have two or three Johns Hopkins away Big Ten school games to show on the east cost to agree to yield on the Johns Hopkins home games.
As far as the can of worms of associate membership, I’d rather the associate membership bylaws be written as associate membership in all D1 sports, or no dice. That retains the “all-in” principle.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Maybe that’s why they’re taking their time thinking about it.”
Yep. It gets back to my original question – Would people be as positive about this if JHU was joining only for lacrosse and definitely not the CIC? Are associate members such a good idea then?
“As for CWRU and CMU, they don’t bring any sports assets.”
Neither does Chicago, but the CIC kept them. People kept saying JHU would be an eastern version of Chicago but with 1 sport. So why not add 2 more AAU’s in the footprint to help the CIC?
LikeLike
I’d be positive about it so long as it doesn’t open the door to silly season. Its not a big deal, but as a small move, its a positive one.
If you say “join as associate in all of their D1 sports sponsored by the Big Ten”, that cuts off a lot of the silly season arrangements.
LikeLike
“Neither does Chicago, but the CIC kept them.”
Being in a family is different from joining a family.
LikeLike
Its really full membership for all their active D-I sports.
LikeLike
Exactly. Thank you. I don’t see why people are having such a hard time understanding that Hopkins is not picking and choosing its sports conferences by school; it is committing all its sports to a conference; add in the CIC factor, and both the JH and Big Ten administrations win.
Brian – The CIC isn’t looking at Carnegie Mellon and Case Western because it isn’t trying to make the AAU 2.0, there is some form of competitive aspect between all the CIC members (with UChicago’s being historical).
LikeLike
Ted,
“I don’t see why people are having such a hard time understanding that Hopkins is not picking and choosing its sports conferences by school;”
Nobody is having a hard time understanding that. Not everyone likes the idea of associate members. There’s a difference.
” it is committing all its sports to a conference;”
No, it isn’t. It’s committing its 1 D-I sport to the B10. JHU plays other sports and those would be in another conference (or independent).
“add in the CIC factor, and both the JH and Big Ten administrations win.”
JHU may not think so.
“The CIC isn’t looking at Carnegie Mellon and Case Western because it isn’t trying to make the AAU 2.0, there is some form of competitive aspect between all the CIC members (with UChicago’s being historical).”
MI used to play CWRU in football back when they also played Chicago. In fact, MI played Case more times than Chicago. Carnegie Mellon, then Carnegie Tech, played PSU several times in FB, also. Other B10 teams played Case and CM, too. If pre-WWII games against Chicago count, so should that.
LikeLike
Brian:
“No, it isn’t. It’s committing its 1 D-I sport to the B10. JHU plays other sports and those would be in another conference (or independent).”
Sure, just like Illinois commits all it’s DivI sports to the B10 while it’s (club) hockey team plays in the CSCHL
“JHU may not think so.”
In which case they likely won’t join and there won’t be anything to fuss over.
LikeLike
Richard,
I simply corrected his misstatement.
LikeLike
Well then by that definition JH they won’t be any different than any other Big Ten school and should therefore be entitled to an equal share of all Big Ten revenue distributions.
LikeLike
Go Tartans!
Don’t forget, CMU already plays Chicago and CWRU and WU (no need to add any games, just fold in the UAA games). We’re 0-1 in Bowl Games (1939 Sugar), and admittedly 0-6 lifetime vs PSU, 0-3-1, and 1-5 vs Purdue, but 1-0 against UMd, and if GaTech comes on 2-0 versus them.
And this way – the Big Ten doesn’t need Pitt.
LikeLike
All full members of the Big Ten have to compete in a certain number of Big Ten championships ~ under the “all in” associate membership concept, that would be the basis of being an associate member, that the member does not sponsor sufficient D1 sports to be a full Big Ten member.
That would be distinct from the way associate memberships are done by other conferences, where a school adding some but not all of its D1 sports is allowed.
LikeLike
Not this nonsense again.
LikeLike
Well, if it goes through, I wonder if Chicago will ever promote one of their teams again?
LikeLike
I don’t know that Chicago could. From what little I’ve read, Hopkins lacrosse is grandfathered and the loophole is closed.
LikeLike
I’m not sure. I’d have to read the bylaws more closely, but it seems as though you are correct.
LikeLike
Yes, they passed that law a couple years back to stop anyone else from being in Division I in only one sport. Think it was a combination of the II/III schools not wanting a school to have that advantage and the Division I schools not wanting to be flooded by schools with one sport in their division.
LikeLike
Well, a DivIII school can be DivI in one sport for each gender, but they can’t offer scholarships.
However, of all the schools in the country, the U of C is least likely to go that route. Talk to alums of that school, and you’d realize that they have a strong proud culture where DivI athletics simply do not fit in.
LikeLike
@Richard
Are you sure? If so, that’s a very recent change. It was a pretty big deal 2 or 3 years ago when they changed the rules that used to allow them to have a Division I sport. They were at one point not even going to have a grandfather rule.
LikeLike
Last time I checked, any DII or DIII school can compete in Division I in one sport and can offer scholarships. It’s common in hockey and baseball.
LikeLike
No new schools, only grandfathered ones:
http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/06/in-the-news-june-7/
LikeLike
Bullet:
Right, so if you read the article, if a DivIII school currently plays a sport, they can move it up to DivI but not offer scholarships.
LikeLike
Richard, Read the “note:” at the bottom. No NEW reclassifications.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Time to break away from the NCAA. . .
LikeLike
Wow. I have to give Zeek props for being a proponent of this. I did not think it likely.
BTW, if we’re going to go that route, then we should encourage NYU to start a hockey program and join the B10 solely in hockey.
LikeLike
See the ping pong plan above.
LikeLike
Well, the school and sport still have to be accretive.
Will ESPNU show your school in that sport? If yes, then let’s talk.
LikeLike
Precisely ~ there should be emails and phone calls to the local cable providers why they get the schools home ping pong games but are missing on the Big Ten network broadcasts of some of their away games.
Strange as it may seem here in Ohio, there are parts of the east coast where LAX will indeed generate a perceptible number of those emails and phone calls.
LikeLike
One issue, though, is how BTN distributions would work.
Presumably Hopkins would not be buying in to a full ownership share (unless they contribute a ton on the academic side).
LikeLike
@Richard – I’m interested to know how much JHU is getting from ESPNU. That would be the number that the BTN would be working with in determining a lacrosse distribution.
LikeLike
Possible ramifications on UVA/UNC/Duke coming to B1G to join a stronger lax conference?
LikeLike
If the Big Ten thought they were about to add those schools they wouldn’t have any reason to add Hopkins.
LikeLike
Right. And JH would be much easier to add after getting UVA/UNC/Duke than before. As is, I’m not sure the B10 is the most appealing conference for JHU.
LikeLike
Actually, it wouldn’t be bad…right now, MD is #2 (as I recall) and OSU and PSU are top 20….As I recall, JH is now #3 or 4…
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Actually, it wouldn’t be bad…right now, MD is #2 (as I recall) and OSU and PSU are top 20….As I recall, JH is now #3 or 4…”
Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA and ND are in the ACC. Those are closer to JHU on average, I think, and bigger names in the sport.
LikeLike
My assessment is exactly the opposite of yours on this matter. Johns Hopkins is rated #9 on the top research universities listing from the Center for Measuring University Performance and and a research budget of $1.86B in 2009. See http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf
If JHU became a member of the CIC with the participation of its lacrosse team in the Big Ten, then that is only going to enhance the actual and perceived worth of the conference on the academic side of the ledger. It’s a very big, very nice bullet to add to the Powepoint slide presentation any school would receive that’s interested in becoming a member of the B1G.
See http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx
Of course, those go along with increased revenues for the athletic department in the $40M range by 2017, a successful and dedicated conference television network (which could expand to two channels), an enlarged geographic footprint with conference offices in Chicago and probably New York City (#1 media capital in the world). That’s a pretty good package of assets the Big Ten can promote to any university interested in joining the conference.
LikeLike
The additions of Rutgers/Maryland made it pretty obvious that academics/research was a very large component of B1G expansion. The rumored additions of JHU and UNC/UVA/GT make it even more obvious that the B1G is attempting to use their current athletic leverage to solidify their R1 advantage for at least the next century.
I think those who are hoping to see FSU added are going to be greatly disappointed.
LikeLike
cutter,
“My assessment is exactly the opposite of yours on this matter. Johns Hopkins is rated #9 on the top research universities listing from the Center for Measuring University Performance and and a research budget of $1.86B in 2009. See http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf”
Nobody doubts their research cred.
“If JHU became a member of the CIC with the participation of its lacrosse team in the Big Ten”
That’s a big if. What if this is just a lacrosse thing? Then how do you feel about it?
LikeLike
John Hopkins is the #1 research university in terms of money in the country. They are valuable regardless of whether or not Duke or UNC comes aboard.
LikeLike
These two points are pretty much how I see it. JH is valuable in its’ own right and would make the B1G attractive to prospective members who really, really value academics. If the B1G sees itself as the “Ivy League” of big schools, this would be the addition to prove it. And it would send the clear signal that no non-AAU schools will be added; you don’t strengthen your academic brand with a school like this and then water it back down. Other schools that want to be thought of in the same way will come to you.
LikeLike
And if they thought they were on the bubble with one or both, that would be good reason to add Hopkins.
LikeLike
I became obsessed with realignment because I was hoping that onw of my alma maters might join the B1G.
I might get my wish after all!
LikeLike
my two cents: adding JHU in any capacity — in ANY capacity —- to the B1G and/or the CIC is giant and huge and wow, “how cool!!!”
so, if it takes a little thing like LAX to coax JHU into a relationship with the B1G and the CIC, then ‘west, by god, virginia,” do it !!
I don’t really understand the hand-wringing expressed by many above. The B1G will make whatever exceptions needed to get a “King.” ND can join without being AAU; John Hopkins (an undisputed research and university “King”) will get whatever exceptions are needed.
I seriously doubt these exceptions set any sort of precedent. That is, such exceptions will be extended for non-Kings. Oklahoma was apparently told “no.” They are not a big enough “King” to overcome their academic standing. ND is not a hockey “king”; ND’s football is. Thus, exceptions for THAT will be made.
The B1G’s COP/C seems quite pragmatic to me.
LikeLike
ugh… “such exceptions will NOT be extended for non-Kings.”
LikeLike
In 2004 the NCAA almost voted to stop allowing D3 schools to have a D1 team in one sport. Hopkins and RPI lobbied hard to stop that from happening, but I wonder if Hopkins is concerned that going to a major conference could bring up that issue again.
LikeLike
Frank,
Nice summary when you point out that the ACC is Southern, while still academically oriented. That captures the conference realignment dilemma for UVa and UNC.
With expansion, the ACC’s economic value has shifted away from the original members. Florida State, Miami, VTech and Notre Dame (even though only a partial member) are the popular TV brands. Amazingly, Louisville seems to have more value to the ACC TV revenue model than Maryland. The current leaders in generating revenue for the ACC are the newer schools.
Yet it’s still UNC and UVa that are deemed the core, or glue, for the conference. Most other schools want to be in the ACC (with the notable exceptions of UMD and FSU). The new ACC has evolved tremendously over the past 25 years and is no longer a culturally tight-knit group. If UVa and/or UNC decide to leave the ACC, hopefully it is for more than just money.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that the most economically valuable schools to the ACC’s TV contract (where there is no conference-owned network) are schools that have been added in: Florida State, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Even Louisville has economic value arguably (but not decisively) greater than Maryland.
On the other hand, it would be just as damaging to the ACC to lose those core schools as it would be to lose those who have been added through expansion.
In particular, UNC is one of those schools with a lot of untapped value. If ever the team could produce a few top ten seasons in football, it could be a ratings giant. It already is one of the rare exceptions where its basketball brand is so popular that the Big Ten and SEC would consider them to enhance hoops while merely supplementing football, rather than the other way around. Furthermore, UNC is the only school that the BTN or an SEC Network would require in order to get onto basic cable at a high rate throughout a state which will soon have 10 million people. Adding Duke and/or NC State would only be so that the B1G or SEC could get UNC.
UVA carries great untapped value, as well, especially for leagues with conference-owned networks because it is the flagship school in a state of over 8 million. Like UNC, Georgia Tech, and other AAU members, it would be a heck of a catch in terms of further enhancing a league’s academic reputation.
LikeLike
I have been working on this theory for a while, and finally decided to try and write it out and see if it makes any sense. It raises two questions from Frank’s prior entry regarding the SEC’s “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and the BIG contiguous states requirement.
Let’s assume the Delany’s next 2 primary targets are not from the ACC, but actually Georgia and University of Florida. Both are their state’s flagship institutions. Georgia, although not AAU, has shown continued academic improvement. Florida, well, no explanation is necessary why it would be desirable to the B1G.
The only way either of these schools would be remotely interested in leaving the SEC is if somehow the other conference schools forced an overriding vote that both Georgia and Florida were strongly against.
That’s where the SEC’s “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and the continuous rumors of Georgia Tech to B1G and FSU to the Big 12 come into play. Can Delany cause enough uncertainty in the SEC, where Slive would attempt to make a completely defensive move and go after Georgia Teach and FSU to block out the B1G and Big 12 from 2 of the most populous states in the SEC? Would Georgia and Florida use the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” to try and block these additions, but Slive have enough votes to proceed forward with offers?
I have no idea if Georgia would ever consider leaving the SEC, but did following post in response to Frank’s May 17, 2010 blog entry.
aps says:
May 25, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Just a few years back, Barry Alvarez made the comment that they got an inquire from a university that nobody expected. He said it was from out of left field and nobody saw it coming. Barry said it would fit academically and athletically but just was off the map.
People wondered and speculated who it could be. Barry never said if I remember rightly, but eventually most people on the web figured out it was Florida.
So, I would not say anyone is out of reach. Just maybe not likely.
I tried finding reports from other sources which support this posters belief that the B1G was approached by the University of Florida, but I couldn’t find anything. Does anyone know if this was true?
If Georgia and Florida lost the vote, would this scenario even provide enough justification to their fan bases for the schools to leave the SEC?
Obviously, these two schools directly support the demographic requirement for B1G expansion, while simultaneously severely weakening the SEC. Although, Georgia and Florida are not contiguous
This scenario also goes directly against the “rules” of conference expansion:
No one is leaving the SEC
B1G will not look at non AAU schools
Only contiguous stats
SEC will not make a defensive move
SEC will not invite a school within its current footprint
LikeLike
Even if it was Florida, you’re looking at a public university fighting against their fans and legislators. It’s not impossible, but it’s damn near improbable.
LikeLike
um, no.
LikeLike
Actually, I thought “everyone on the web” thought it was Tennessee (because their boosters thought going through the B10 would be an easier route to a national title than going through the SEC).
If UF had wanted in, they would be in the B10 already. There’s little doubt in my mind that UF & UGa have open invitations to the B10 if they want them (they’d have open invitations to pretty much any other conference as well).
LikeLike
That was a rumor, and with their debt it makes sense.
I’d take the Vols.
LikeLike
The post I referenced stated that Alvarez said the school was an academic and athletic fit for the B1G. Assuming the post was accurate, I don’t see how the Vols would be an academic fit.
Can anyone provide a link to a reputable source that specifies what school made inquiries in the 2008 time period?
LikeLike
I remember reading that article and don’t remember Alvarez mentioning that it was an academic fit. I’m quite confident that if UF and UGa had wanted in, they would be in the B10 already, and the rumor was that the B10 sent out feelers to both schools and was rebuffed.
LikeLike
First, I don’t think either would care. UGA isn’t concerned about Georgia Tech. And Georgia Tech might prefer the Big 12 rather than competing head to head against UGA.
But even if your premises are accepted, it wouldn’t be enough. There could, however, be things over time that push UGA and UF to look elsewhere. Georgia and Florida have grown much faster than the other SEC states. Academically they have improved much faster than the other SEC schools. They aren’t enthused about schools pushing the rules envelope (both have done it in the past and don’t like the temptation). So there is a divide that didn’t exist 30 years ago. If the SEC keeps expanding, they create the grounds for schools like UGA and UF to eventually leave. Don’t know about Florida, but you wouldn’t see many UGA fans cheering for Auburn or Florida in the BCS title games. Alabama and LSU maybe since UGA rarely plays them. But there isn’t the “SEC, SEC” mentality you see in other places.
LikeLike
Again, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. UGA fans chant SEC all of the time when they play major OOC games. They are at the heart of SEC country, and their fans are passionate about the SEC.
Here is a video of them chanting SEC during a GT game:
Just in case my attempt at enbedding didn’t work, here is the link: http://youtu.be/ll5hMtcAn84
And they use the same recruiting practices that the other SEC schools use. They currently have 29 kids committed to this year’s class (and they are still in the running for a couple more kids) because they will backcount up to 6 kids against last year’s class, and grey short others (which is the only way SEC schools can now “over sign”). And I’m not going to get into the tactics that Rodney Garnder used while he was recruiting coordinator there, who was there since before Richt took over, and just left to go back to auburn.
I have friends that are UGA fans, work with UGA fans, and go into Georgia quite often. They are as entrenched in the SEC as Bama or Ole Miss or any other SEC school.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard the chant so its not that common. And I’ve been to a number of UGA games and watch the rest. I’m married to a 3rd generation Bulldawg and have lots of Bulldawg friends.
LikeLike
UGA doesn’t have a foot out the door and aren’t even looking at the doorway, but they have more differences than they used to. If you look at history, UGA has a low rate of signees compared to SEC West schools. But yes, they are signing a bunch this year and doing early enrollees.
LikeLike
Mark Richt is NOT a Bobby Petrino in any way shape or form. The early enrollees are probably a desperation move since their numbers are so low as Richt has been strict on kicking people out of the program who violate the rules. I believe they were down to 71 scholarship players last fall.
LikeLike
The worst part of over-signing is when you don’t have the slots or are forcing players out of the program because they don’t perform or are signing a bunch of players because you figure many aren’t going to qualify academically (see Bobby Petrino). Richt has kicked out a couple of players starting or projected to start at AQ schools (LSU’s QB and a RB-forgot where he is going).
LikeLike
While Richt seems like a good guy and a decent coach, he seems to have a hard time keeping his players out of trouble, which is one factor in why UGA’s player numbers are so low. From 2006 – 2010 he had 33 players arrested, and from 2010 – 2012 he had 14 players arrested (and that is just the ones that were actually arrested).
LikeLike
He’s a great guy. But he’s made some bad choices on players. Athens area police, unlike other places, actually enjoy arresting football players. UGA players had a run of arrests for driving w/o a license (you would think after the first couple, the rest would learn…not the case).
LikeLike
@bamatab
The arrests have been for a lot of stupid stuff. One year there were the 7 or 8 driving w/o a license. DUIs. Unpaid tickets. Hit and run on a parked car. Seems like there was one for riding a motorized scooter on a sidewalk (DWB?). No armed robberies or anything of that nature that I recall. But lots of, “How can you be so stupid?”
LikeLike
Just to be clear, UGA is happy in the SEC. There are some minor dissatisfactions and I can’t forsee them ever leaving without Florida. But there are differences that could lead to a departure at some point in the future if they continue to grow. The SEC isn’t the homogenous group + Vanderbilt that it used to be. Sewanee, Tulane and Georgia Tech all left after the SEC wasn’t a fit anymore.
LikeLike
The only thing that would drive UGA and/or UF would be a massive, SWC like scandal that would rip the SEC apart. Aside from an event like that, UGA & UF would have absolutely no desire to change conferences.
Sewanee & Tulane left because they didn’t want to keep investing in their athletic programs to keep them at the level that the other SEC school were heading. There is absolutely no way that UGA or UF would even think about de-emphasizing their sports programs (especially football). And GT left because the person running their athletic department (Dodds) was dumb enough to believe an independant GT could become the ND of the south. Sure he didn’t like the football signing limits (or lack there of), and he didn’t like what he thought was special treatment that Bama got. But in the end, the reason he was able to convience the PTB at GT to leave was that he was convienced that GT could be the ND of the south. Neither UGA or UF would even dream of going independant.
The SEC is as homogenous of a group as they have ever been. As a matter of a fact, they are probably more so under Slive than they were back in the 80s & 90s under Kramer. The SEC brand has grown to the point under Slive that it has become even more important to the identities of the SEC schools, including UF & UGA. Outside of a total collapse of the SEC, they aren’t leaving. The only other scenario I could see is if the SEC expands to a number like 20 or more, that ends up not working out, and then the schools dividing up into smaller conferences. but even in that scenario, UGA & UF would be forming a new conference with other SEC schools.
LikeLike
Neither Georgia nor Florida are stomping out of the SEC because a vote went against them.
If Florida is against FSU in the SEC, its not likely to be adamantly against, since they were supporting FSU a couple of decades ago.
And GTech is not very likely anyway. They left the SEC for reasons, many of which still exist.
LikeLike
@ BruceMcF
Are you implying that there is no “gentlemen’s agreement” amongst the 4 SEC teams that have potential expansion targets in their respective states? None of us know if one actually exists, but assuming it does, I find it hard to believe that Florida would go through the effort of making an agreement with Georgia, S. Carolina, and Kentucky if they didn’t really care about FSU joining the SEC.
Wouldn’t it be one of the two extremes? Either Florida is in full support of FSU as a potential member or adamantly against.
LikeLike
The scenario proposed was Florida stomping out of the SEC in a huff because the vote went against them, and/or Georgia stomping out in a huff because the vote went against them … which PRESUMES either the lack of a gentleman’s agreement or else the other parties flouting it when it becomes clear they are the one facing in-state competition.
If there IS a gentleman’s agreement, and it is respected, then stomping out of the SEC over the entry is a moot point, since there is no entry to object to. And if there is a gentleman’s agreement, and Florida voted in favor of FSU’s entry, then the other parties following Florida lead would be respecting the agreement, and stomping out of the SEC over the entry is still a moot point.
But EVEN IF Florida and/or Georgia presumed there was a gentleman’s agreement in place and it turned out to be dog out dog when push came to shove …
… they might be ticked off, and might sharpen their knives to make their displeasure when an opportunity presented itself …
… but they wouldn’t stomp out of the SEC in a huff.
LikeLike
Absolute crapola. Neither UGA nor UF will leave the SEC in our lifetimes. This is one if the most delusional posts I’ve read in a long time, that’s otherwise well written. The SEC would offer FSU a spot within a nanosecond of UF leaving (and then gaator fans would burn their university president’s house to the ground in the next nanosecond). Lets get back to reality please.
LikeLike
Anyone else find it odd that all the ACC doomsday scenarios originate from WVU fans?
LikeLike
The dude and the mhv guy are like the Terrance and Phillip of conference news.
LikeLike
Bones to pick I suppose.
LikeLike
they hate the acc and obsess about its destruction. they’re also huge liars.
LikeLike
BTW, while the B10 doesn’t seem to have ever had affiliate members, the Pac does (including Boise and a bunch of Cal State schools) in various sports, and no one talks about the integrity of the Pac being compromised.
LikeLike
I’m aware that the PAC has a ton of affiliate members… but they have for a long time.
If the Big Ten had a history of partial/affiliate membership then I wouldn’t have a problem. But they don’t. Full membership is one of the Big Ten’s founding principles.
LikeLike
So was forbidding freshmen participation in varsity sports and no training tables or separate athletes’ dorms.
Times change.
LikeLike
You’re right. Let’s get Boston University hockey and ISU wrestling while we’re at it. Those are AAU schools with elite sports.
LikeLike
Hell, while we’re at it let’s throw in McGill and Toronto’s hockey teams like JJ suggested.
Listen, I’m not some naive slippery slope guy who believes that allowing Hopkins in is the first step towards the Big Ten becoming a Big East style hybrid monstrosity, but philosophically there isn’t any difference between letting JH in for lacrosse and any other partial membership.
LikeLike
Oh, and for your times change condescension, that was the exact same rational the ACC used when they explained why they allowed ND in after refusing to do so for 60 years and things have just gone swimmingly for them.
(Also, to clarify, JJ was being sarcastic.)
LikeLike
Nah, ISU won’t drop down their other sports to DivIII. I would consider BU if they dropped their other sports down to DivIII but their hockey attendance is surprisingly mediocre.
LikeLike
On the flip side, how does the Pac suffer when they take in Boise and some CalState schools in some minor sports? Do you see the Pac disintegrating? BTW, there’s a major distinction between ND and the ACC and the Pac affiliates (which would be closer to a JHU-in-the-B10 scenario: ND is joining the ACC in all sports but the most important one. The Pac (and the B10) pick and choose what schools they admit in what sports. In the case of the B10, they can still say that all DivI sports have to be in the B10 if a school joins.
LikeLike
You’re being a spaz and totally missing the point.
The Big Ten is contemplating addding a member in a sport it has never sponsored, the potential member being one of the lacrosse’s bluebloods, which happens to be that school’s only sport (D1 is all that matters here), that would provide an automatic NCAA bid for the league, and possible make it more attractive to UVa and UNC for one of their premier sports, at an institution that is as or more prestigious than any current conference member.
And somehow that equates to the same thing as adding ND as a football-only member?
LikeLike
Yes, JHU can be added under associate bylaws that specify “all” D1 sports as associate memberships, and that closes off both the “only football” (the “Big East of Reno”) and “all but football” scenarios, without completely slamming the door on moves that the BTN might like for their winter and spring non-revenue sports filler.
LikeLike
@Bruce
And then they can just change the bylaws again to expand associate membership whenever they feel like it.
LikeLike
OK, and you still haven’t pointed out how the B10 suffers even if they do, considering that the Pac seems to avoid implosion despite giving up their viginity, er, exclusivilty, er, whatever.
LikeLike
@frug:
You said: “Listen, I’m not some naive slippery slope guy who believes that allowing Hopkins in is the first step towards the Big Ten becoming a Big East style hybrid monstrosity, but philosophically there isn’t any difference between letting JH in for lacrosse and any other partial membership.”
I my view, JHU is not just “some” AAU member. Adding a B1G relationship with JHU is a big f-ing deal. In my view, there is a giant difference between letting JHU in for Lax and other partial memberships.
LikeLike
OK, and you still haven’t pointed out how the B10 suffers even if they do, considering that the Pac seems to avoid implosion despite giving up their viginity, er, exclusivilty, er, whatever.
You do realize that conferences have different standards don’t you? After all the PAC also added schools like ASU and WSU but the Big Ten wouldn’t because they have higher academic standards.
LikeLike
OK, but why should no-associate-membership be a standard? There are network effects and other positive externalities (as well as some cost savings) from associating with other top research institutions. What’s the positive in keeping yourself pure/virginal/unadulterated/whatever?
LikeLike
Why did the CIC decide to trim the fat and get down to 13 and only 13 schools? They clearly thought extra schools presented some issues. JHU is a bigger spender than those others, but some of the reasons may still apply.
LikeLike
“JHU is a bigger spender than those others”
Well, yeah. That (and academic prestige) are kind of a big differentiator. Plus, the reason UIC was kicked out was because, if they were going to be consistent about branch campuses within the same university system being allowed in to the CIC, IUPUI, a bunch of MAC schools & Cincy in the University System of Ohio as well as the 20 million UWisconsin campuses should have been allowed in as well, which would have been an organizational nightmare. So the CIC was either going to be rationalized or show favoritism to the University of Illinois system.
As with any expansion, you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Adding JHU increases the headcount by 1 and increases the research heft of the consortium considerably. Adding a bunch of branch campuses increases the research heft by not a ton and makes the organizational logistics much more of a headache. Keeping UIC leads to (correct) charges of favoritism.
LikeLike
@Richard – To be sure, UIC is actually a very large research institution (particularly in medicine and the hard sciences), so it’s more akin to a University of California branch academically (at least at the graduate research level) than the typical branch campuses in the Big Ten region. I don’t think the CIC was necessarily worried about, say, all of the University of Wisconsin campuses (I’m pretty sure every town in Wisconsin with more than 10,000 people has one) seeking associate memberships (as they have gone for decades without asking about it), but rather the University of Nebraska-Omaha specifically. UNO has a similar relationship with Nebraska that UIC has with Illinois, where the urban campuses house the bulk of the high dollar medical research. That’s why the CIC decided to remove UIC at the same time that it added Nebraska – it knew that it couldn’t continue granting associate status to UIC without doing the same for UNO.
LikeLike
OK, but why should no-associate-membership be a standard?
Why doesn’t the PAC allow religiously affiliated schools? Why won’t the SEC add states from outside the South? It’s an identity issue. That is a positive enough factor.
LikeLike
frug:
The SEC just added a school outside of the South.
Plus, I don’t see “sponsoring all sports needed to be a full member” as being part of the B10 identity, and as much as you may want it to be otherwise, I don’t think the B10 sees it that way either. It seems pretty clear to me that the B10 sees it’s identity as being a consortium of top research universities who strive to excel both athletically and academically while playing by the rules (that last part, unlike full membership, really was written down at the conference’s founding). JHU fits the bill perfectly.
LikeLike
@Richard
Go back and read the SEC’s statement announcing the addition of Missouri. They spent several paragraphs describing how Southern it is. And Missouri’s Governor signed an Ordinance of Secession leading to competing state capitals. In other words, it was Southern enough that the SEC could argue it was a Southern state.
LikeLike
Frank:
Good point, but point stands that the CIC either had to show favoritism or add a school/campus that they didn’t deem worth adding.
LikeLike
Full membership is one of the Big Ten’s founding principles.
Can you point out to us where the founders said that? I don’t seem to have noticed it before.
LikeLike
Well all the founders were full members and in the 115 since they have never had a partial member.
LikeLike
Well, until 1975, the B10 never allowed a member school to play in a bowl other than the Rose Bowl. Does that mean that in 1974, not playing in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl was an integral part of the league’s identity, and that the league was irrevocably harmed and lost its identity & cohesion after allowing schools to play in non-Rose-Bowl bowls?
LikeLike
@Richard
The Big Ten’s arrangement with the Rose Bowl didn’t begin until after WWII, almost half a century after the conference’s founding.
And the no bowl but the Rose Bowl arrangement was in effect for less than 30 years.
LikeLike
I fail to see how that’s relevant. BTW, partial membership wasn’t even an issue for most of those 115 years, so we have no clue how member schools would have thought about it.
We do know, however, how the B10 stood on bowl games. For a long time, the B10 didn’t allow member schools to participate in any bowl. So the non-Rose-Bowl bowl ban was more like 50 years. Up until 1975, no B10 school had participated in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl. Was not playing in a non-Rose-Bowl bowl an integral part of the league’s character, then?
LikeLike
I’d say that allowing bowls other than the Rose did, in fact, harm the B10 by starting down the slippery slope that let the Rose Bowl become so diminished that the B10 will willingly not play in it in the future. If it was the only goal, as is right and proper, then the B10 would continue to value it properly. Instead, they sold out starting in the 70s.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’ve said for a while this is a Mexican standoff. The B12, B10 and SEC all need something to happen to destabilize the ACC. Maybe the final playoff and bowl money numbers will be enough. Maybe the SEC’s new TV deal will be a trigger. Maybe the B10 signing a new deal will do it. Maybe a large budget issue will occur for an ACC school or two. But until that happens, I see no pressing need for any further expansion.
The B12 has said as many ways as possible that they’re happy as is. They make good money and have no demographic issues. The SEC is doing just fine on the field and is about to get a raise, so they don’t need to grow. The B10 added a FB king and two good size states in a growing region to address all their expressed needs. The ACC would like to make more money, but most of their members really like the ACC. The financial gap will have to be huge to drive most of the members to leave, especially when you consider the cultural differences in their prospective new homes.
This is why I take issue with people taking such a short term view when talking about B10 divisions. Many assume the B10 will jump to 16+ by 2014 or 2016 so they accept obvious long term problems with the divisions as a good thing for the short term. I think future expansion is possible at any time, but it isn’t a given and shouldn’t be taken as such.
LikeLike
OK, JHU football to the East to give tOSU an automatic win every year.
LikeLike
The B12 has said as many ways as possible that they’re happy as is. They make good money and have no demographic issues.
1. Conferences lie all the time. And even if they are happy at 10, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be happier at 12+.
2. The Big XII actually has a massive demographic issue. Specifically, how small it is. The Big XII has by far the smallest population footprint of all the major conferences. That may not be an imminent threat, but it is every bit as problematic for the Big XII’s long term health as the populations shifts are to the Big Ten’s.
LikeLike
@frug – I definitely agree that the Big 12 has demographic issues (namely, they are almost completely reliant upon the state of Texas). Of course, the flip side is that the ACC has great demographics – they have the fastest growing footprint of any conference and, even better, it’s growth that’s largely driven by affluent and highly educated people moving into that region. That might be why the Big 12 and ACC could be natural alliance partners – they seem to have opposite weaknesses, so an alliance would fill in the gaps for each league.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
TX is the fastest growing state in the country (>2%). Considering it’s also the 2nd largest state, that’s impressive growth. It’s lead over NY has grown by 4.5M in 12 years while CA’s lead dropped by 1M.
LikeLike
The jobs growth is biased toward the bottom of the income ladder ~ but the point there is that Texas’s growth is the platform that all ten schools are standing on, just as their second most popular school is making waves in the most prestigious football conference in the nation.
Diversification is likely to give more resiliance, and if they cannot diversity their “home” markets as a first mover, building up their out of conference brand recognition in growing east coast markets is an appealing “can do it now” strategy.
LikeLike
There is approximately 0% chance that Texas’ growth alone will get the Big XII anywhere near the population base of the other conferences.
LikeLike
frug,
It doesn’t need to. It has to supply enough students and players for 10 schools (less than that since WV hunts in other places). CFB is moving to a more national model, so being good will trump their footprint market.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s still considerably less students/players/eyeballs per school than any other major conference.
LikeLike
So? It’s been that way for a while and they’re doing just fine. Where is the evidence that it’s a problem for them?
LikeLike
@Brian
Check out their TV ratings. The Big XII’s Fox package was pretty disappointing.
Plus, where is the evidence that population trends were negatively effecting the Big Ten?
LikeLike
frug,
“Plus, where is the evidence that population trends were negatively effecting the Big Ten?”
Delany and several presidents saying they thought it was a problem is the evidence. Show me similar quotes from the B12.
LikeLike
Brian:
I guess it depends on what you consider “just fine”. What frug said, and I would argue that those ratings were in a recent period when several B12 schools (OK St., TCU, KSU, and even TTech) have been performing above their historical norm. Neither T Boone or Bill Synder are spring chickens; how will their programs do when Sugar Daddy Pickens goes to the Big Oil Patch in the Sky & Old Man Synder hangs it up for good?
With only 2 kings (and none of the programs outside the 2 kings being able to organically generate the same type of money the kings and princes in the B10 and SEC can), I can easily see the B12 going through a down period like the past decade that the ACC went through. I don’t think they’d be doing just fine if they had to negotiate a new TV deal at the end of such a down period.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I guess it depends on what you consider “just fine”. What frug said, and I would argue that those ratings were in a recent period when several B12 schools (OK St., TCU, KSU, and even TTech) have been performing above their historical norm.
“Neither T Boone or Bill Synder are spring chickens; how will their programs do when Sugar Daddy Pickens goes to the Big Oil Patch in the Sky & Old Man Synder hangs it up for good?”
I honestly have no idea. Some programs change level significantly and stay at the new level (NW, WI, MN, etc), others return to their norm. It’s a new world with universal TV coverage of games and players more willing than ever to go away from home. If TBP gives OkSU a crap load of money when he dies, it may be a program-changing donation. Maybe KSU will find another coach that can succeed in Manhattan.
“With only 2 kings (and none of the programs outside the 2 kings being able to organically generate the same type of money the kings and princes in the B10 and SEC can), I can easily see the B12 going through a down period like the past decade that the ACC went through. I don’t think they’d be doing just fine if they had to negotiate a new TV deal at the end of such a down period.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on any of that. My point is simply that TPTB in the B12 are in a better position to know if they have an issue and none of them has ever said that they do. The B10, on the other hand, has said many times that they saw a problem and that they planned to fix it through expansion. People want to apply the same analysis to both conferences but maybe that isn’t appropriate. Perhaps being sun belt versus rust belt makes enough of a difference. Perhaps having TX rather than OH and MI and IL is sufficient. Perhaps it having UT in charge. Maybe it’s an optimism/pessimism thing. Maybe they just all refuse to say anything in public. But for whatever reason, the B12 doesn’t seem to think they have a problem.
I’m not arguing whether they do or not. I’m arguing that since they don’t seem to think they have a problem, that’s all that matters. Their perception of their situation is all that matters in determining their actions.
LikeLike
I think it also highlights an issue for schools like Virginia – how ‘Southern’ is your identity now when most of your economic and demographic growth over the past few decades has been driven by non-Southerners moving in?
This is why I don’t really buy the ‘culture’ argument as being a deal breaker for states such as Virginia and North Carolina. Non-Southern implants make up about a third of total population in both states now and over time I would expect these states to be less Southern over time – a shift that I think that has already happened across most of Northern Virginia
LikeLike
Frank:
If the ACC region’s growth is driven by “affluent and highly educated people moving into that region”, exactly how “southern” are those regions going to be?
I spent about five months in Charlottesville, VA last year and my takeaway from that region is that while it’s in the midst of rural SW Virginia, the town, campus and student body are rather different than the surroundings in the much the same way as northern Virginia, Richmond and the SE tip of the commonwealth are different from its other regions.
Also keep in mind that a little under 70% of the student body is instate with the rest either from other U.S. states and overseas. I don’t have the demographics on the native Virginians who go there, but given the costs involved in attending, my guess is that it’s from the more affluent areas of the commonwealth. I just have to wonder how “southern” UVA really is in terms of its outlook.
I also wonder what an alliance of the two conferences will do to the bottom line finances of the respective schools. Will the ACC be able to leverage it into a better television deal comparable to what the Big Ten and SEC will be offering? Does it mean there will be an ACC Network on par with the networks run by the Pac 12, B10 and SEC? Will it change the post-season in any way, shape or form for football? Outside of having the two conferences schedule more non-conference games with each other (and maybe the ACC will drop its basketball challenge with the Big Ten and take one up with the Big XII–or perhaps do both), what other benefits would these two conferences get (and how realistic would that be if the Big XII sticks with a nine-game conference schedule and the ACC adopts one)?
One of the reasons I’ve felt (and others I know) for awhile that the next two schools coming into the Big Ten were Virginia and Georgia Tech is because they had less invested in being “southern” than the other ACC schools due to their locations (GaTech and urban Atlanta), profiles, leadership, research specialties/fit and student populations. I’m certainly not disputing the idea that it would be easier for them to make a move out of the ACC if UNC and/or Duke and/or Florida State were in the mix, but in my assessment, they aren’t as strictly welded to the ACC as some of the other schools in that conference.
LikeLike
frug,
“2. The Big XII actually has a massive demographic issue. Specifically, how small it is. The Big XII has by far the smallest population footprint of all the major conferences. That may not be an imminent threat, but it is every bit as problematic for the Big XII’s long term health as the populations shifts are to the Big Ten’s.”
That’s not a demographic problem, that’s a market problem. As is, they have TX. That’s 8% of the US and growing and they care about CFB. 15% of the nation isn’t in a power conference (mostly NY, MA and a bunch of small states), and much of the country doesn’t care about CFB as deeply as TX does, so the B12 effective market share is bigger than the simple stats make it seem. They can live off of that as CFB becomes more national anyway. They have a big TV deal and the playoff money will only grow. As long as they keep producing quality teams, they’re fine.
LikeLike
@Brian
The Big Ten had a much larger market than the Big XII and more nationally relevant teams and yet they still felt the need to expand.
LikeLike
And the B12 didn’t, because TX is a rapidly growing area while the midwest isn’t. Not every league has the same needs.
LikeLike
Even if all states continue at their current rate of growth the Big XII still wouldn’t have a population comparable to the Big 10 in 30 years.
LikeLike
And that’s a problem? They don’t seem to think so.
LikeLike
@Brian
Or they see no reason to admit a weakness.
LikeLike
frug,
That is another option, sure. But 4 schools have left and the commissioner has changed and nobody has said anything about it. That makes me think they don’t see it as an issue. Whether they are correct in that assessment is a different matter.
LikeLike
Also, frug, the B12 has been very clear about what would make them happier. If teams 11 and 12 make them more money, then they’ll be happier. They have never expressed feeling a need to expand like the B10 did.
LikeLike
Even the Big Ten had the same view: Jim Delany doesn’t do deals that lose money.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Even the Big Ten had the same view: Jim Delany doesn’t do deals that lose money.”
Nobody wants to lose money, no, but Delany might have been willing to break even while solving the demographics problem of the B10. The B12 has never expressed a concern like that.
LikeLike
The death of the Midwest has been prognosticated and over exaggerated for decades.
LikeLike
Nobody prognosticated the death of the Midwest; they prognosticated that it would lose importance relative to other areas of the country.
And they have been right; look and see how the percentage of congressional seats going to Midwest states have changed over time.
It’s still important, but it has lost the massive population edge it used to have.
LikeLike
Big 12 Presidents aren’t convinced that mega-conferences are the way to go. There has been lots of negative talk about 14 and 16 coming out of the Big 12. Its about quality expansion. Even Deloss Dodds, who has been the most outspoken about being happy at 10, has said he is for expansion with the “right two.” The Big 12 has first hand experience with having diverse institutions in a conference and first hand experience in trying to work through the complexities of a possible 16 team conference.
I think its pretty clear the Big 12 would expand back to at least 12 if FSU would say yes. There have been enough comments on both sides. But the Big 12 isn’t going to expand just to expand.
LikeLike
The B1G has a demographic issue despite some denials here. But adding 15 million people in NJ and MD and tapping into another 10-15 million in NYC, solves the problem for 30 years or so. The B1G will continue to have the largest population and alumni base. There isn’t any rush to add more population. A lot can change over 30 years.
LikeLike
That’s right, but if you’re in charge of the conference do you run the risk of waiting 30 years and finding yourself again on the wrong side of the curve but then with UNC/UVa/Ga Tech unavailable?
LikeLike
No one could accuse Jim Delany of sleeping on opportunity. None of those schools are available right now. I don’t doubt that if he’s able to pry them loose, he will.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B1G’s population/alumni advantage leading to financial strength changing anytime soon. You have to weigh the risk of losing the opportunity vs. what you really want to be. Do you really want to be an 18-20 team conference? Do you want to add more below average teams in football? Do you want to add more schools with less than B1G average football fan support?
And does it really help non-sports? I can see Maryland and Rutgers being beneficial. B1G is now closer to NYC and DC which are centers of power and decision makers on research funding. Richmond and Raleigh aren’t quite the same.
If their goal is to morph into something different than a conference, now is the time to strike. But I’ve heard they want to play each other more and that’s not consistent with a 16 team conference, let alone 18-20.
LikeLike
The Big Ten presidents and ADs have access to more data than we do. When senior people from multiple schools say that they don’t think expansion is done, you’ve got to figure that there’s data behind it.
As I noted above, Jim Delany hasn’t done a deal yet that lost money. If we’re taking bets on whose data is better, his or yours, I’ll take the bet on Delany.
LikeLike
A Delany worshipper!
I don’t see where I said anything about data. I’m talking about value judgements. I doubt they would be talking expansion if they didn’t think they could make more TV $ in the short and medium term. But there are long run consequences that aren’t measurable. And there are choices about what you want to do for a little (or a lot) more money. Its hard to see any of these schools adding a lot (but then its hard to see how Pitt and SU really added anything net to the ACC).
LikeLike
I’m not a Delany worshipper at all. Your post appeared to be appealing to facts, not values, and on the facts I assume Delany has better data.
As to values, there are plenty of people who thought that even Rutgers and Maryland were two schools too many, and I won’t argue with them. We are all entitled to our own values, but we aren’t entitled to our own facts.
When you say, “It’s hard to see any of these schools adding a lot (but then its hard to see how Pitt and SU really added anything net to the ACC).”, you are stating (purported) facts. And here, I’m guessing the conference commissioners know a lot more, since it’s their full-time job, and we’re just amateur sports fans.
LikeLike
“Do you really want to be an 18-20 team conference? Do you want to add more below average teams in football? Do you want to add more schools with less than B1G average football fan support? there are choices about what you want to do for a little (or a lot) more money.”
These are all value choices (there’s no dispute about whether they have been below average in competitive strength or attendance). The SU and Pitt comment is a reference to my “little (or a lot)” comment. I don’t see how they add a lot, but its still a value judgement if they add a lot (however you define that).
LikeLike
This whole thing reminds me of New Coke. Charts and marketing data don’t make for a good conference.
LikeLike
@bullet – I hear you. I’ve never been a fan of expanding for the sake of expanding (despite spending most of my time writing about expansion). Now, I do think that schools such as UVA, UNC and Georgia Tech add value as a collective, but there does need to be some type of football hammer (e.g. Florida State) that comes along with them if the Big Ten goes that route (and if it isn’t clear by now, I’m a skeptic of the Big Ten actually pulling that off even if they want to). Academics and population bases matter a lot, but we shouldn’t go too overboard in thinking that they are the *only* things that matter to the Big Ten – the quality of football still drives the long-term money train off-the-field and Jim Delany knows that as much as anyone.
LikeLike
^I’m beginning to lose faith in the church of Jim. We’ve gambled and lost lately.
LikeLike
Frank:
Agree on UNC & UVa. Don’t think GTech adds enough unless they’re needed to bring in FSU.
LikeLike
Are we building an army? Give me a reason to care about population trends that doesn’t include the word “television”.
LikeLike
Need a talent pool to recruit from.
LikeLike
NJ and MD/DC were huge in that respect.
LikeLike
And the growth of the Midwest hasn’t outpaced the growth of Div-1 BCS programs?
LikeLike
Yes. Army of B10 alums.
LikeLike
The UMD lawsuit claims the ACC Constitution says that modifications to the conference by laws may not be enacted until the start of the following financial year (or something to that effect). We know MD is using this to argue they shouldn’t be subject to the $50M exit fee until it goes into effect mid summer 2013. Would a positive ruling for MD on this point provide more impetus for others to move before the end of the fiscal year? Perhaps member institutions would be pushed to move by a fear of getting “stuck” in a less attractive (fewer valuable members) ACC with exorbitant exit fees and without some combination of valuable members?
On the flip side, if the $50M exit fee is ruled to be unenforceable, could it potentially work to buy time for (and potentially save) the ACC since the “ticking clock” of the end of the fiscal year would be gone?
LikeLike
Believe there is another hearing on the case scheduled for early February.
LikeLike
Bylaws also say you have to notify by August 15th to leave at the following end of June, so that timing issue is more about withholding conference disbursements now than about whether Maryland is subject to an exit penalty: it was August 2012 to be out of the conference before a bylaw coming into effect July 1, 2013.
The arguments that the exit penalty is not due at all are the arguments that due process under the bylaws was not followed in enacting the penalty ~ notification period and such.
LikeLike
Great topic and one I’ve given thought from recent events. It really sounds like Texas doesn’t want any ‘competition’ in its conference and its minions are scared of Texas taking off and joining the Pac 12, B10, etc.
A Big XII expansion of FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville would be a huge boon imo but it’s clear Texas doesn’t want that so it’s very unlikely to happen. Texas wants to play Oklahoma, the Big XII cupcakes and one big OOC opponent every year and not face a threat in a Big XII CCG so they can get to to the 4-team playoff with little risk… I think a CCG should nearly be a requirement for the playoff system.
LikeLike
I think a CCG should nearly be a requirement for the playoff system.
The people making the decisions don’t think so.
LikeLike
the Big XII cupcakes
You realize that, since 2007, eight of the ten current schools of the Big 12 have cracked the Top 2 of the polls at least once, right?
(And one of the two which hasn’t cracked the Top 2, Baylor, merely produced a Heisman winner instead.)
Can any other conference point to that level of depth in its membership?
I’m not sure “cupcakes” is the right word here…
LikeLike
Which is why they really are happy in the Big 12. Except for 3 of the schools that left, the Big 12 has been pretty good for everyone.
LikeLike
Alabama can thank cupcake Baylor for helping its national championship season because if Baylor did not upset that other B12 cupcake Kansas State, Alabama would have not have made it to the NCG to be able to show what it could do on the field against Notre Dame.
LikeLike
And don’t forget cupcake Iowa State last year that allowed them a rematch against LSU.
LikeLike
And Iowa State and Baylor are the two schools that have NOT been ranked in the top 2.
LikeLike
bullet – I can’t forget. That’s why I hate both Iowa State and OK State now.
LikeLike
@Alan
Of course as Joyner noted the fact that LSU success under Miles has been entirely tied to their ability to win the turnover battle, OSU actually would have been the toughest matchup for the Tigers since the Cowboys TO margin last year was not only the best it the country, it was historic.
LikeLike
KC Joyner
LikeLike
frug – that 2011 LSU team beat eight ranked teams including the Pac-12 & Rose Bowl Champ at a neutral site, the Big East & Orange Bowl Champ on the road, and the BCS champ on the road. On its way to a 13-0 record and with only 6 home games, only two games were even close. I like that team’s chances against anybody, even OK State. In retrospect, asking my Tigers to beat Alabama three times in a row was just too much. Had LSU been able to close the deal, that season would be viewed as one of the greatest seasons in the history of college football.
LikeLike
@Alan
I would have favored LSU over Okie St. too, I was just pointing out that on paper at least, it would have been a tougher matchup than Alabama.
LikeLike
The B12 would take FSU immediately if they’d go. They won’t.
LikeLike
Frank,
You are correct, until the core schools (NC, Va & Duke) see no other options they have no desire to leave and the ACC survives.
My guess is Delany’s targets to get to 16 are GT & FSU. Those 2 have the demographics aka tv eyeballs and recruits to make them valuable additions.
Of course Jim has to convince his bosses to take a non-AAU school.
Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Presidents will go for that. They’re still in charge.
LikeLike
Is this where offering JHU (if it happens) comes in? JHU + GT are huge for academics and research, providing some cover for FSU?
LikeLike
GT and FSU to the B1G is the only real option I see to start a run at the ACC and this might not even do it. To much politics for other schools to be first movers.
UVA has a VT problem. The power in the state that forced VT to the ACC is still the power in the state. Its an assumption that the SEC would just run to grab them if UVA left. And that is if UVA even wanted to leave. They don’t need the money like Maryland. VT will have a hard time leaving for the same reason but they are not as flush with cash.
UNC is has it worse. They control 50 percent minus 1 of the NCST BoT so leaving them on a ledge is horrible optics that will get politicos involved. To maximize the value of UNC you really need Duke and it seems from the outside they are close and likely a package deal. Then of course it only takes one WF alum in the right position to screw the whole deal. For every dollar extra UNC makes more in the B1G/SEC they can take 10 in state funding. In a different context this happened just this last year in Florida where a state rep was not getting his way of an unneeded and unwanted by anyone but him and a few local COC types a 12th state university so he threatened to cut from tens to hundreds of millions in state funding to each of the 11 state universities.
BC offers the B1G nothing. The ACC experiment should be more then enough evidence that BC does not move the Boston dial at all. Other then the Boston market they are about as far from a B1G school as you can get. The idea that they would be used to grab ND is well stupid. They play rather infrequently and the B1G would like ND they don’t need ND.
Cuse is similar and I don’t think they bring all that much more then what Rutgers already gave them.
Pitt is in the footprint.
Clemson does not do research and they are a mid tier brand in a small and poor state.
Miami is probably the closet FBS school to AAU status but they are a non elite private.
The SEC given what it appears what they are looking for and what the B1G appears to be what they are looking for are looking at the same 2 schools as their first choice UVA and UNC. To me they seem by far the hardest schools to pry lose and that is if they even wanted to move.
Even with the loss of FSU and GT there is no guarantee at all that the ACC would break apart.
LikeLike
UVA has a VT problem. The power in the state that forced VT to the ACC is still the power in the state. Its an assumption that the SEC would just run to grab them if UVA left. And that is if UVA even wanted to leave. They don’t need the money like Maryland. VT will have a hard time leaving for the same reason but they are not as flush with cash.
Tech’s problem 10 years ago wasn’t so much being in the same conference as UVa (most of the time, they haven’t been), but that the Big East was seemingly in desperate straits without SU, Miami and BC. If UVa lets Slive know it’s not interested in the SEC under any circumstances (it would be a dreadful cultural fit), he’ll take the Gobblers.
UNC is has it worse. They control 50 percent minus 1 of the NCST BoT so leaving them on a ledge is horrible optics that will get politicos involved. To maximize the value of UNC you really need Duke and it seems from the outside they are close and likely a package deal. Then of course it only takes one WF alum in the right position to screw the whole deal. For every dollar extra UNC makes more in the B1G/SEC they can take 10 in state funding. In a different context this happened just this last year in Florida where a state rep was not getting his way of an unneeded and unwanted by anyone but him and a few local COC types a 12th state university so he threatened to cut from tens to hundreds of millions in state funding to each of the 11 state universities.
You’re playing the SWC + Big 8 = Big 12 game, with Wake Forest in the role of Baylor. I don’t think Wake wields anywhere as much power in North Carolina as Baylor does in Texas. If NCSU can be assured SEC membership, UNC will be able to enter the Big Ten, with or without Duke. But does UNC want to give State the SEC imprimatur, knowing it will probably give the Wolfpack a boost in football recruiting? That’s the $64K question.
LikeLike
When Baylor got into the B12 the Texas governor was a Baylor alum. When A&M left the B12 the Texas governor was an A&M alum. If the NC governor is a Wake Forest alum it may not happen. Any member of the legislature will get swamped by all the NC alums.
LikeLike
Difference is UNC doesn’t have the same leverage as Texas. And neither the SEC or Big Ten will be as desperate to add UNC as the Big XII was to get Texas.
LikeLike
I am not playing the SWC game because the ACC right now is not really close to the SWC before the merger. What I am suggesting is political problems with an ACC that looks like it does today might very well (I think likely) appear. While those of discussing expansion on message boards and blogs think its just logical that if x then y we don’t have the actual information that the decision makers have or what the decision makers are looking at. NCST can very well be left out of the SEC. The SEC does not get UNC plus 1 they might very well stay at 14 or take a different track. NCST is not FSU to UF, MSU to UM or TAM to UT there is a much bigger gulf in brand value for NCST. NCST alone is WVU with better academics.
As for Virginia here I am trying to get at is not so much UVA and VT are tied together as both need to have a landing spot. And while its nice to just VT will get a SEC invite this would require UVA and VT both working and talking together with both the SEC and B1G that is a lot of moving parts. The more moving parts the higher the likelihood it falls apart.
What I am suggesting is UVA and UNC need political cover which would require a school like FSU or GT to leave. Either the football brand or another (near) core member to leave.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
A couple interesting articles for consideration. There was a court ruling that allowed the case to go forward in the NCAA ant-trust suit–seehttp://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money
I can’t find the original article, but it was posted on the Victors Board and the post can be found here–http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1359504476.22341&user=mabee
Excerpts:
The idea that the biggest schools could abandon the NCAA was little more than backroom speculation during the recent college shake-ups, but it hit the mainstream when John Calipari, the charismatic head coach of the University of Kentucky men’s basketball team, floated the idea last spring. Calipari, ever the provocateur, predicted that the large schools would consolidate into four major conferences and break away from the NCAA before his career was finished.
“They’re not going to be around long. The NCAA will not,” Calipari told theSporting News. “Before I retire from coaching, they will no longer oversee college athletics. They will [oversee something], but it won’t be the four power conferences—they’ll be on their own.”
A year before, Calipari had suggested that breaking away from the NCAA would allow the biggest schools to institute a stipend system the way they see fit, without it being derailed by the smaller schools or the NCAA. It would also, he said, result in far more money for the schools.
“All that television, all that revenue goes back to the schools,” Calipari said. “You probably have $10 million that would go directly to the schools, to their academics and not have anything to do with athletics. You’d be able to give that on top of the living expense to all your athletes.”
School presidents are loath to discuss the idea of breaking away from the NCAA, though several have indicated that the largest football programs could soon split into their own division. But that doesn’t mean high-level administrators aren’t talking having quiet conversations about leaving the NCAA behind, especially given the amount of money at stake.
“That’s absolutely a feasible option,” Jay Bilas said. “There are things being talked about now that have never been talked about before. The big schools want to operate the way they see fit. If they can do that inside the NCAA structure, I think that’s preferable. But of course they’re thinking about it. They did it in football. We’re talking billions of dollars here. The amount of money that’s at stake, of course they’re considering it.”
Such a break would not be unprecedented. In 1979, the College Football Association, a coalition of the biggest NCAA football programs, attempted to negotiate a national television contract for its members with NBC. The NCAA, involved in its own television negotiations, put its foot down, saying it alone had the authority to negotiate television contracts for members, which it restricted to no more than one televised game per year. The University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia sued the NCAA, claiming it had violated federal antitrust law, and the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling allowed the schools and their conferences to negotiate their own television rights deals and effectively split the largest schools from the NCAA for football purposes. (Even today, the NCAA does not regulate the championship and postseason for the Football Bowl Subdivision, college football’s top division. It is the only sport for which that is true.)
Without control over football or a cut of the revenues generated by television, bowls or championships, the NCAA depends almost solely on the end of season men’s basketball tournament for revenue. And does the tournament ever generate revenue! In 2010, the NCAA reached an 14-year agreement, worth $10.8 billion, with CBS and Turner Sports to televise, for the first time, every one of the tournament’s games. If the largest schools, which, with the help of the Bowl Championship Series, just crafted a football playoff, figured out a way to manage an event similar to the NCAA Tournament; say, if they had 64 members and staged a 64 team tournament, a full split from the NCAA would become even more lucrative – and even more probable. “It’d make (schools) more money because it all goes straight to them,” Bilas said. “TV would flock to that.”
* * *
Others, like University of Illinois professor Michael LeRoy, are examining ways college athletes could organize and associate even without full labor protections. LeRoy published a research paper that argues college athletes operate in an “invisible labor market” and function as employees, and as such, they should have the right to bargain collectively. His proposal to fix that – tailored specifically for college athletes — would not allow athletes to bargain over wages and would not afford them the right to strike, but it would allow bargaining and arbitration on other issues, such as health protections and scholarships. The mere threat of organization, LeRoy argues, could cause the NCAA to grant players more of a say in the system.
LeRoy described his proposal as a “piecemeal” reform that would lead to a more vibrant and complete conversation about athletes’ rights in the future.
“As much as I think the NCAA is pretending that these football players are student-athletes and amateurs, especially at big programs, that’s an immovable concept,” LeRoy said. “And if that’s the case, the question becomes, how do you give them non-monetary forms of compensation that do benefit them? I think that would set up a conversation for future generations to say, ‘What the heck? This isn’t amateur athletics at all, so let’s not pretend anymore.’”
But LeRoy says he is pessimistic about the organizing of athletes. Because of that, he thinks changing the status quo in college sports will ultimately come from outside the game, and from an unlikely place: state legislatures.
As far back as 1988, the Nebraska state legislature approved a law that would allow the University of Nebraska, a football powerhouse, to pay a stipend to its players if other states in the Big XII, the conference Nebraska belonged to until 2011, passed similar laws. The legislation was vetoed by then-governor Kay Orr.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers revived the legislation in 2003, and then-governor Mike Johanns pledged to sign that version if it passed. It never did. In recent years, similar legislation has been introduced in Ohio, California and Utah, but none of the proposals passed (though California did pass the aforementioned Student-Athlete Bill of Rights).
LeRoy, however, believes that as the business of college athletics continues to grow, those efforts will continue.
“At some point, this money-making beast is just going to fall under its own weight, where lawmakers at the state level are going to say it’s kind of ridiculous that players don’t get anything out of this,” he said.
LikeLike
Even President Emmert has openly discussed the possibility of schools breaking away from the NCAA. His comments weren’t that different from those of Jay Bilas in this article. He’s said the NCAA needs to do something different.
LikeLike
When John Calipari becomes the moral compass of college athletics, you know there are issues.
I’ve expressed the thought that ND should have joined the BIG for political reasons as much as anything….to combat the power of schools like Oklahoma and Georgia, the ’79 plaintiffs in the referenced lawsuit. We know the result if the power schools break away and make their own rules…….
Of course, the BIG’s claim to the moral high ground ios weak when we’re busy stealing schools from other viable conferences by making confidentiality agreements with the top administrators of public universities.
LikeLike
I’m a little bit confused on the moral high ground issue. The Big Ten didn’t adopt a twelve-team conference first and put together a conference championship game–that was the SEC. The conference also didn’t do any expansion for a long time with Penn State coming onboard in 1991, Nebraska a few years ago and Rutgers/Maryland in 2014. In the case of the latter two, the Big Ten is actually going to be the means for them to get their financial houses in order.
The Big Ten Network may have never come to fruition if ESPN was more generous with its negotiations seven years ago. When the conference did opt to go from eleven teams to twelve, it made a very public announcement about it–it was hardly under the table.
Is the Big Ten unique with requiring confidentiality agreements be signed by potential members? There is a business aspect to all this.
Now if you want to say the conference has been tarnished by what happened at Penn State or the way Delany handled things with Ohio State and Tressel, then I could find room to agree with you.
But I’m a little unsure about how expanding a financially successful composed of most of the major research universities in the country is reason to say the B1G has lost its “claim to the moral high ground”.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten wasn’t requiring every single person that they were talking to regarding expansion to sign confidentiality agreements, then their attorneys would have needed to be fired. It’s strange that the Maryland president made it sound like it was an unusual request or somehow even nefarious when it’s the most basic (albeit essential) document that you need in place when handing over sensitive information about financial metrics and expansion plans. As an attorney reading that article, it made me wonder if there were actually conferences out there that would be idiotic enough to *not* have confidentiality agreements signed prior to talking. It’s insanity to me to not have those types of confidentiality agreements in place for business dealings that are a whole lot less interesting to the public and media than conference expansion (much less something that causes as much commotion as the Big Ten adding a new member).
LikeLike
I’ve done a few M&As, and on one occasion had to sign an NDA prior to disclosure of the identity of the potential buyer. I agree that NDAs are standard operating procedure, especially when both parties are looking up the other’s skirt.
LikeLike
I work on stuff no one really publicly cares about and I still have to work with NDAs.
As to the people that think keeping talks quiet are somehow nefarious, Wallace Loh said something to the effect of “leaders of institutions shouldn’t make decisions based on public opinion”. People with experience and qualifications get put in positions of power for these exact reasons.
LikeLike
To me, it is completely contrary to the basic nature/purpose of a public university to make a decision like that of the MD President and Board with NO prior public discussioin/imput. If it’s not illegal, it shoud be. It is immoral, imo. If that means a certain deal can’t be made, so be it.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod: Most states have at least one public university that has left or joined a conference at some point, without public input. It’s a fairly common occurrence, and so far no state legislature has made it illegal. If you feel that strongly about it, you should take it up with the government in whatever state you reside, but it doesn’t appear to be a priority in any state I’m aware of. Public universities have fairly wide latitude to operate as they see fit, subject to legislative oversight, but not public input on every decision.
LikeLike
Abandoning D1 sports would be a fundamental decision affecting the values and mission of the University and student-athletes in particular that would be outrageous to decide to do without public input.
Changing who the D1 sports teams are scheduled to play against is more an Athletic Department managerial issue. Surely the President should make the final call, but while boosters and T-shirt fans may be all tied up in knots over the decision, its not nearly so fundamental a decision about the values and mission of a D1 University.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing a moral issue here at all. Conferences are just business arrangements. When schools switch conferences, it’s not stealing; it’s just making a better deal, which anyone is free to do at any time.
I agree with @cutter that confidentiality agreements are just standard procedure that any prudent business would adopt in a similar situation.
LikeLike
I-L-L
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
GEAUX #3 LSU Baseball Tigers!
1st pitch is February 15 against Vincent’s turtles.
LikeLike
Enjoy the slaughter (although Maryland did manage to win two of three last year when opening the season at UCLA). Terrapin baseball is the equivalent of Penn State men’s basketball — an inherent lost cause, although being in the Big Ten will give Maryland a more equal playing field, at least where climate is concerned.
LikeLike
It seems that a school like Florida State may jump at an SEC or B1G offer, but as long as the ACC is viable, they would choose to stay there instead of joining the Big XII. Why get your school locked into a conference with a Grant of Rights deal for the next decade when a better offer might come around in a year or two, especially if your current conference seems fine. I think the Big XII will become a desperation move when no other options are available for some schools if the B1G/SEC do raid the ACC. If the B1G/SEC don’t expand, there’s no reason for the Big XII to expand and, thus, no reason for the ACC to fall apart.
LikeLike
It’s not that the Big XII lacks a reason to expand. It’s that they aren’t currently attractive to the schools they want (mainly FSU).
LikeLike
Another thing, in order to get the $$ that they want, one would think that the Big Ten needs to get their network onto the cable companies in their new markets first. Add too many schools at once and you take the risk of not having the $$ you promised to people in the first place.
If the Big Ten can get BTN on basic in NYC, Baltimore and D.C. fairly soon, they will likely push their next expansion move at that point if indeed they want to go in that direction.
LikeLike
Which is why some of us believe were stuck in this holding pattern, everyone is hoping somebody else throws the first punch. B10 and SEC are both waiting on schools that aren’t available unless the ACC falls apart while the top football schools in the ACC (FSU, Miami, Clemson) are holding out for offers from the B10 & SEC.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Reasons Why North Carolina and Virginia Aren’t Looking to Leave the Conference | Atlantic Coast Convos
All of this heightened urgency seems to ignore some salient facts:
1) The B1G and its potential targets all are incentivized to wait until the results of the UMD/ACC lawsuit are known.
2) The B1G is planting seeds but still doesn’t have to rush to be first; there’s quite a bit of time before new TV contract negotiations begin.
3) The B1G doesn’t have to rush to act. IMHO, when conference armageddon occurs, none of its intended targets would reject an offer out of hand, and there will be enough valued targets for implementation of a Plan A, B or C that still accomplishes demographic, athletic, academic and financial goals.
It the B1G is willing to pump its breaks a bit, we can avoid the ‘sky is falling’ posture some are expressing. Presumptions about rejection and alternate plans are only speculation and not accurate reflections about ‘moral compasses’ or failures by TPTB. We don’t know what’s going on. All will be revealed in time. Under most any conceivable outcome, we’re fine on the academic and financial measures.
LikeLike
Although not mentioned on this thread, the MD/ACC lawsuit has come up over and over again. I think most people realize that further defections are unlikely before that matter is resolved.
I don’t see any evidence that the B1G is in a rush.
LikeLike
Let’s assume the Big Ten will want to wrap up its television negotiations sometime in late 2015 to early 2016 because that’s when the current contracts with ABC/ESPN and CBS Sports are concluded.
If the conference wanted to have all its membership in place for the beginning of the 2016/7 seasons and the lead time to integrate teams into the conference is 18 months or so, then we’re looking at having all the invitations accepted by 2015.
If the B1G wanted to go into the negotiations with its new conference members already in place, then these invitations may have to be accepted in the 2014 time frame instead.
Of course, we all know the SEC Network is scheduled to kick off in January 2014, so you have a timetable in place there as well.
Can you tell me why again the Big Ten isn’t in a rush?
LikeLike
When the O.P. referred to “a rush,” I don’t think 2 years from now is what he had in mind.
Even one year from now is a comparative eternity, next to what most Internet gossips are claiming.
LikeLike
^^^ What Marc Shepherd said.
Making inquiries and setting dominoes isn’t the same as “Decision by Tuesday!!” If we devised an operational matrix based on accepting your assumption that negotiations are wrapped up in late 2015 and another assumption based on the timing of UMD/ACC concluding the lawsuit, your timetable for announcing new acquisitions (excluding something like JHU which doesn’t affect the football pot) would fall in-between those time frames. Of course if UNC/UVA/FSU (in particular) came to us and said now or we’re going to the SEC (which hasn’t already happened to this point or they’d be in one place or another), the time table might change.
LikeLike
I agree with most of you that the ACC-Maryland suit has to be settled before we see very much movement in any of these scenarios.
The Washington Post wrote an article comparing what’s happening now with what West Virginia did–see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/01/28/maryland-acc-legal-battle-has-similarities-to-west-virginia-big-east-situation-also-possibly-precedent-setting-differences/
Also see http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/51703/update-on-acc-vs-maryland That article says the next hearing on February 18 will help decide if the case is judged in North Carolina or Maryland.
After that, I don’t know what the timetable will be for the lawsuit going forward. There may be a settlement out of court or the ACC may opt to pursue it entirely through the legal system. The lawyers on this board may be able to give us a better timetable on this, but is it realistic to think this will go into 2014 or will it be wrapped up this year?
Let’s say that a decision is made by the fall of 2013 and the SEC Network is due to come on line in January 2014. In that scenario, it’s not hard to imagine that schools might receive invitations later this year so that the newly reconfigured Big Ten and SEC could be in place and running by 2016.
So no, I don’t think this is going to take place tomorrow or next week or next month. But sometime later this year–I could see that.
Of course, Delany went ahead and invited Rutgers and Maryland pretty much knowing there would be a legal battle involved in both their cases. While some of the ACC schools might want to take a wait-and-see position, it’s not going to stop the B1G from greasing the skids and making its case so that when the time comes, they can move pretty quickly.
LikeLike
cutter, you’ve already nailed why the Big Ten isn’t in a rush, I’ll go with your explanation. Having membership in place as of the start of 2016 looks fast enough to me, no need to rush.
LikeLike
I think there is a better chance that the ACC expands west into Big 12 territory. It would make a lot more sense for Texas and Oklahoma to dump TCU, Baylor, and Tech and organize a western flank for the ACC. Likely candidates to accompany Texas and Oklahoma to the ACC include: Kansas, Iowa State, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State…probably in that order.
Why? There is more population, bigger markets, more tv subscribers, and bigger money to be had eastwards. And Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State would love the ACC academia.
First obvious obstacle is the grant of rights. However, it doesn’t last forever and there is always a business solution to undesired contractual commitments. I truly believe the ACC and Big 12 will seriously consider an alliance. It would likely include football and basketball scheduling and even some bowl games or bowl alliances using a tiered approach for selection.
Let’s say the ACC-Big 12 scheduling alliance begins in 2016. It will likely last 4 or 5 years. That gets us to about 2020. By 2020, there will only be about 4 years left on the grant of rights. At that point, the ACC and Big 12 defectors will be able to come to a business solution with the Big 12 to release the grant of rights (ie, an exit fee and a continued scheduling arrangement).
Here’s my guess at the 20-team ACC with five 4-team pods:
NORTH ATLANTIC
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Notre Dame* (full member)
MID ALTANTIC
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Louisville
West Virginia*
COASTAL
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake Forest
WEST
Texas*
Oklahoma*
Kansas*
Iowa State*
SOUTH
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
LikeLike
In the alternative, if Notre Dame remains a partial independent, I could see this 18-team divisional alignment (sorry West Virginia):
NORTH
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Texas*
Oklahoma*
Kansas*
Iowa State*
SOUTH
North Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake Forest
Louisville
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
LikeLike
Go UT and OU are going to leave B12 for less money in the ACC? Right.
LikeLike
And suddenly UT doesn’t have the “Tech” problem the B1G referred to a couple years ago, and OU lite is suddenly abandoned by OU?
LikeLike
The ACC has too much dead weight to produce the $$$ that will make it attractive. If an alliance produces enough good will between the top schools then both conferences could be dissolved with a new conference created from the best of the ACC/B12. Even though possible, it is not likely to occur since a majority of both conferences is required in the new one.
LikeLike
SWC/Big8 revisited?
LikeLike
For those interested in the JH lacrosse rumor, check out SB Nation artivle by Honya Suxa filed 1/17/13…….article is nothing special but there are 72 comments concerning the article from JH and east coast LAX fans.
LikeLike
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/1/17/3886382/conference-realignment-maryland-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-big-ten-10
LikeLike
If it does come to fruition and JHU joins the Big Ten and CIC, it’d be a huge addition.
Still not sure how it would work; I’d assume that they’d join both, but who in the world knows.
For the Big Ten, this is uncharted territory to even be considered. How does JHU’s TV deal work and all the rest are huge issues; what kind of say would they even have in the conference affairs if they’re just there for men’s/women’s lacrosse?… Do they want to be in the CIC; they already generate something around $1-2 billion in annual research alone, so do they want to collaborate with the CIC as it would seem they don’t need to?
LikeLike
zeek, I’d have to think JHU would be in the CIC if they joined. Thats the whole reason the B1G would invite them.
LikeLike
ESPNU contract could remain in effect for JH’s home games….purpose of JH is to make a bigger, better league….JH’s games at BIG’s schools could be shown on BTN.
LikeLike
Don’t care for this. I have nothing against associate members in principle, but the Big Ten decided to not have them and avoided them in hockey even though it could have helped a long time ago.
LikeLike
Conferences aren’t religions. They’re just business arrangements for mutual self-interest. I’m not really sure which associate memberships were seriously considered in the past (if any) and rejected. Maybe those weren’t in the Big Ten’s interest, according to whatever definition they were using at the time.
But as long as you’ve nothing against it in principle, you ought to just consider each one on a case-by-case basis. The research synergies, assuming JH joins the CIC, are obvious and should require no explanation. Competitively, JH is a top program in Lacrosse, and they have no other sports in Division I.
As far as principle goes, the Big Ten could still say that they’re only admitting AAU members in geographically contiguous states, and all the member schools are putting all their Division I varsity sports in the conference, if the Big Ten offers the sport.
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
(Note: Oddly I’ve got nothing against school because their academics aren’t considered that good. Different schools have different purposes and I could care less whether a school is a commuter school or a research school. In that light, I kind of think the CIC should be seperated from the Big Ten)
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
The difference with ND is as follows: their athletic reputation is overwhelmingly in football. In men’s basketball, they have never even made it to a Final Four, and they’ve made it to the Sweet Sixteen just once in the last twenty years. They are not a basketball power in any sense.
If they don’t join in football, then what exactly are you getting? Suppose the Big Ten gave them the same terms the ACC did: all sports but football, plus five football games a year, and the Irish keep their existing TV deal. Well, ND is already playing three Big Ten teams annually. You’d add two games, only one of which would be in a Big Ten stadium.
So, you’re going to do that deal for one home game a year?
LikeLike
@Marc
While I don’t disagree with your point, ND did make the final 4 in ’78 when UK beat Duke for the title.
LikeLike
I suppose part of my objection goes that having Notre Dame as a non-football member makes more sense to me than any other move once we move past all or nothing.
The difference with ND is as follows: their athletic reputation is overwhelmingly in football. In men’s basketball, they have never even made it to a Final Four, and they’ve made it to the Sweet Sixteen just once in the last twenty years. They are not a basketball power in any sense.
ND has won a NCAA title in women’s basketball (2001, over Purdue), has become a national power in men’s lacrosse, and has done well in baseball despite its poor climate. ND’s heritage is primarily in football, but it’s no more a one-trick pony than, say, Nebraska. (And Penn State isn’t, either — remember, it’s won NCAA titles in both men’s and women’s volleyball.)
LikeLike
Sure, I’m well aware that Notre Dame is good in other sports. But the Big Ten doesn’t particularly need them in those sports. As I said upthread, conference membership is a business decision, driven by mutual self-interest. You can see why the ACC gave Notre Dame the deal they did, given the ACC’s obvious vulnerability. The Big Ten doesn’t have those concerns, and therefore, it doesn’t gain a lot if the Irish join without football.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Sure, I’m well aware that Notre Dame is good in other sports. But the Big Ten doesn’t particularly need them in those sports. As I said upthread, conference membership is a business decision, driven by mutual self-interest. You can see why the ACC gave Notre Dame the deal they did, given the ACC’s obvious vulnerability. The Big Ten doesn’t have those concerns, and therefore, it doesn’t gain a lot if the Irish join without football.”
Unless the B10 views it as a foothold to get ND in FB later. If ND ever chooses to join a conference, clearly the one with all their other sports is the most likely option. Besides, it gains you some eyeballs in NYC and other places and may soften the negative feelings for the B10 that some ND fans have. That would be a reasonable basis to make the business decision to add ND.
LikeLike
@Brian
That’s what the Big East thought.
LikeLike
frug,
The BE wasn’t wrong, they just couldn’t last long enough to keep ND around until they decided to join a conference in football. The ACC has better odds of persisting. The B10 is unlikely to fold before ND makes their decision.
LikeLike
Eric:
The key point is that the B10 picks and chooses the sport they accept an affiliate member in. The ACC agreed to take ND in in all sports, even though ND’s teams in, say, golf and cross country don’t exactly add value. So sure, I’d be fine with the B10 taking in ND as an affiliate member in football. Maybe even as an affiliate member in hockey. They can house their golf and cross country squads elsewhere.
LikeLike
@ everyone:
the ND “associate membership” question is interesting.
but consider a counter-factual. how would we feel if ND came to the B1G and said they wanted to be football-only, but independent in everything else?
I honestly don’t know.
John Hopkins is lax-only, but independent (or DivII/III) in everything else. this is wow, wonderful, good, yes, please because it’s freaking JHU.
If ND were allowed to be a football-only member of the B1G, it would NOT be on account of its academic reputation.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with all D1 in, even though only 1, satisfying the all in “rule”. I do have a problem with the minimum number of sports (D1, to be consistent) requirement.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame said they wanted to be associate members in football, hockey, indoor track and women’s soccer, and were dropping all of their other programs down to D3 or club, sure, that’s ample all or nothing for me. But I’m not sure I’m down with competing D1 conference affiliation in a Big Ten sponsored sport.
LikeLike
The key point is that the B10 picks and chooses the sport they accept an affiliate member in. The ACC agreed to take ND in in all sports, even though ND’s teams in, say, golf and cross country don’t exactly add value.
You are aware the the ACC chose to add ND’s golf and cross county teams aren’t you?
LikeLike
I may be wrong but JHU has a singular exemption. My understanding is that future drop downs would be limited by the lower levels scholarship rules. Who’s going to do that in a major sport?
LikeLike
frug:
Not on the merits of the golf and cross county teams, they didn’t. You think the ACC would have taken those teams if they could pick and choose which of ND’s sports teams they would admit and which they could leave out?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 ~ the NCAA didn’t directly address the case of a D1 school dropping down to D3 when their own coverage of the rule change linked to above ~ they talked about the case of a D2 or D3 already sponsoring a D1 sport in 2010 (and in the case of a D3 school, having scholarships in 2004 in order to continue to offer scholarships). No indication there whether the grandfather clause that applied to D2 and D3 as of 2010 could be used by a current D1 school to drop down to D2 but to KEEP one each of its men and women’s D1 sports: that text is, after all, characterizing the rule, not the rule itself.
LikeLike
I have no idea if Johns Hopkins would join the Big 10, in a capacity similiar to the University of Chicago, but I have little doubt the Big 10 would be very happy to accept the #2 rated Medical Research University in America (Only behind Harvard). Their Lacrosse Program (And a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference to be shown on the Big 10 Network) would simply be icing on the cake. I have read about comparing Lacrosse to Hockey, and the situations are quite different. The only non-Big 10 members playing Division 1 Hockey, while being an AAU Member are Ivy League Schools and Boston University (Joined last year). Since we know AAU Membership is a requirement for the Big 10 (Minus Nebraska of course), they were not going to add Lake Superior State or Denver College just for Hockey, so they simply waited until an AAU Member (In this case Penn State), decided to add Division 1 Hockey. One other important point: The idea of Big 10 Lacrosse is actually quite new. Possible member number 3 (Michigan) is new to Lacrosse and numbers 4 & 5 (Maryland & Rutgers) have not joined yet. Gut feeling one day the Lacrosse Conference will occur. It could be North Carolina joining, it could be Hopkins, it could be another Big 10 School, but one day it is happening.
LikeLike
Yes, in a very short period of time, Big Ten Men’s Lacrosse went from being in the same position as Men’s Fencing and Volleyball or Women’s Fencing or Water Polo to looking at being one team away from an AQ championship in 2014. Indeed, as “Are we going to be pursuing a Big Ten women’s lacrosse championship” went from a “it might be nice in the long run” question to, “are we going to be pursuing a Big Ten’s women’s lacrosse championship once MD and Rutgers joins?”, and once discussions start along that front, the question of Big Ten men’s lacrosse being one short of AQ would be tagging along right on its heels.
LikeLike
I would be shocked if UNC left the ACC in 2013. The football agent and academic scandals have engulfed the campus. The Chancellor, Holden Thorpe is returning to the faculty. The AD, Bubba Cunningham arrived from Tulsa last year. Who does Delaney negotiate with? The UNC Board of Governors is tied down trying to save state funding with a new Republican legislature. Maybe within 2 years when the Maryland vs ACC lawsuit is settled, when the B1G nails down the new TV contract and when a new Chancellor (the school they come from could be a clue) consolidates power.
And B1G can be patient because UNC will never go to the SEC. Football does not drive the athletic department. Butch Davis tried to create an SEC-caliber football program and all it brought was woe.
LikeLike
Eventually, football will have to drive the athletic department, unless UNC wants to be East Carolina at Chapel Hill. The sooner the folks on Tobacco Road realize that, the better off they’ll be.
LikeLike
Why? Why does everyone assume that you need extra money to run a team? Has anyone ever compared football budgets? Where does the money go? Probably to lesser sports and perhaps the general fund. That might be important with a mismanaged school in a stagnant state, but is it the case everywhere?
Money does not equal football success. Rather, football success = football success. And perhaps football success = money. The fact that the SEC is good at football has less to do with the finances of their athletic departments and more to do with their proximity to some of the best talent in the country–being sandwiched between Texas and Florida.
Long before this money got crazy, North Carolina lost Mack Brown to Texas. Is there any scenario where Texas will not always have more money than UNC? Even within a conference, how many B1G schools can keep up with Ohio State?
This money thing is so WAY overblown it is unreal. It’s not a stat. It’s not an end. I am not even sure its the means…
LikeLike
You’re certainly right that money alone can’t win football games. But if you’re suggesting they’re entirely uncorrelated, that’s probably wrong. It would be interesting to have some data, but I’d be surprised if there is no relationship whatsoever.
Now, to some extent success is self-reinforcing. If you field a winning team, then more fans come to the games, more boosters donate money, more viewers want to see you on TV, and so forth. That is why the top dogs in a sport tend to remain on top: having built up that kind of advantage, it takes real incompetence over many years to squander it.
The real issue is that, in most athletic departments, football and basketball make money, and every other sport loses money. At Michigan and Ohio State, even after they pay for their other sports, they’ve got money left over, which they keep plowing into new facilities. At Maryland, they have a deficit and had to eliminate seven sports.
The real chase is to make more money from football and basketball, so that the other sports can be paid for without having to borrow money or get subsidies from the general fund. Of course, there are some schools that made dumb investments. There are something like 300+ Division I schools. Anytime you have that many of anything, not all will be well managed. But the basic idea that football and basketball pay for everything (or almost everything) else is a good rule of thumb.
So the question for a school like UNC is, if the Big Ten can offer $10 million more a year, or $15 more a year, can they afford to turn that down?
LikeLike
Right, it isn’t irrelevant. But if the Big 10 has the most revenue, but the poorer (right now) SEC teams choose to make football a greater revenue priority–will adding $5M more to SEC coffers impact football? More likely, it will be pocketed or moved to different sports. Meaning that the $5M really does not change the balance.
The Forbes data is flawed, but interesting. The ACC is not that far off the SEC contract per team. Yet $$$ is the excuse. If the SEC can win Championships, nobody else has an excuse.
FSU spent $4M on their WBB last year. Why? Why should FSU go to the Big XII just because they pay stupid money on a non-revenue sport?
Anyway, I agree. I’d like to see the analysis. Not sure any data would be rock solid (reporting money differently, etc.), but it would be interesting.
Either way, I don’t see $$$ making UNC fall off the football or basketball map. For the former, they need to get on the map first; for the latter, it is just a down season. It’s not $$$.
LikeLike
One flaw in Forbes is that they take the 14 team ACC revenue and divide by 12.
LikeLike
And since the SEC hasn’t re-worked their deal, they are taking the 12 team SEC revenue and dividing by 14.
LikeLike
That’s one possibility. The other is that UNC just decides it’s better off getting all their unpleasant business taken care of at once, instead of dragging it out. Like removing a band-aid in one big pull, instead of slowing peeling it.
LikeLike
The meeting showed the B12 has a very realistic view of its expansion possibilities. The B12 indicated that BYU, SMU, UCONN, Cincinnati, etc. will not happen since they do not provide the $$$ required. A B12/ACC alliance is not going to lead to a first strike raid by the B12, but it might give the B12 information useful for moves after B1G and/or SEC raids. It may also make ACC schools more comfortable going to the B12 if the ACC gets raided.
LikeLike
It appears to me that if Delaney really wants to add to 16 teams and mazimize cable TV revenue, he would be on the phone with FSU and Georgia Tech with an invitation today. Five point five million Cable TV boxes in Florida alone. Another two plus million in Georgia. And, I was in Key West two weeks ago and noticed a BIG TEN bar there not far from the dock area. Which suggests there are plenty of existing alumni to support cable sets for the B1G not to mention the many Seminole fans and the few travelingpartner, Yellow Jacket fans.
LikeLike
The open question is, under what circumstances are the presidents and chancellors willing to accept Florida State. Is it: 1) No effing way; 2) We’ll think about it; 3) Yes, but only if 3 AAU schools come with you; 4) Something else?
Those are decisions Jim Delany is not allowed to make.
LikeLike
I would like to see:
The Big Ten grab Virginia and North Carolina. Then have 4 pods that each feature one football King. West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; North: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern and Rutgers; South: Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana and Purdue; East Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.
The SEC grab NC State and Virginia Tech. North: Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt. South: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State. East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and NC State. West: Mizzou, LSU, Texas A&M, and Arkansas.
The Big 12 then grab Miami, FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Notre Dame. West: Notre Dame, Iowa State, West Virginia, and Louisville. East: Miami, FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State. South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU.
The PAC 12 UNLV, New Mexico, SMU, and Houston. Those are probably the best 4 mid majors that the PAC will have a chance to get. West: UNLV, Utah, Arizona an Arizona St. East: Colorado, New Mexico, SMU, and Houston. North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. South: Cal, Standford, USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
If you have pods in the Big Ten, then you must have Michigan and Ohio State in the same pod to ensure the play one another annually. The same probably goes for the former ACC/Big East schools, the four far western teams and the intrastate rivalries (IL-NW, UM-MSU, PU-IU).
Assuming a nine-game conference schedule and a four pod system, here’s how it should be done-
Pod A: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
In Years 1 and 2, Pods A and B form one division and Pods C and D form the other. The teams in Pod B play two teams from Pod D each year and the teams in Pod A play two teams from Pod C each year.
In Years 3 and 4, Pods A and D form one division and Pods B and C make up the other. The teams in Pod B play the other two teams in Pod D and the teams in Pod A play the other two team from Pod C.
This set up preserves most of the rivalries and keeps Nebraska/Wisconsin permanently in one division and Michigan/Ohio State permanently in the other so there’s some semblance of competitive balance. It also ensures that a team will play each team in its pod four times over a four year period and the remaining twelve teams in the conference two times in the same four year period.
LikeLike
Oh, my. The years that A&C pods are in a division together, the league will be seriously unbalanced. I get that future performance isn’t totally predictable, but no one would tolerate over-weighting them to that extent.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
Don’t worry because the A & C pods would never be together in this setup.
The only combinations that will exist are A-B, C-D in Years 1 & 2 and A-D, B-C in Years 3 & 4. After Year 4, we go back to the same combination from Years 1 & 2
Here’s what a Pod C program Michigan would be looking at as its nine conference opponents:
Years 1 & 2 (Divisions are A-B and C-D)
Pod C: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod D: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod A: Nebraska, Minnesota
Years 3 & 4 (Divisions are A-D and B-C)
Pod C: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod B: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod A: Iowa, Wisconsin
As I mentioned above, in this setup, Pods A & C would never be put together in the same division in order to maintain some semblance of competitive balance between the two divisions over the four year period. Consider them permanently assigned to one division with Pods B & D moving back and forth between divisions every two years.
So what would a school from Pod D have in its nine-game conference schedule. Let’s use Maryland as an example:
Years 1 & 2 (Divisions are A-B and C-D)
Pod D: Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Pod B: Illinois, Purdue
Years 3 & 4 (Divisions are A-D and B-C)
Pod D: Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina
Pod A: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
Pod B: Northwestern, Indiana
In that four year period of 36 conference games, a team will play the programs in its pod 12 times (3 teams X 4 games over four years) and will play the other 12 teams in the conference 24 times (12 teams X 2 games over four years). In that four year period, each team will have one home and one road game with the teams from the other pods and two home and two road games with the teams in its own pod.
This setup pretty much mimics what the WAC did during the brief period of time it had 16 teams. While every rivalry game in the Big Ten won’t get played each year (ex. Michigan-Minnesota for the Little Brown Jug or Ohio State-Illinois for the Illinibuck), they’ll at least be played two times out of four years. This setup also ensures that the in-state rivalry games (Purdue-Indiana, Michigan-Michigan State, Illinois-Northwestern) are on the schedule annually. Plus the four western teams (Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota) get to play one another each year as well as the four eastern most teams (Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech).
Finally, of course, Michigan-Ohio State is assured of being played each year as well. 🙂
LikeLike
The big ten only took Rutgers to grow into the New York market the best way to do that is to make sure they play one of the crown jewels in football and basketball every year. That’s why I like them to play Michigan and Michigan St. In a home and home every year in basketball and play Michigan every year in football. Northwestern would be a good match-up for them because there at about equal caliber. That’s why I think you play nine games in football and eighteen in basketball in conference. With 3 cross division games, then rotate the other 9 times that are outside of your pod. An example of the cross over match ups would be:
Michigan-Ohio St.-Penn St.-Iowa.
Michigan St.-Indiana-North Carolina-Wisconsin
Rutgers-Purdue-Virginia-Nebraska.
Northwestern- Illinois-Maryland-Minnesota.
North-South-East-West
This guarantees a crown jewel home game every year for Rutgers.
LikeLike
UNC and UVA will never go for that. That “South” division would be straight Yank to them. Only way you get coveted ACC teams is if you take 4+ of them.
LikeLike
I’m just starting a new post because I got lost.
JH is an interesting idea. I like that they are all in, the academics are huge, and it’s a good sweetener for future considerations.
That said. If they do this, they’d be crazy not to figure out a way to get Toronto at least in a similar situation.
Frug, I’m not often sarcastic. The ping pong plan is more of a thought of taking an idea to it’s logical and/or absurd conclusion.
LikeLike
Toronto…..you mean hockey, I assume? I would assume their mens and womens teams play tough competition now….
LikeLike
I’m saying if we’re looking at tying up quality CIC members and possible eyeballs, Toronto is a no-brainer. Question is whether they’d want to move to US hockey.
LikeLike
And if the NCAA let them.
LikeLike
would let them
LikeLike
yes, i am being a broken record (huh? what’s that?). anyway, JHU is not just “some” AAU institution. It is on par with — not the same as — but on par with Harvard, Stanford and Univ. of Chicago. the B1G COP/C will happily, quickly and enthusiastically make exceptions for JHU. the B1G will not do the same for Toronto or Iowa State or anybody other than JHU, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and MIT. This is my opinion.
LikeLike
JHU is #1 in research funding per year.
Getting them into the CIC would be a monster addition.
LikeLike
Agreed. Getting JHU affiliated with other Big Ten schools via the CIC is an academic no brainer. I’ve got to assume that is behind this lacrosse talk and bring able to sponsor a men’s lacrosse league as a result is simply a nice bonus.
JHU is not just “any” school academically, even compared to most AAU schools. I don’t see the fears that this could be the start of a slippery slope given that they are a pretty unique opportunity that wouldn’t be replicated.
LikeLike
Its seems quite possible that what is behind it is they were throwing ideas around, and someone said, “well, if the rules on associate members were to change, who would we want? And who would be most likely to help us get that rule changed?” And the answer was, “Hopkins as a Lacrosse associate is our obvious first choice, and some kind of CIC associate as well would be an angle that might get the rule changed.”
“But would Hopkins go for that?” “I dunno, only way to find out is to ask them.”
That fits perfectly with the reporting from both sides.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
Just because I like talking about them so much, Toronto is on par with all of the schools you mention. It is also sits in a population center of over 5 million people or so – 4th or 5th largest north american market, I think.
I agree JH is worth considering and if the B10 goes down that road, they’d be crazy not to look at Toronto and figure out a way to make it happen.
LikeLike
Toronto’s a monster university. They’d definitely accommodate them if they could.
LikeLike
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=184040569&mid=184040569&sid=901&style=2
—Purple Cat Book speaks!
“My friend went over the top in telling me from the start that Rutgers would not be part of any deal. He laughed in my face afterward, and said “what do you expect?” That thing was kept under wraps for a very long time and only leaked to ESPN after it had been an absolutely done deal. So no, I have no idea what to expect anymore. Further, I just moved from Chicago to Denver to work with the USOC, so no more beers with my friend. It has been a fun ride, but my insider connection to the inner workings of the Big Ten is now exactly 1,200 miles away.
He’s a prick anyway, never should have listened to him. And you all never should have listened to me!”
lol
LikeLike
I am an alum of both tOSU and Northwestern. I know this is harsh, but I don’t care. As I sit here in my chair, I am mortified that anyone would associate that fraud with my school.
LikeLike
“But how many conference games will be played? Burke said the Big Ten has asked the athletic directors to put a moratorium on scheduling non-conference games after 2020. In fact, the league has told schools to schedule four non-conference games in 2014 and 2015, three in 2016, 2017 and 2018 and only two in 2019 and 2020.”
Hmmm, This does make one think.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20130126/SPORTS020101/301260031/How-will-14-team-Big-Ten-look-s-still-anyone-s-guess
LikeLike
Maybe a revived B1G/Pac 12 alliance or somehting like that starting in 2019.
LikeLike
I doubt it. Expansion as made that more difficult. Plus, the Big Ten is still pretty peeved at the PAC for backing out of the deal after the Big Ten had already started clearing their schedules (tOSU alone cancelled series with Tennessee and Georgia specifically because of the alliance.)
LikeLike
Big 12 has also put a halt on future ooc.
The big conspiracy would be a plan to bolt the NCAA.
LikeLike
First off, it sounds like the Big Ten has made a decision to stick with an eight-game conference schedule for 2014/5. That might suggest that they’re planning on having only fourteen teams in the B1G in that time frame. It also probably reflects the reality that teams have already scheduled their four non-conference opponents for those two seasons and that it’d be problematic to cancel or reschedule a number of games. It might also suggest that the B1G isn’t ready to move conference games up the the first three weeks of September quite yet.
The 2016 season and beyond certainly leaves open the possibility of nine-game conference schedules for a three year period with a chance for a 10-game schedule to be implemented in 2019/20. It doesn’t necessarily mean the latter will happen, just that there’s a chance of it taking place.
This might also indicate that the conference feels it’s not prepared to go to 16- or more programs in the conference earlier than the 2016 season. Given the current ACC/Maryland lawsuit and the timeline for when the future television negotiations are going to take place, that makes sense as well.
If new members of the conference have to be in place by 1 July 2016 (start of the B1G fiscal year) and the transition period is a year minimum (it was a little over 12 months between when Nebraska accepted the B1G invite to when it actually joined the conference), then any additional schools would need to be accepted NLT the summer of 2015. If the transition period is 18 months, then the invitations might have to be accepted at the end of 2014.
LikeLike
cutter,
The B10 will likely avoid 9 games before the new TV deal. That would be a fairly major change to deal with 2 years before the TV deal ends. I’m guessing they’d prefer to negotiate just once.
LikeLike
wholly owned subsidiary?
LikeLike
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/1/30/3934068/poll-should-the-b10-add-john-hopkins
Express your opinion on the B10 adding JHU.
LikeLike
Current results:
Hell yes, the BTN needs spring lacrosse (14 votes) – 27%
Only if they also join the CIC (31 votes) – 60%
Hell no, don’t start down the slippery slope of partial members (6 votes) – 11%
___
I think the issue for most people is joining the CIC. Many here are assuming it, but what if they only join for lacrosse? So far, it’s 2-1 against adding them in that case.
LikeLike
However, the what are the odds of that? JHU may decide on that route (B10 hockey with no CIC), but it seems unlikely to me.
LikeLike
Nobody knows the odds of that. Maybe the B10 would refuse that. Maybe JHU would only do it that way. None of us know. But it’s the more interesting question since a large majority of people seems to be OK with the concept of an associate member.
LikeLike
According to a recent post on MGoBlog (see http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/probable-realignment-scenario-971-wxyt), Doug Karsch who regularly covers Michigan sports says his sources tell him that 12 of the 14 B1G schools have been set regarding divisions.
East: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana
West: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota
The conference is still deliberating on where Michigan State and Purdue are going to reside. Not much surprise there, but just another source saying that geography with a sense of competitive balance is what the B1G is looking for IRT the division setup.
LikeLike
If true, I would put MSU in the east. Everyone in the west will want Michigan as much as possible. If they are required to play MSU every year that reduces every else’s access. Splitting IU/PU doesn’t require Michigan to have a fixed opponent.
LikeLike
Yes. I agree 100% with this.
A Michigan-Michigan State crossover game would be a bad idea; keep them together in my opinion.
LikeLike
MSU West, Purdue East and this will be perfect.
LikeLike
Competitively yes, but losing Michigan games would hurt the Western schools.
LikeLike
Then they shouldn’t agree to putting 3 kings in the east. Once they agree to that, they lose the right to complain about not playing one of them enough. When MI is less available, that means more OSU (and PSU).
LikeLike
MSU to the east with crossovers. Just to spite Brian.
Nah, I kid; it is my favored arrangement, though.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter, I hate all of the choices. I frankly hope the B10 suffers from this. I hope NYC never cracks, MD and RU fail, the west shrivels from lack of attention and PSU and MSU (and hopefully MI) suffer from being in a stacked division. By 2014, I’m an OSU fan only.
LikeLike
Brian,
I kind of hope the same thing (or at least am indifferent). All the conference chaos as made me realize I don’t care about their financial strength/success anymore. I’ve got Ohio/Midwestern pride and will continue to have some conference pride, but it’s a diminished pride and based more on talking to conference fans more than rooting because the team is “Big Ten.” This I think is the long term danger in college changes. Conference pride at this level is very unique to college sports. Loosing regional focus and bigger playoffs are going to diminish it over the long run.
LikeLike
Eric,
CFB and the B10 have unintentionally done almost everything in their power to push me away. Going to 12 teams, expanding to 14, talking about annexing the ACC, refusing to go to 9 games while expanding, ruining the Rose Bowl, etc all just lower my enthusiasm for any non-OSU game. I refuse to watch The Game when OSU is wearing alternate jerseys, so I’ve only heard the last several. I will not watch the expanded playoff unless OSU is in it. I may be down to watching a handful of games per year by 2014. On the bright side, I’ll have a lot of free time on Saturdays to do other things.
LikeLike
“I refuse to watch The Game when OSU is wearing alternate jerseys, so I’ve only heard the last several.”
You refuse to watch The Game, but you post utter bullshit here 50 times a day. Grand.
LikeLike
I do it just for you, greg.
LikeLike
I hope this is wrong because if Purdue goes East the Illinois will have gotten screwed. Losing games against both the Indiana schools and tOSU would suck.
LikeLike
I agree that Illinois is hurt the most (tradition-wise) in this scenario. It’ll be interesting to see if they deem this acceptable.
LikeLike
That Purdue-Illinois game is almost a must. Purdue is closer to Illinois than to IU……
LikeLike
Yet in the 11-school era, IU was a protected game for Illinois while PU wasn’t, so the powers-that-be seem to disagree with you (and it isn’t because of Northwestern; neither PU or IU are rivals to us; we’re pretty much indifferent).
LikeLike
I think the B10 went with proximity. PU/IL and IN/IL are similar distances while IN/NW would be a much longer drive. It’s a shame that they dropped the Purdue Cannon game for it, though. Maybe IN strongly requested IL or PU really wanted NW or NW requested PU despite Richard’s ambivalence.
LikeLike
I know that for me personally as an Illini fan, I have a lot more vitriol toward Indiana compared to Purdue (albeit it stems from basketball instead of football). Prior to me writing about conference realignment, the most frequently read post on this blog was this scorched Earth piece (which ended up getting carried on Deadspin) on Satan’s Spawn (Kelvin Sampson) prying Eric Gordon away from an oral commitment to Illinois:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/hoosier-fleecing-a-qa-with-frank-the-tank-on-the-eric-gordon-debacle/
LikeLike
@Frank – I noticed that post only generated four comments. When you started writing about realignment, did you expect the traffic and following you ended up with? Also it seems that you’re a fairly active message board poster, what was your motivation for starting the blog instead of just posting your thoughts there?
LikeLike
@Mike – Good questions.
I had absolutely no idea or expectation that I would end up with the traffic and following regarding conference realignment. All I knew was that I found it to be an interesting topic and there weren’t really many (if any) places discussing it in-depth or beyond “Cincinnati played really well last year and they’re close to Ohio State, so the Big Ten should add them” types of comments. That’s part of why I ended up posting more on the blog as opposed to just message boards, as well. (The blog itself was initially started as a vanity project to post my thoughts on the Illini and Chicago sports.) Back then, only a handful of people were really discussing realignment regularly (Big East fans being one of the few groups doing so since they have been in constant “Should we expand or split?” mode since the ACC first raided them 10 years ago).
Ultimately, I was in the right place at the right time. There was an issue (conference realignment) that wasn’t being discussed or understood very well in the mainstream media or even by niche sports blogs and message boards, that issue quickly exploded into one that dominated college sports, and I happened to be in a first mover position when that occurred.
One general observation after witnessing how this blog has grown over the years: I’m now a large believer in “The Tipping Point” theory of building an audience when it comes to the web. Audiences on the web don’t build in a linear fashion. Instead, they typically build very rapidly as a result of a catalyst or critical mass of factors occurring at the same… or they never build at all. It’s kind of like how a seedy neighborhood can stay that way for decades, but when gentrification occurs, it’s usually swift and completely transforms an area within only a few years. I had been writing this blog for over 4 years with a steady audience and even regular mentions in places like Deadspin during that timeframe, but conference realignment was the issue that made it explode and it happened within literally the span of one month. I wish that I were smart enough to say that I planned it that way, yet I certainly wasn’t (other than subconsciously filling a void in the web marketplace of ideas and stumbling upon the fact that a lot of other people noticed that there was a void, too).
LikeLike
Yes! THAT’S the reason why I want Michigan State in the East. Its not that I’m an annoying OSU snob about playing Maryland, Rutgers AND both Indiana schools every gad domn year ..
… NO, its because I want the Illini to be able to play Purdue, every year, as a concession for the Illibuck being played fewer than half the time.
Yes, that’s the ticket.
LikeLike
why couldn’t purdue have 2 crossover games each year–Ill and IU….? I realize that would mean only 1 game per year against 5 teams….but that Ill-Pur game is too much of a natural to lose, imo…..
On the other hand, I wouldn’t run into the problem, because I’d keep MSU west and send Purdue east….UM and OSU are going to dominate overall in the next 10 years…send as many other good teams west as is possible.
LikeLike
frug:
That would depend on whether there are crossovers or not. If there are crossovers and the Illibuck is preserved, Illinois would keep Northwestern, Wisconsin, & tOSU, lose the 2 IN schools, and gain Iowa (and Nebraska, who will be fun to play). Not much worse (if at all) from my perspective.
LikeLike
Richard,
You are always big on telling others not to judge how another school feels. Why put your judgment of what IL wants above frug’s?
LikeLike
Huh? I didn’t tell him how he should feel or how Illinois should feel. I simply stated what I would desire if I was Illinois. Nor did I say what I would want if I was Illinois is somehow better than his viewpoint.
LikeLike
And if anyone does that for NW you shout them down if their opinion differs from yours. Since he gave his opinion first, that reeks of hypocrisy from you.
LikeLike
In your own mind, Brian. Unlike you, I would not keep insisting that I know best how some other school should feel or do something.
LikeLike
I want to add:
There’s a reason why there’s a lot more antipathy towards you from many people than towards me or any other regular poster here. Ever wonder why?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Unlike you, I would not keep insisting that I know best how some other school should feel or do something.”
You would and do. I’ve seen you called on it.
And despite what you say, I don’t insist that I know best how NW should think or do anything. The last time I checked, however, I was allowed to have opinions. I’ve had you shout me down for saying exactly what other NW fans have said in other forums because you claim I can’t know what NW should be doing/thinking/feeling.
LikeLike
No, I never wondered and I’ve noticed plenty of love for you, too.
LikeLike
Annual crossovers are simpler with Sparty in the East:
Indiana-Purdue
Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
Ohio State-Illinois (Illiniwek)
Penn State-Nebraska
Michigan State-Northwestern (MSU likes its ties to metro Chicago)
Maryland/Rutgers-Wisconsin/Iowa
LikeLike
vp19,
“Annual crossovers are simpler with Sparty in the East:”
That really depends. My choices:
MSU in east:
IN/PU
MSU in west:
MI/MSU
LikeLike
I prefer Brian’s system, i.e., no locked crossovers except the in-state pair that are separated (UM/MSU or IU/PU). I wouldn’t lock Maryland and Rutgers into a made-up annual “rivalry” that has no historical basis.
All the others that @vp19 listed are real rivalries, so it’ll be interesting to see if the conference protects them, which means the other western teams will see the kings less often. Although Penn State does have a real rivalry with Nebraska, I wonder how they’d feel being the only king that plays all three of the other kings every year. That would be brutal.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd said:
“Although Penn State does have a real rivalry with Nebraska, …”
Yeah, 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.)
😉
LikeLike
Best to go with MSU in the East so that the Western schools have more access to Michigan. I’d think that’s how this will play out…
LikeLike
I disagree. If the western schools were concerned about that, they shouldn’t have agreed to putting 3 kings in the east. Once you agree to that, you lose the right to complain you aren’t playing them enough. They could have demanded a 2/2 split of kings. They could demand 9 games right away. Besides, less MI means more OSU which is a decent consolation prize.
LikeLike
@Brian: People can legitimately pursue multiple aims at once. It is not inconsistent for the Big Ten to say, “We want 3 kings in the east, but we want them to play western crossover games as much as possible.” Just because the western teams have agreed to a 3-1 split of kings, does not mean they relinquish all interest in maximizing the value of the schedule.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“People can legitimately pursue multiple aims at once.”
Of course they can, but not mutually incompatible ones.
“It is not inconsistent for the Big Ten to say, “We want 3 kings in the east, but we want them to play western crossover games as much as possible.” ”
I’m talking about the western schools losing the right to complain, not the B10.
Let’s look at IA’s schedule under various scenarios.
1. 8 games, 1 locked game a piece:
A. W has MI
MI – 100%
OSU – 17%
B. E has MI and OSU
MI, OSU – 17% each
The result is a drastic reduction in games against OSU and MI combined.
2. 8 games, only 1 locked game
A. W has MI – MI/OSU locked
MI – 100%
OSU – 17%
B. E has OSU and MI – MI/MSU locked
MI – 17%
OSU – 29%
C. E has OSU and MI – IN/PU locked
MI, OSU – 31% each
The result is a drastic reduction in games against OSU and MI combined. Shifting where MSU is makes only a small change. It costs IA roughly 1 game in 6 years against OSU or MI.
When they agreed to put OSU and MI both in the east regardless of where MSU was, they knowingly sacrificed playing MI/OSU frequently. They are free to prefer 0.61 of a game versus 0.45 of a game against OSU and MI annually (that’s roughly 1 extra game every 6 years), but it’s not a complaint that carries much weight with me. They chose to not have an annual game. Getting 1 more game every 6 years isn’t a significant difference. It’s not a sufficient reason to decide where MSU should be.
LikeLike
@Brian: I think you’re answering the wrong question. This isn’t, “How can we mollify Iowa?” It’s, “How can we get the best schedule for all of our schools?” You’re assuming a scenario not known to exist, i.e., Iowa complaining about one home game every 6 or 7 years.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
I think you’re answering the wrong question. This isn’t, “How can we mollify Iowa?”
I wasn’t answering that question.
1. I used IA as a representative western school. It could have been any of them. I specifically avoided MN just because of the Little Brown Jug, but otherwise just wanted a western school.
2. This thread was discussing it being better to send MSU east so the western schools could play MI more often. I ran the numbers to show two things:
a. Where MSU goes makes very little difference in how often they play OSU/MI
b. The playing OSU/MI regularly ship sailed as soon as they agreed to put 3 kings in the east
3. I use those numbers to support my original contention that those schools lost the right to complain about not playing OSU/MI frequently when they agreed to send 3 kings east. That decision instantly cost them a lot of OSU/MI games. MSU’s location has little actual impact on how often they play OSU/MI. That makes it a minor consideration when deciding where MSU should go.
It’s, “How can we get the best schedule for all of our schools?”
No, that was clearly never the question. You don’t send 3 kings east if that’s the question. You don’t strip IL of many of their rivals if that’s the question. The question should be:
Given the craptastic decision to split 12 teams up thusly, what’s best for the B10 in deciding where to put MSU and PU?
Since MSU’s location has such little impact on king games for the western schools, the bigger concern is the competitive balance based on where MSU goes.
“You’re assuming a scenario not known to exist, i.e., Iowa complaining about one home game every 6 or 7 years.”
No, I’m not. I’m answering the concern expressed by zeek and others about the western schools getting to play MI more by putting MSU in the east versus PU in the east.
LikeLike
Since the Big Ten looks like it will have eight conference games for 2014/5 based on what the Purdue Athletic Director is saying, that means teams will either have a 6-2 or 6-1-1 setup for those two seasons. There’s not going to be a 6-3 or 6-1-2 setup until at least 2016.
I think the decision really comes down to the conference’s perception of what Penn State will be like in 2014/5. One athletic director earlier said that they didn’t want to have an “easy division”, so if PSU is evaluated as not being very competitive due to sanctions (which I think they’ll believe), then I can see Michigan State going to the east and Purdue west.
At that point, the conference has options. They can have seven protected cross-division games or just one (Purdue-Indiana). If they feel this division arrangement is only going to be in place for two years, they can forget the protected games and just make sure Purdue and Indiana play one another in a 6-2 setup for 2014/5 while waiting for next change when additional teams come into the conference. All the games vp19 put up there could happen, but not have be labelled annual crossovers.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Since the Big Ten looks like it will have eight conference games for 2014/5 based on what the Purdue Athletic Director is saying, that means teams will either have a 6-2 or 6-1-1 setup for those two seasons. There’s not going to be a 6-3 or 6-1-2 setup until at least 2016.”
Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.
“I think the decision really comes down to the conference’s perception of what Penn State will be like in 2014/5. One athletic director earlier said that they didn’t want to have an “easy division”, so if PSU is evaluated as not being very competitive due to sanctions (which I think they’ll believe), then I can see Michigan State going to the east and Purdue west.”
I don’t think PSU is the real issue there. The bigger problem is estimating where RU and MD would fit in. Will they be around the middle or down near IN? PSU was competitive this year and was down on scholarship players to 67 according to PSU fans. In the future they won’t be installing a new system or using players recruited for a different offense. On the other hand, the numbers aren’t great:
2012 – 67
2013 – 67 + 15 – 20? = 62
2014 – 62 + 15 – 20? = 57
2015 – 57 + 15 – 20? = 52
2016 – 52 + 15 – 20? = 47
2017 – 47 + 25 – 15? = 57
2018 – 57 + 25 – 15? = 67
2019 – 67 + 25 – 15? = 77
2020 – 77 + 25 – 17? = 85
Obviously I’m guessing at the attrition, but it’s based off of the 2012 PSU roster. Those numbers also reflect only true scholarship players. They’ll also have walk-ons to fill out the roster.
Rather than an easy division, they need to worry about a generic division. They also have to look at balance at the top because that’s all the rest of the country sees. That’s where the impetus to move MSU west comes from.
LikeLike
@Brian. I am confused.
You said: “Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.”
Logically, this implies you are not in favor of an 8 game conference schedule. Maybe you prefer 9 conference games. From previously posts you oppose a 10-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“@Brian. I am confused.”
Actually, I don’t think you are.
“You said: “Which sucks, just to be clear. 8 games was good with 10 and even 11 teams. It was weak with 12 and stinks with 14.”
Logically, this implies you are not in favor of an 8 game conference schedule. Maybe you prefer 9 conference games. From previously posts you oppose a 10-game conference schedule.”
Yes. 8 games is not enough to play the other 9 traditional B10 schools often enough in a 14 team conference unless I can cherry pick the schedule. Especially with the crappy divisions they are forming, a lot of rivalries will suffer in this new system. 10 of 12 games being in conference is too many because it forces the OOC games to be weak to get 2 home games every year. 9 is the sweet spot where you can still play 1 good OOC home and home series while also playing those other 9 school reasonably often. If the season was 13 or 14 games, then I’d want a 10 game conference season.
LikeLike
Lets be clear, though ~ 8 games starts to see problems with 12 teams IF and ONLY IF there are locked cross-conference games. 8 games, 12 teams, and no locked cross conference games gives playing through the whole opposing division in two years, which is just fine.
LikeLike
9 conference games, rather than 8, is a complete no brainer with 14 teams….No BIG team is playing more than 1 OOC game that’s worth a s### anyway….I guess the question would be how quickly schools could clear their schedules……..
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Lets be clear, though ~ 8 games starts to see problems with 12 teams IF and ONLY IF there are locked cross-conference games. 8 games, 12 teams, and no locked cross conference games gives playing through the whole opposing division in two years, which is just fine.”
That’s true. I was giving the specific answer for the B10 and the alignments they’ve chosen. In the general case, 8 games can work just fine at 12.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“9 conference games, rather than 8, is a complete no brainer with 14 teams…”
I sometimes wonder if the B10 ADs can live up to no brainer status. Gene Smith certainly tries to prove he has no brains often enough.
“No BIG team is playing more than 1 OOC game that’s worth a s### anyway”
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/ohio-state-buckeyes.php
OSU plans to in the future.
2014 – VT, UC
2015 – VT (only 2 of 4 games set)
2016 – OU, Tulsa
2017 – OU, UNC
2018 – UC, TCU, UNC
2019 – TCU (1 of 4 set)
2020 – BC, OR
2021 – BC, OR
2022 – UT (1 of 4 set)
2023 – UT (1 of 4 set)
“I guess the question would be how quickly schools could clear their schedules”
It’s all up to how much the B10 is willing to spend to buy out contracts. Any game can be cancelled for the right price.
LikeLike
While Penn State will have an aggressive walk-on program to help fill the roster, my assessment is that it will be difficult for them to compete on a high level for awhile. As your own projections show, the number of scholarship players in the program is going to be at its lowest in 2016. While Coach O’Brien did a great job last season, you also can’t deny that the quality of recruiting is a big reason for success in college football.
You have been welded to the concept that Penn State is a “king” through many of your posts. To the degree that PSU has a high level of public recognition (outside the Sandusky scandal) and among college football fans, I couldn’t agree more. That’s one reason why the Big Ten presidents agreed to add PSU as the 11th member of the conference back in 1991. Penn State and recent addition Nebraska both are winning, tradition-laden programs that make for “good television”.
But the reality is that Penn State’s football program is going to go through some difficult times here and you can’t think like a French Army staff officer in the spring of 1940 regarding what they’re going to look like in the near term. And while you want to have the Big Ten’s planning horizon on all this to extend for a number of years, the reality is that the situation regarding expansion, etc. means they’re very well making some short term decisions by they’re operating not only in a very dynamic environment, but in one that they have a major role in guiding and forming as well.
You also can’t set aside one of the concerns that been written on this board about having the best Big Ten brands in the east because of the demands of one of the main stakeholders and financial drivers in this entire process–the major networks and cable television. I’d also add the desire to play in front of east coast alumni, fund raising opportunities, the chance to grow the conference in areas with greater population, etc.
But setting aside all that for a minute, I really do think that the Big Ten is grappling with what Penn State is going to look like over the next few years and how to make sure there’s a semblance of competitive balance between the two conferences. I suspect that the proposal to put Northwestern in the east (as reported by the Chicago Tribune) was put forth because of that goal. It would have looked like this:
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
West – Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue, Wisconsin
Obviously, that would have required fixed crossover games to be put in place to ensure the instate rivalries if this setup was going beyond 2015.
One more related item here. I looked at wikipedia before and it listed 17 rivalry or high-level Big Ten games among the conference members. With a straight east-west lineup that has the two Indiana schools split up, eleven of those games would be part of the schedule each year with no other changes. If there were fixed cross-divisonal games, that number could go up to 15 with the two exceptions being Illinois-Indiana and Penn State-Minnesota. (Note: PSU-Nebraska was not listed as one of those 17 games). So this idea that a bigger conference is going to tear apart rivalries seems to be overblown to me at this point.
Also keep in mind that PSU might actually prefer playing Rutgers and Maryland (and Indiana) over Nebraska and Minnesota anyway given the distance and the current state of the Penn State program.
LikeLike
cutter,
“While Penn State will have an aggressive walk-on program to help fill the roster, my assessment is that it will be difficult for them to compete on a high level for awhile.”
If you mean winning 9+ games per year, I’d agree. I think they can win 5-9 games from 2013-2018 depending on their schedule. They should be good again by 2019 (maybe 2018).
“As your own projections show, the number of scholarship players in the program is going to be at its lowest in 2016. While Coach O’Brien did a great job last season, you also can’t deny that the quality of recruiting is a big reason for success in college football.”
I fully agree. It does help that they’re getting some walk-ons who had scholarship offers elsewhere, but they aren’t taking them from elite AQs (more like MAC to lower B10 level players). Still, their name has enough cache to get some elite recruits. If Hackenberg lives up to his billing, the offense should always be dangerous. The defense will be tougher to maintain up to PSU standards since that takes a lot of highly talented players.
“You have been welded to the concept that Penn State is a “king” through many of your posts. To the degree that PSU has a high level of public recognition (outside the Sandusky scandal) and among college football fans, I couldn’t agree more. That’s one reason why the Big Ten presidents agreed to add PSU as the 11th member of the conference back in 1991. Penn State and recent addition Nebraska both are winning, tradition-laden programs that make for “good television”.”
Yes, and that’s all I mean when I say they are a king. I’m not claiming they’ll magically win 10+ games every year because of who they are. But they stayed a king during JoePa’s dark years in the early 2000s and they will through this. A 7-5 PSU will get more coverage than an 8-4 IA and maybe more than some 9-3 teams.
“But the reality is that Penn State’s football program is going to go through some difficult times here and you can’t think like a French Army staff officer in the spring of 1940 regarding what they’re going to look like in the near term.”
I’m not. I’m just not assuming they’ll drop to NW before 1994 levels. They can be on par with or better than some (if not most or all of) MN, PU, IL, IN, MD, RU and NW. That puts them squarely in tier 3 for a few years on the field. I think way too many people are treating them like they’ll be a 2-3 win team every season.
We also don’t know how RU and MD will fare. RU could easily slot in near the middle of the B10 based on recent performance, or near the bottom. The same is true for MD.
Sagarin rankings:
2012 – RU would be #8/14 in B10, MD #13/14
2011 – RU #6/14, MD #13/14
2010 – RU #11/14, MD #6/14
“And while you want to have the Big Ten’s planning horizon on all this to extend for a number of years, the reality is that the situation regarding expansion, etc. means they’re very well making some short term decisions by they’re operating not only in a very dynamic environment, but in one that they have a major role in guiding and forming as well.”
The ADs have said they are entering this process not considering any possible future expansion. They aren’t precluding it, they’re just dealing with the known facts of 14 schools. To me, that indicates they are making decisions that they think can withstand the test of time. I’ve never said they won’t make some short term decisions, especially with scheduling. They obviously did when they added NE and I assume they will this time, too. That doesn’t mean they will or should use short term planning to decide the divisions.
“You also can’t set aside one of the concerns that been written on this board about having the best Big Ten brands in the east because of the demands of one of the main stakeholders and financial drivers in this entire process–the major networks and cable television.”
I don’t set them aside. I think they are overplayed and that most people ignore other paths to the same goals, and I also think people are choosing to ignore the flip side of the coin. I choose to point out the underbelly of the stacked east because almost nobody else does.
Everyone keeps repeating this plan:
1. Put 3 kings in the east
2. ???
3. Profit
I’ve heard different explanations for what step 2 is, but the opinions vary widely. They also don’t consider the odds of step 2 succeeding, they just assume it will work. I’d prefer to see a more detailed business plan for that.
I’d also like to see more consideration for the unintended consequences. How are the western schools impacted by having 3 kings in the east? It’s clear in terms of scheduling (they’ll play OSU and MI a lot less), but less clear in terms of coverage and attention and recruiting. The east will dominate (2 to 1 or more) in terms of the number of major media markets, population, available recruits and proximity to the networks. That has consequences for the west.
A lack of competitive balance (if there is one) also has consequences. Teams in the harder division suffer extra losses while their competition in the easier division gets artificially inflated win totals. Those extra Ws and Ls change which bowls you get and how much press coverage you get. That can impact the future of your program as recruiting is impacted and even donations fluctuate. If one division is nationally considered to be much tougher, all the teams on the other side will tend to be mocked and/or ignored. That has consequences, too.
“I’d also add the desire to play in front of east coast alumni,”
Which is so important to OSU that they haven’t done it in 15+ years.
“the chance to grow the conference in areas with greater population, etc.”
Do you grow the conference or just the eastern division?
“But setting aside all that for a minute, I really do think that the Big Ten is grappling with what Penn State is going to look like over the next few years and how to make sure there’s a semblance of competitive balance between the two conferences.”
It’s possible. I have no way of knowing. I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t grappling with it.
“I suspect that the proposal to put Northwestern in the east (as reported by the Chicago Tribune) was put forth because of that goal.”
That’s one of several possible reasons. NW’s large percentage of east coast alumni is another. So is the Chicago/NYC rivalry or the urban nature of the school making RU and MD feel at home. Considering the alleged agreement to split 12 teams with MSU/PU being the only remaining issue, it seems less likely to me that you are correct. If they are worried about the east being weak they could easily move MSU east. The fact that they didn’t instantly do that tells me their balance concern likely goes the other way. They are wondering whether MSU needs to go west to maintain balance in my opinion.
But honestly, I think we all suffer confirmation bias on things like this. Depending on what you think, you can parse every statement and spin every decision to fit your ideas. We have no idea why the asked NW about going east or why they haven’t decided about MSU vs PU. We have unsubstantiated theories at this point.
“Obviously, that would have required fixed crossover games to be put in place to ensure the instate rivalries if this setup was going beyond 2015.”
Every plan would need at least 1 except inner/outer.
“One more related item here. I looked at wikipedia before and it listed 17 rivalry or high-level Big Ten games among the conference members. With a straight east-west lineup that has the two Indiana schools split up, eleven of those games would be part of the schedule each year with no other changes. If there were fixed cross-divisonal games, that number could go up to 15 with the two exceptions being Illinois-Indiana and Penn State-Minnesota. (Note: PSU-Nebraska was not listed as one of those 17 games). So this idea that a bigger conference is going to tear apart rivalries seems to be overblown to me at this point.”
And yet multiple PSU people have said they consider the NE game very important. At least 1 person has mentioned IL wanting to play the IN schools. More importantly, you are only looking at the top end games. Nobody thought most of those would go away. The concern is for the other B10 matchups that used to be regular and had meaning becoming not much different from OOC games. I’d much rather play any of the other 11 B10 teams than the two newbies, and any of the traditional 9 before PSU and NE. Those are the games we’re losing as we grow. It’s worse because OSU is stuck with both newbies every year instead of spreading the pain.
“Also keep in mind that PSU might actually prefer playing Rutgers and Maryland (and Indiana) over Nebraska and Minnesota anyway given the distance and the current state of the Penn State program.”
They seem to like NE, and only the PSU fans east of campus seem to care about RU and MD. Those in western PA want to play Pitt instead.
LikeLike
Michigan State-Wisconsin would be better.
LikeLike
If true, it sucks as expected.
LikeLike
Someone, maybe at NU, suggested 9 games where the 5 away and 5 homes were always in the same division. In other words, all legends teams would play 5 away one year and 4 away the next. Then flip. That seems very workable.
LikeLike
The ACC is doing that for 2013 with an 8-game sked — the guaranteed crossovers are at Atlantic members (e.g., Virginia at Maryland, Georgia Tech at Clemson), the extra game is at Coastal members (Clemson at Virginia, Maryland at Virginia Tech)
LikeLike
jj,
That’s the only logical way to do 9 games. My comment was in reference to the divisions.
LikeLike
wonderful !! I’d be happy whatever they do with MSU and Purdue.
Please, please, please, just call the divisions East and West.
Jim, dear, if you are reading along. the marketing potential for East and West is just as good (if different) than your — creepily — beloved Leaders and Legends. East and West give you B1GE and B1GW. With your signature Blue and Black colors, it’s marketing gold. Add silliness like Leader and Legends as an ANNUAL gloss. Next year it can be Warriors and Fighters, then Heros and Saints, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Why not name them after 2 dead guys…..Stagg for the west…one of the BIG commishes for the east…that way you piss off no existing teams but add some flavor………
LikeLike
One thing I never seen discussed with the possibility of B1G at 20 is the chance for November prime time games and how this would boost T1/2 deals and even make the B1G more valuable. Add say UVA, UNC, GT, FSU, Duke and ND (does not matter much the last one) and now you have 7 schools that can host prime time games in at least decent weather.
LikeLike
You’re new here. 18 and 20 has been discussed almost more than 16.
LikeLike
sigh…. @CCrider55. I have enjoyed many of your posts over the months and years. I hope this is not too offensive to you and please do not take it as a huge personal attack. But, I oppose hazing the “new guys.”
On the topic of the OP: maybe I am wrong, but I do not recall any discussions of how adding new ACC teams would impact night games. the suggestion, I think, is that more southern (to wit, warmer) climes would increase the possibility of night games in November. Assuming night games have enhanced value, then more night games = more tv revenue. It is an interesting idea. I do not recall this being discussed.
LikeLike
also, I am not sure “JimIsAwesom” is a “new guy.’ But whatever.
LikeLike
ugh… JimIsAwesome. Can’t type tonight.
LikeLike
Offense, if there, was unintentional. My apology is extended. As to 20 and night games, perhaps it increases a bit. How many ACC night games happen now, how many might be expected to transfer, and would that be valuable in and of itself? Possibly, but compared to the basic gain in footprint, potential BTN penetration, and marketing leverage that comes from achieving around 30% control of the AQ D1 inventory. (Slightly less than what a PAC/B1G association might have achieved, but with only one CEO)
LikeLike
PS: 20 is stupid big. Just my personal opinion, but the only thing good about that many is that 14 or 16 look much better in comparison. 12 becomes almost cozy. 🙂
LikeLike
@CCRider55… LOLing at 12 being “cozy.” What does that make our old 11 teams? In hindsight, the B1G staying at 11 for so many years is amazing. Clearly, the BTN was a monumental change for CFB.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“In hindsight, the B1G staying at 11 for so many years is amazing. Clearly, the BTN was a monumental change for CFB.”
I don’t think it was that amazing. The TV money hadn’t exploded yet, so there wasn’t much pressure to switch conferences. After adding PSU, what worthy candidates were left? ND said no. The surprising thing is that the B10 said no to UT, expansion moratorium or no. Hindsight is 20/20, but clearly the B10 didn’t see a demographics problem 15+ years ago.
Would there have been talk of expanding beyond 12? It’s hard to imagine needing it with the BTN in all of TX, too. Maybe they add NE and MO as a bridge to TX and chase RU and MD for markets, but it’s not automatic.
LikeLike
And not just NIGHT games…but Thursday/Friday night games? With the increased inventory, certain schools can have Thurs/Fri night game each year (Indiana, UNC, UVA, UMD, Rutgers, etc.)…while the Big Dogs can trot out one “exclusive” night game every 4-5 years (110,000 PSU fans don’t want to lose their Saturday tradition too often…). The BTN can carry these games and push up their inventory higher.
With the current 12 teams conference slate, there really isn’t room for stretching 6 games over too many TV spots/channels.
BTN, ESPN, ESPN2, ABC.
12, 3:30, 6pm, 8pm.
Jump to 20 teams (which I believe Delany is angling for)…and 10 conference games per week…and you might just need a Thursday night game each week. FWIW
LikeLike
that is an interesting point too. Like CCRider55 (and others), I am not very happy with the idea of 20 teams. That just doesn’t seem like a conference to me. But whatever. I’m not in charge.
But if the B1G (or any conference) goes to 20 teams, moving games to Thursday and more night games is intriguing. You certainly don’t want the games piled on top of each other during the Saturday daytime windows.
interesting.
LikeLike
Personally, I think I’d try Wednesday nights. No NFL competition and no harm to HS football, plus no short weeks for anybody. It would use up 2 bye weeks, though.
1. Saturday, 10/7
2. Wednesday, 10/18
3. Saturday, 10/28
Make it an important game and give it an exclusive national window.
LikeLike
No, it would only use up 1 bye weeks. In your example, the Saturdays of October are:
1. 10/7
2. 10/14
3. 10/21
4. 10/28
The team would be playing 3 games in 4 weeks, with a ‘half-bye’ the week before the middle game, and another ‘half-bye’ the week after.
LikeLike
I was unclear. I meant it would use up 1 bye week each for 2 teams, thus 2 bye weeks. That limits the conference in scheduling versus giving 1 or both teams a short week for a Thursday night game.
LikeLike
My understanding is that is what the PAC does for Thursday games.
LikeLike
Could be. I just wanted to make it clear I wouldn’t put anyone on that short of a week.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“And not just NIGHT games…but Thursday/Friday night games?”
Well, Thursday night ratings tanked last year by about 35% with the NFL playing on Thursday all season (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/17/Media/NFL-Network.aspx). Except for the P12, most leagues are backing away from Thursdays. As for Fridays, some states really don’t want to compete with high school football. It’s not an issue everywhere, but it is an issue for some. In addition, some schools don’t like the disruption that weeknight games cause.
I’m not saying it’s a terrible idea, but many B10 schools might prefer to not do it and I’m not sure there is a huge financial benefit to the conference. If a school wants to do it to get a window to themselves, more power to them. I think both schools should have to agree to move from Saturday, though.
LikeLike
@Brian – I was thinking of the impact of the NFL playing a full slate of Thursday night games here, too. It’s already making that evening less attractive for college teams. You’d really need to have schools that want extra TV exposure to get them to take a Thursday slot from this point forward (whereas it had been an acceptable non-Saturday slot for a lot of upper tier teams prior to this season).
What I think may change for the Big Ten, though, is the rule against playing night games in November (as jimisawesome has noted). While I understand that a school such as Minnesota might not choose to host them with the unpredictable weather, it’s likely not going to be an issue for at least Maryland and Rutgers (and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an issue for Nebraska in the Big 12). That’s a simple way to add extra time slots to both the BTN and the national TV package (or even create a new separate prime time Big Ten package to auction off to Fox and/or ESPN) without having to play non-Saturday games.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“What I think may change for the Big Ten, though, is the rule against playing night games in November (as jimisawesome has noted).”
I’m sure it will change sooner than later since I like the rule. I really hope they require that both teams agree to move it to a night game, though, rather than just letting TV force it, but I’d settle for the home team having to agree to it without any pressure/threats from TV. Schools should be able to follow their consciences if they don’t feel it’s safe/wise for them to host a night game in November. They should also use average weather data to potentially bar certain schools from doing it (average temps at kickoff time and and 3.5 hours later for that city on that date can’t be below certain thresholds).
As a compromise, how about moving it to a dome for some schools? Detroit and Indy could host them with much less concern about the weather.
“While I understand that a school such as Minnesota might not choose to host them with the unpredictable weather, it’s likely not going to be an issue for at least Maryland and Rutgers (and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t an issue for Nebraska in the Big 12).”
If the B10 keeps expanding to the south, it’ll become an issue very quickly. Do you think FSU wants a below freezing kickoff in Madison with a division title on the line?
“That’s a simple way to add extra time slots to both the BTN and the national TV package (or even create a new separate prime time Big Ten package to auction off to Fox and/or ESPN) without having to play non-Saturday games.”
How about they play neutral site games somewhere warm for those slots? It’s like a bowl during the season. PSU vs NE in Hawaii at 8PM EST.
LikeLike
Brian:
1. Good luck trying to convince a B10 team to move a home game someplace warm just because you think that’s better. Tell you want, after you convince OSU to move their home game against PSU to Miami, come back to me with your thoughts on the feasibility of your idea.
2. FSU already plays November games in cold weather locales. 5 of the past 6 years, in fact (Boston & Blacksburg in 2007, MD in late November in 2008 & 2010, Boston in 2011, Blacksburg & MD in 2012). Granted, in the B10, they may have more games in colder weather, but that’s a matter of degree.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. Good luck trying to convince a B10 team to move a home game someplace warm just because you think that’s better.”
I started off by saying the rule would change.
“Tell you want, after you convince OSU to move their home game against PSU to Miami, come back to me with your thoughts on the feasibility of your idea.”
If the OB committee offered to pay $5M per team, they might have done it last year (no bowl). PSU certainly would have considered it. If Jerryworld would pay enough, teams would consider playing there.
“2. FSU already plays November games in cold weather locales.”
I never said they didn’t. I said they’d complain about a below freezing kickoff in Madison, especially with a division title on the line. Are you saying they wouldn’t complain about that? They bitch about it in the ACC already, and Blacksburg ain’t Madison.
LikeLike
From weather.com:
Difference in mean temperature (ave of max and min) for the date:
Madison vs Blacksburg:
11/1 – 4 degrees
11/15 – 7 degrees
11/30 – 9 degrees
The mean temperature is below freezing in Madison for late November, with average lows in the low 20s. I’m pretty sure FSU would complain. Maybe they’d demand September home games in the afternoon in exchange. Nothing like playing in 90+ degrees with high humidity and intense sunshine.
LikeLike
Personally, I think that the Thursday offerings just weren’t as good this season. Perhaps ESPN wanted to float out weaker games to see if they could still get the solid ratings regardless…or maybe the match-ups were just duds by chance. Not sure.
The Big Ten wouldn’t have to do weekly Thursday games. Four in September…two in October…two in November. In a 20-team league, you’d still only play in one of these games every 2-4 years.
LikeLike
I think that weeknight games are too disruptive and really only are needed during the OOC part of the schedule, if at all. Friday night games would work without disrupting schedules too much.
There’s no reason why you can’t have 3-4 B10 games on at the same time, carried by the BTN, 1st, and 2nd tier. We see that all the time in the noon/11AM slot already.
LikeLike
One possibility for Big Ten and Hopkins
http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent
down from nine women’s programs to six, the conference stood to lose its AQ status for women’s sports after a two-season grace period unless it picked up at least one more school
…
the commissioners instituted a somewhat ingenious solution, following the letter but not the spirit of the NCAA’s frustrating conference rules.
…
These schools were “championship” members, meaning they would not play against other GSAC schools during the regular season, but they would participate in the GSAC conference championships to determine qualifying for the NCAA tournament.
I’m not sure whether this would fly at the D-I level (GSAC is D-III), but it would allow the Big Ten to get its auto-bid while allowing Hopkins to continue to schedule as an independent (thus preserving its rivalries) and keep its ESPNU deal.
LikeLike
Dunno, I think you’d want to bind them as tightly as everyone else is bound to the conference.
Last thing you’d want is to create some ambiguous situation, so that means 3 things:
1) CIC invite, 2) men’s and women’s teams in Big Ten lacrosse men’s and women’s conferences, 3) TV deal has to be resolved in some fashion (although you can probably just let them continue to sell their own package).
LikeLike
Another way to let it keep its TV deal is to just let it keep its TV deal. That gives an ESPNU game for each Big Ten school. BTN says “for associate members, we get all otherwise untelevised games.” Its a new category, there is no established rule in place. If the BTN shows 2 games a week in the regular season, there should be two or three home games during the OOC period, then 2 or 3 available during the 5 week conference season, depending on whether JHU is home or away. That’s about 6 TV games for each Big Ten school, up from 1-3 now (other than MD who is on TV about 8 times a season now).
And 5 conference games in a schedule of 10 regular season games and 2 3-game classics is lots of chances to play existing rivalries ~ especially as one of those is in- conference.
LikeLike
All that talk about Big Ten Northern and SEC Southern and ACC being academic and southern…all very poetic but everyone knows none of that matters. Every university is for sale.
LikeLike
Since when?
LikeLike
yeah, I agree with Metatron. in theory, there are some set of circumstances and money that would pry loose any school from any conference. But for schools like ‘bama, Auburn, tOSU, Michigan, USC, etc., those would have to be some damn big set of circumstances. $$ would not be enough.
UNC and Duke are good examples we’ve discussed. Neither can just be bought with $$. we’ve taked about how the ACC needs to be “destablized” first before UNC and Duke (and other ACC schools) become “available.”
Another example: Tennessee. Now there is a school in need of $$. But I seriously seriously doubt the B1G could lure them away from the SEC (even if they were AAU).
LikeLike
Tennessee does not fit in the Big 10 ,would not be asked.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m thinking too hard, but I think Hopkins might be the key to this entire thing.
First, it makes sense to add Hopkins and put in motion a watchable slate of lacrosse games for BTN filler, especially in the spring. Second, Hopkins is going to solidify the mid-Atlantic corridor and the new eastern block of the Big Ten as another voting member and cultural fit for new arrivals, which will help entice other mid-Atlantic schools, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to join the conference down the road.
But third, and most importantly, I think Delany is using Hopkins as a counterweight to adding schools with weaker academics.
The CIC does not want it’s research dollars diluted, which is a major sticking point in getting university presidents’ approval. It was reported that Maryland and Rutgers additions stretched the CIC’s total research budget to $9.3 billion (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/national/article_bc72b8d8-3f67-11e2-8799-0019bb30f31a.html), which comes out to $620 million per school. I propose that the presidents have a general rule that expansion is only allowed if that number increases or stays the same. This might not be a hard and fast rule if Delany can convince the presidents that the money can be made up in other areas, but it’s probably a good general metric for academic competency in evaluating expansion targets.
Using available 2009 data (http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf), I ran the numbers. There are only TWO combinations of schools that would maintain the mark of $620 million average research dollars per school: Duke ($805 million) + either North Carolina ($646 million) or Georgia Tech ($562 million). That’s it. And none of those schools are Virginia (just $262 million), meaning their will be a geographic gap if they alone are added.
But if Delany adds the research powerhouse that is Hopkins ($1.9 billion), he may brilliantly be giving himself the power back to add who he wants. And the best part is he doesn’t have to add a dead weight football program. Re-run the numbers, and the conference can now add these geographically contiguous sets of schools:
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke = $974.3 million average (16 football teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + North Carolina = $921 million average (16 teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke + North Carolina + Georgia Tech = $826 million average (18 teams)
Not only would Hopkins open up CIC invites for the mid-Atlantic schools, but the numbers even work for adding Florida St ($195 million):
Hopkins + Virginia + Duke + Georgia Tech + Florida State = $736 million average (18 teams)
Hopkins + Virginia + North Carolina + Georgia Tech + Florida State = $704 million average (18 teams)
Add Hopkins, and I think Florida St’s otherwise questionable academics can be overlooked by the presidents.
And note that of all the expansion candidates, Duke has the highest research budget. If North Carolina and Duke are a package deal, the fact that Duke is school #19 shouldn’t hinder them from grabbing someone like Pittsburgh ($623 million), Virginia Tech ($397 million), North Carolina St ($381 million), Miami ($248 million), or of course Notre Dame as school #20.
Last side note, if research dollars are as big of a deal as I’m making them out to be, then this expansion list is exhaustive. There are no other schools that the Big Ten and the CIC would be willing to add. (Apart from more quasi-affiliate schools without a football program like Toronto, McGill, or Boston University.)
LikeLike
DING! DING! DING! ….I think this is EXACTLY what they are doing.
LikeLike
Johns Hopkins gets national air on ESPN – I’m sure they’ll be keeping that airtime. The BTN would be fodder for the unaired games we have.
In any case, there’s no reason to start drawing up conspiracy theories: this is a fit, and end to itself and not merely the means to an end.
LikeLike
And scheduling certainty at the tail end of the season ~ if Rutgers and Maryland try to get into one of the two cross-only conferences and the five C7C schools try to recruit someone else to form a six team conference, might even a blue blood run into trouble scheduling conference schools during the conference end of the season?
After all, ND’s deal is to play five ACC schools. Under the sketched league, that’s the number of Big Ten schools JHU would be playing as an “all-in” associate in a Big Ten cross league.
If it comes with an associated relationship with CIC Medical Schools ~ and maybe a Big Pharma funded Classic ~ that turns an interesting way to deal with the cross schools being on the cusp of an AQ championship into a clear win.
I find the notion that the Big Ten has a particular average research money per school target that they are aiming at quite bizarre ~ its not like the research money is pooled and then paid out in a CIC conference payout at the end of the year. So, yeah, the Top 10 strength of UVA’s medical school is primary care and they are “only” top 25 in Medical Research … and a lot of their academic status is in Social Sciences and the Humanities, where Research budgets are more often measured in the thousands of dollars than the hundreds of thousands or millions … but the Big Ten does not reject UVA because it “brings down the CIC average”.
LikeLike
Hilarious how a theory you happen to disagree with is defined as a ‘conspiracy theory’, yet the thousands of purely hypothetical comments concerning divisions, expansion candidates etc. pass muster. This whole blog is based on pure speculation, his as well as yours.
LikeLike
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
LikeLike
sbrylski,
“Maybe I’m thinking too hard, but I think Hopkins might be the key to this entire thing.”
I think we all over-think this. Welcome to the club.
“Second, Hopkins is going to solidify the mid-Atlantic corridor and the new eastern block of the Big Ten as another voting member and cultural fit for new arrivals, which will help entice other mid-Atlantic schools, such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to join the conference down the road.”
JHU would only have a vote on things relevant to lacrosse and the CIC (assuming they’re in the CIC).
“But third, and most importantly, I think Delany is using Hopkins as a counterweight to adding schools with weaker academics.”
It’s possible.
“The CIC does not want it’s research dollars diluted, which is a major sticking point in getting university presidents’ approval.”
That’s an assumption. NE lowered the average a lot.
“It was reported that Maryland and Rutgers additions stretched the CIC’s total research budget to $9.3 billion (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/national/article_bc72b8d8-3f67-11e2-8799-0019bb30f31a.html), which comes out to $620 million per school. I propose that the presidents have a general rule that expansion is only allowed if that number increases or stays the same. This might not be a hard and fast rule if Delany can convince the presidents that the money can be made up in other areas, but it’s probably a good general metric for academic competency in evaluating expansion targets.
Using available 2009 data (http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf), I ran the numbers.”
Whoa. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Based on your link, the average for the first 12 was $300M not $620M. Both MD and RU lowered the average, bringing it down to $287M.
Here are the relevant schools, with the last number being the research money in thousands.
2. Univ. of Michigan – Ann Arbor 636,216
6. Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison 507,898
15. U. of Minnesota – Twin Cities 390,602
16. Penn. St. Univ. – Univ. Park 386,635
20. Ohio State Univ. – Columbus 339,820
26. University of Chicago 301,159
27. Northwestern University 300,619
32. U. of Ill. – Urbana-Champaign 288,013
38. University of Iowa 252,336
52. Purdue Univ. – West Lafayette 175,302
55. Michigan State University 164,198
93. University of Nebraska – Lincoln 83,702
96. Indiana Univ. – Bloomington 78,498
12 team average = $300M
39. U. of Maryland – College Park 246,985
57. Rutgers – State University of NJ 151,122
14 team average = $287M
___
1. Johns Hopkins University 1,587,547 (5.5x the average, 2.5x the top)
ACC:
12. Duke University 438,767
13. U. of North Carolina – Chapel Hill 431,837
22. Georgia Inst. of Technology 322,452
44. University of Virginia 218,499
71. Florida State University 117,294
Other AAUs in the footprint (if you want to build the CIC without diluting FB)
23. Case Western Reserve Univ. 313,044
54. Carnegie Mellon University 170,260
“And note that of all the expansion candidates, Duke has the highest research budget. If North Carolina and Duke are a package deal, the fact that Duke is school #19 shouldn’t hinder them from grabbing someone like Pittsburgh ($623 million), Virginia Tech ($397 million), North Carolina St ($381 million), Miami ($248 million), or of course Notre Dame as school #20.”
Duke brings athletic value to the B10 even when sharing the state with UNC. Not in FB, but in hoops. Pitt, VT and NCSU don’t bring that same value.
“Last side note, if research dollars are as big of a deal as I’m making them out to be, then this expansion list is exhaustive.”
I don’t think they are quite as important as you are making them out to be. I think they are more worried about having a research focus and whether the school has any specialties the current members lack.
LikeLike
“That’s an assumption. NE lowered the average a lot.”
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
LikeLike
“Whoa. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Based on your link, the average for
the first 12 was $300M not $620M.”
—Brian you were using just the federal expenditure dollars. The original poster was using the total expenditure numbers:
JHU 1,856,270
TSUN 1,007,198
Wisconsin 952,119
Minnesota 740,980
Ohio State 716,461
PSU 663,204
Illinois 563,710
Northwestern 515,229
Purdue 453,799
Chicago 377,652
MSU 373,184
Iowa 329,901
Nebraska 235,492
Indiana 156,965
Maryland 409,190
Rutgers 320,416 (Not counting the medical school that Rutgers recently acquired)
That being said the point remains that Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers all reduced the average research expenditure for CIC members so it’s still highly unlikely that the original premise (that new members cannot spend less than the group average) is valid.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“—Brian you were using just the federal expenditure dollars. The original poster was using the total expenditure numbers:”
My issue was that he used that report which lists 2009 research dollars to compare against the CIC’s number which is from 2011 budgets. Those aren’t the same thing. I agree that I wasn’t clear, though.
I used the federal numbers because that’s the ranked table at the start of the report and I had to look up a bunch of schools. I also think it’s the more important number, personally. I should have noted that, however.
“That being said the point remains that Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers all reduced the average research expenditure for CIC members so it’s still highly unlikely that the original premise (that new members cannot spend less than the group average) is valid.”
Yes, the point doesn’t change.
LikeLike
Delany could be doing more than one thing at once. Johns Hopkins is accretive on its own terms, even if the Big Ten never lands another school. It also makes Florida State more palatable, and it makes the Big Ten a more attractive lacrosse league to candidate schools that also play it, like UNC and UVA. In terms of NC and VA joining, the presence of a strong lacrosse program is probably a third-tier issue; still, it doesn’t hurt.
LikeLike
As much as Slive would like UNC/DUKE, I think his alternative play may be to foster the SEC’s BFF relationship with the B12 with the hope of landing TX, OU, OSU, WV to go with VT and NCstate.
I realize TX has no incentive to accept that deal now, but in this Game of Thrones, even an Imp can become King.
LikeLike
Slive better not hold his breath. Texas and Oklahoma have made clear for 20 years they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the SEC.
LikeLike
Duffer: How ’bout those Hoosiers!
To me, Victor has been a first team AA this year to date…he probably won’t get it because his average isn’t high enough, but he’s been that good……..
I think Burke and D Thomas may also deserve first team AA….and I’d put Cody and Hardaway as 3rd teamers…any arguments with that?
LikeLike
worst loss for Purdue at Mackey ever…against anybody…woohoo
LikeLike
Just because I can…..
Rice 79
Houston 69
lol, enjoy Big East.
LikeLike
Post-game tweet from our best player, lol
Tamir:
I’m celebrating this win tonight in the library. Just finish physics hw now bout to read 100 pages bout Aristotle rhetoric for class 2morrow
LikeLike
I found this tool on the
Chronicles of Higher Education that allows you to look at the state-by-state breakdown of the freshmen classes of 1500+ different schools. I thought it could provide some useful insight into where various B1G expansion target schools recruit students…
Florida State
5,286 FL (91.5% in-state)
…9/10 students from Florida. The 10th student doesn’t do much to impact the flavor of the school.
North Carolina
3,234 NC (82.7% in-state)
87 FL
74 NY
59 GA
57 MD
55 VA
50 NJ
38 TX
34 PA
28 CA
24 SC
23 OH
17 IL
16 TN
…larger in-state percentage than either GT or UVA. OOS students from up and down the East Coast, but it’s a heavily NC-centric school.
Virginia
2,179 VA (72.5% in-state)
121 MD
80 NJ
76 NY
61 PA
56 FL
45 TX
44 GA
31 NC
31 CT
30 MA
27 CA
24 TN
19 OH
18 DC
…draws a significant percentage of its students from the DC-NYC corridor.
Georgia Tech
1,708 GA (69.2% in-state)
135 FL
56 TX
47 MD
46 TN
44 NC
43 NJ
43 SC
37 CA
29 AL
29 PA
21 OH
19 MA
15 IL
14 KY
…similar to UVA in OOS percentage. Draws heavily from south — FL, TN, NC, SC, AL, KY are all in top 15 states represented.
Miami
786 FL (41.2% in-state)
202 NY
152 NJ
81 MA
72 CA
60 VA
57 IL
56 CT
56 MD
56 PA
44 GA
41 OH
30 TX
22 MI
21 TN
…school of Floridians and Northerners. Hugely popular in NY/NJ region.
Duke
209 NC (13.4% in-state)
154 NY
148 CA
146 FL
93 VA
92 NJ
85 TX
74 PA
72 GA
53 OH
46 MD
41 MA
38 CT
36 SC
34 IL
…national school, with some deference to the home state.
Notre Dame
268 IL
174 CA
140 OH
130 IN (6.6% in-state)
110 PA
106 TX
102 NY
92 MI
85 NJ
75 FL
57 WI
56 VA
55 MN
53 MA
50 MO
…national school that draws heavily from the Midwest. Southeast poorly represented.
LikeLike
Interesting, to look at Florida. As their academic reputation has increased so has their % of in state students. In 1994 88.8% of their students were from Florida, in 2010 it was 95%.
LikeLike
Also, you can see how desperate Cal is for cash. From ’94-’08 their in state % hovered between 90 and 93. In 2010 it was 83.9. Gotta get those out of state tuition checks.
LikeLike
Cal went from 93% in-state in 2008 to 84% in-state to 2010 after the economy tanked. My friend on faculty said there was a push to follow the “Michigan model” of taking more OOS students.
LikeLike
The thing is, unless they have changed the rules, you qualify for in-state tuition after only a year at Cal . . .
LikeLike
And then only if your parents aren’t paying for your tuition or living expenses at all. I was days away from UCSD…only to find out that my parents helped me too much in the previous year for me to get instate tuition. Ended up going to a private Christian school for the same amount I would spent out-of-state at UCSD.
LikeLike
As it gets more in demand, there is political pressure to reduce out of state students. Don’t know specifically that is the case in Florida, but it has been in Georgia and Texas.
LikeLike
ND’s #s are interesting….on their forum I’ve seen claims about the large #s of students they get from ACC states as a reason to be in that conference…..not so much, from these #s…
LikeLike
Looking at the #s closer for ND….902 from BIG states + MO
174 from left coast
240 from east coast
Certainly refutes one argument as to why ND doesn’t fit in the BIG.
LikeLike
maybe I should have said “northeast”, as I didn’t include 56 from VA. Those 56 are the only ones referenced from ACC territory.
LikeLike
Wow, Missouri’s at 71%. I thought it would be higher. Getting a ton of students from Illinois.
LikeLike
The #s for Iowa and Iowa ST. are very unusual..
Iowa’s class is only 50.% from Iowa. 2096 from Iowa—1589 from Illinois
ISU’s class is 67.1% from Iowa. 2857 from Iowa, only 475 from Illinois.
LikeLike
Here’s another oddity—94.5% of Wisconsin’s class is in-state……
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – You’re looking at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee figure. For the University of Wisconsin-Madison, it’s 62.2% (with the largest out-of-state contingents coming from Minnesota, Illinois, New York and California).
LikeLike
oops…that makes more sense.
LikeLike
From this incoming freshman data,
it makes an argument for
Purdue in B1GE and
MSU in B1GW
LikeLike
My kid’s an engineeriing student at Purdue. The engineers run the place. The % of engineering students who are out of state has to be a lot more than 33%….my guess would be at least 55%……They are also the people who end up making the $ and moving all over the country for jobs (my son is interning at Boeing next summer)….however, the #s west (, Ill-557, cal-170, TX-77, wis-54, minn-53, MO-52) are as great or more than the #s east (NY-48, NJ-70, PA 64, Mass-50, MD-29, VA-31, Conn-20). So I don’t think it matters much from that aspect…….
LikeLike
It would be interesting to see an interactive graphic like this showing alumni population.
I would think Purdue’s alumni are spread out around the nation much more than say Indiana’s, due to the engineering slant of Purdue.
LikeLike
This is even more desperate than PSU-UCF
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/30/mizzou-fills-lone-hole-in-2013-schedule/
Missouri has agreed to a H and H with Arkansas State.
LikeLike
Well, PSU-UCF at least has a logic to it: BOB wanted to be able to say to recruits that they will visit a warm weather locale even with the bowl ban. No doubt PSU will try to schedule the visit to Orlando for some date later in the season. Plus, if you squint hard enough, you can consider UCF a major-conference opponent.
LikeLike
Home and home? …Really?
LikeLike
Texas A&M played at Louisiana Tech this year. Texas played at Wyoming recently. It’s pretty standard. But Missouri can always buy out the return game or move it to KC.
LikeLike
Andy – A&M played LA Tech in Shreveport’s 50,000 seat Independence Stadium rather than their on campus stadium that seats only 30,000. Of the 40,000 that showed up for the Tech/A&M game, about half were Aggies. LA Tech usually hosts its rare high profile OOC home games in Shreveport which is 60 miles away from its campus in Ruston. Shreveport is also about a six hour drive from College Station. I think this might have also been part of a 2-for-1 deal.
If Mizzou goes through with this Ark State game, your Tigers should insist on it being held in LIttle Rock, Memphis, St. Louis or KC. I doubt you’ll ever make to Jonesboro..
LikeLike
Missouri traveling to Arky State. 2013 non-conf schedule of Murray State, Toledo, Indiana and Arky State. Missouri is already returning to their natural level.
LikeLike
Missouri tried to schedule Virginia but Oregon took our spot. Arkansas State was the backup plan. We’re getting these on somewhat short notice b/c we had to rearrange our non-conference schedule due to the conference change.
LikeLike
Better watch it Andy….that Ark St match-up looks like a trap game….hehe
LikeLike
I doubt MO will make the return trip in 2015. The way these deals usually work is that MO will buy out the return trip, or in this case the game could be moved to a “neutral” site between the schools such as Kansas City. Cancellation will cost MO more than a single game contract so Arkansas State did leverage good payment for the 2013 game.
LikeLike
Mack – you’re probably on to something. Mizzou may take a page from Arkansas’ playbook. Arkansas and ULM have had a home and home series in which ULM plays there “home” game in Little Rock. That helps Arkansas play two games in Little Rock and still get 6-7 home games in Fayetteville. Also, it helps ULM meet the FBS home attendance requirements.
LikeLike
This has happened to Wyoming a number of times — teams play host to the Cowboys, then cancel the return trip to Laramie.
LikeLike
Bowling Green played at Wisconsin a few years ago and then they played the BG “home” game at Cleveland Browns Stadium, which gave BG an attendance boost. And Minnesota actually played at Doyt Perry (Bowling Green Stadium). I think Indiana played at North Texas last year also.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8900124/big-12-wants-ncaa-allow-conference-title-game
We all know the B12 wants to change the rules so they can have a CCG with 10 only teams. I find their main argument highly flawed, though. They talk about deregulation and not telling a conference how to determine their champion. The problem is, though, the rule they are complaining about is only for getting a 13th game exemption. You can use any method you want to determine a champion in the first 12 games. They could use flex scheduling for the last week to create a CCG and 4 other B12 games, it just has to be the 12th game.
LikeLike
The problem is, though, the rule they are complaining about is only for getting a 13th game exemption.
Why do you describe that as a “problem”? The NCAA has a valid interest in ensuring a balance between athletics and academics. That’s why there are limits on how long you can practice, how many games you can play, and so forth.
But once the NCAA decided that it had no philosophical objection to a 13th game, its interest in precisely which conferences can play that game strike me as specious. The concerns of fairness, amateurism, etc., don’t markedly change if the Big XII adds two teams overnight. Yet, in one case they can play the game; and in another case, they can’t. So it comes across as an arbitrary rule having very little to do with promoting or enforcing the NCAA’s mission. The NCAA seems to have cornered the market in such rules (remember “bagels and cream cheese”?). The more of them that are repealed, the better.
Sure, they could also use flex scheduling for the last week to create a CCG, although I don’t know of any FBS conference that has used that method. A 13th game for the top two teams, however, is a method that many have used.
LikeLike
It’s a problem with their argument. I believe however, that the NCAA requires a round-robin format.
It’d be hilarious if they allowed for the flex scheduling as Brian suggests.
LikeLike
It’s a problem with their argument. How? All they’re saying is, you let other people play a 13th game; we wanna play too.
I don’t think the NCAA requires a round robin, unless it’s a very recent rule. When the Big Ten had ten teams, they did not always play a round robin (although they sometimes did).
Heaven knows what kinds of arbitrary things the NCAA will legislate. I’ve never heard of a rule against flex scheduling, but then again, I’ve never heard of any FBS league wanting to try it. I think there’d be significant logistical problems with a whole slate of games that cannot be determined until the week beforehand.
The CCG, at least, is in a location selected long in advance, with blocks of hotel rooms set aside. Even though the participants aren’t known, at least you know that there’ll be two pretty good teams playing, and that the outcome will matter. It might not be easy to fill a stadium on just a week’s notice, for a game vs. Iowa State with both teams out of bowl contention.
LikeLike
RR required within division in order to get 13th game. You could play 5 in division games and 7 OOC in a 12 team conf and get the 13th game.
LikeLike
metatron,
“I believe however, that the NCAA requires a round-robin format.
It’d be hilarious if they allowed for the flex scheduling as Brian suggests.”
The only RR requirement is part of the rule for getting that 13th game. With 12, they can do whatever they want.
Weeks 1-2: OOC play
Weeks 3-11: 9 game B12 schedule
Week 12: 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, 9 vs 10
1 vs 2 is played in JerryWorld, the other games play on the opposite field from last time.
It’s perfectly legal.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Why do you describe that as a “problem”?”
It’s a problem with the B12’s argument. They are trying to spin this as the NCAA dictating how they can determine their champion. I’m pointing out that all the NCAA really does is say how you can get a 13th game to determine a champion. Nobody is stopping the B12 from playing a 9 game round robin and then a CCG right now, they just can’t use a 13th game to do it.
“The NCAA has a valid interest in ensuring a balance between athletics and academics. That’s why there are limits on how long you can practice, how many games you can play, and so forth.
But once the NCAA decided that it had no philosophical objection to a 13th game, its interest in precisely which conferences can play that game strike me as specious. The concerns of fairness, amateurism, etc., don’t markedly change if the Big XII adds two teams overnight.”
All rules are arbitrary, but we still set voting ages, drinking ages, amounts of drugs that change possession to a felony, etc. The NCAA as a body decided that only as a conference reached a certain unwieldy size for football could they justify a 13th game, and then the NCAA limited the opportunities even for that game. The whole point is to make it difficult to play the 13th game because they don’t want you to play it. It’s that whole athletics/academics balance thing you mentioned.
“Sure, they could also use flex scheduling for the last week to create a CCG, although I don’t know of any FBS conference that has used that method. A 13th game for the top two teams, however, is a method that many have used.”
Nobody had used that method until 1992. So what?
LikeLike
It’s a problem with the B12′s argument. They are trying to spin this as the NCAA dictating how they can determine their champion.
Well, there are only two methods I’m aware of that have ever been used, and the NCAA is taking one of them off the table. I’d say they’ve come pretty damn close to “telling them how they can determine their champion.”
All rules are arbitrary, but we still set voting ages, drinking ages, amounts of drugs that change possession to a felony, etc. The NCAA as a body decided that only as a conference reached a certain unwieldy size for football could they justify a 13th game, and then the NCAA limited the opportunities even for that game. The whole point is to make it difficult to play the 13th game because they don’t want you to play it.
Well, if there are still people who “don’t want you to play” that game, perhaps they’ll stand up and be counted. I’m not really hearing their side of the story. Maybe they’re not around any more, just like the people who once opposed giving the vote to 18-year-olds.
Now that the experiment of the 13th game has been widely used, the objections to it may no longer be as forceful as they once were. I’m too young to recall the debates when the voting age was lowered, but I’m sure there were people who fretted about all the terrible things that would happen if 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. You no longer hear from them today, do you?
The argument that “all rules are arbitrary” sounds like a stone-cold loser to me. By that argument, no rule would ever change—and in fact, they change all the time.
Nobody had used that method until 1992. So what?
Because people generally prefer to use a system that has already been proven to work. Sometimes, new ideas flop. Remember all the different formulas that were used to seed teams in the BCS championship game, that turned out to be highly flawed? Trying something no one has done is a lot riskier than leveraging a method that has already worked.
And as I noted above, the logistical problems of your proposed alternative are not difficult to see.
LikeLike
Il still here and don’t want the 13th game except within those very reasonable rules. An alteration to them may need to be considered as conferences reach 16 or more members. A CCG in a 10 team conference is purely a money grab and should not even be considered as it is creating a 13th game but complete disregard for its competitive justification.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well, there are only two methods I’m aware of that have ever been used, and the NCAA is taking one of them off the table.”
No, they aren’t. You’re making that up. All the NCAA rules have done is stop them from playing a 13th game. They can play 0 conference games and name a champ based on computer polls if they want. They can play 9 games and use head to head and other tiebreakers. They can flex schedule a CCG as the 12th game. What they can’t do is extend their season to 13 games. Just like people that don’t play at HI or in a CCG can’t play 13 games just because other people can. It’s called an exemption for a reason.
“Well, if there are still people who “don’t want you to play” that game, perhaps they’ll stand up and be counted.”
They’re the NCAA school presidents who approved the rule and have shown no rush to change it. They don’t feel a need to talk publicly every time someone has an opinion about a rule.
“The argument that “all rules are arbitrary” sounds like a stone-cold loser to me. By that argument, no rule would ever change—and in fact, they change all the time.”
No, it invalidates your contention that the rule should change because it is arbitrary. Being arbitrary isn’t a factor in whether the rule should change or not to me.
“Because people generally prefer to use a system that has already been proven to work.”
Good for them. That doesn’t constitute the NCAA limiting their choices. That’s the B12 self-limiting the options.
“And as I noted above, the logistical problems of your proposed alternative are not difficult to see.”
I didn’t say it didn’t have logistical problems. That isn’t the NCAA’s problem, though. The NCAA leaves that option to the conference rather than restricting it. The B12 could reduce the problems by playing OOC or having a bye week the next to last weekend so everyone gets 2 weeks notice for their last game. Also, they can designate the 5 teams that might host the final games and make the best pairings possible for the 8 games that aren’t the CCG. Many of the matchups may be settled by early to mid November.
The point is, the NCAA doesn’t limit the B12 choices in how to pick a champion, they only limit how many games they can play. The SEC would like to go to 13 games for everyone with the CCG as #14 I’m sure, but the NCAA doesn’t give them that option either despite some schools getting to play 14 games.
LikeLike
I’m still trying to grasp what your substantive argument is. People lobby for rule changes all the time…and frequently, they do change.
At the moment, I am not hearing any university president or NCAA official arguing the contrary case — and we know these people aren’t bashful when they oppose an idea. When and if they do, we’ll have a better idea of this old rule still has any legs.
Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports reported: “Bowlsby’s idea to get rid of the NCAA’s 12-team conference minimum for such a game has support from the ACC — and probably every other conference. It is noncontroversial.”
Now, I don’t know for sure if that’s true. But I’m sure he at least interviewed some people before writing that. Did you?
Obviously, if there are better alternatives, they have to be serious. Playing zero conference games and asking a computer who won the conference is not serious.
LikeLike
They don’t argue the opposite if they think a proposal is a total non-starter.
Given how much the schools are being criticized for grabbing for money and the limited number of conferences this would benefit (B12, MWC, SB) this is an easy no vote.
Now Dennis Dodd could be right, but he’s been wrong before and lots of support for this type of a rule which is not in the student-athlete’s interest and doesn’t bring $ to everyone doesn’t seem logical. The fact that this rule is utilized in Division I is an accident. It was designed for a Division II conference that wasn’t likely to play postseason games.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’m still trying to grasp what your substantive argument is.”
Try reading what I actually wrote. Others picked up on it. My only point was that the B12’s stated argument is fatally flawed. The NCAA isn’t limiting how they can choose their champion (the B12’s claim), just how many games they can use to do it.
“At the moment, I am not hearing any university president or NCAA official arguing the contrary case”
And of course they all spend lots of time reading what the B12 commissioner says about any particular rule and responding publicly.
“Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports reported: “Bowlsby’s idea to get rid of the NCAA’s 12-team conference minimum for such a game has support from the ACC — and probably every other conference. It is noncontroversial.””
It’s so non-controversial that previous attempts to change it failed. Maybe things have changed, but maybe they haven’t. It’s not just the AQs that have a say in this.
“Obviously, if there are better alternatives,”
Who said anything about better? I just showed that they have a wide range of options since the NCAA doesn’t control how they choose their champion. Of course some are more to their liking than others.
“they have to be serious.”
Some D-III conferences have championship-only members in lacrosse (don’t know if they do it in any other sports) that don’t play any conference games. They just play in the postseason tournament. That’s playing 0 conference games and is being done. Would it have sounded serious if I had proposed it?
“Playing zero conference games and asking a computer who won the conference is not serious.”
It’s basically the BCS method, just applied to a conference. If it was used to pick NCG participants, how is it not a serious option for a conference?
LikeLike
Try reading what I actually wrote. Others picked up on it. My only point was that the B12′s stated argument is fatally flawed.
Sorry I’m so dense. 🙂 A “fatal flaw” means there is no way in hell it could possibly prevail. You seem awfully sure of that, and I am not sure why.
The NCAA isn’t limiting how they can choose their champion (the B12′s claim), just how many games they can use to do it.
When only two methods are commonly in use, and one is denied you, then it’s beyond pedantic to say, “We’re not limiting you.” Of course, even if 10 other methods were commonly in use, it’s still clearly a limitation if you aren’t allowed the 11th.
I mean, do you substantively object to the idea? Or are you merely saying that they argued their case with less semantic precision then they should Or are you saying you don’t care but don’t believe the rule will change? Or are you saying no rule should ever change since all are arbitrary?
Some D-III conferences have championship-only members in lacrosse (don’t know if they do it in any other sports) that don’t play any conference games. They just play in the postseason tournament.
Ummmm…the NCAA does not allow post-season conference tournaments in football, either. Any alternative has to be something you’re actually allowed to do, and it can’t be a joke (like playing zero conference games and using a computer). Flex games the final week of the season, I think, would rightly be deemed a logistical nightmare.
For football, there really is only one plausible option right available to them now, and it doesn’t strike me as totally crazy for them to say, “We’d like the other one, please.”
LikeLike
D-2, D-3 don’t have FB playoffs?
You can decide champs any way you want in 12 games.
If you have 12 or more, divide and RR within division a 13th ge between division champs is allowed (not required).
I’m thinking Denis Dodd had been out drinking with Bowlsby prior to writing that 🙂 .
LikeLike
He also wrote that the ACC was within 500k of all the other conferences in revenue and that FSU would lose money going to the Big 12. He did however, say it by saying 2 different people had told him that (probably Swofford and Swarbick).
LikeLike
D-2, D-3 don’t have FB playoffs?
They do, but no D-2 or D-3 conference has its own tournament, which is one of the various impossible or highly impractical options Brian tossed out there, in an attempt to demonstrate that the Big XII still has tons of viable options available to it.
You can decide champs any way you want in 12 games.
I am still waiting to hear the first plausible way, other than the one and only way allowed. Brian is a pretty intelligent guy, and the only options he tossed out were obvious jokes (things no sane conference would do).
I’m thinking Denis Dodd had been out drinking with Bowlsby prior to writing that.
Could be, but you can’t beat somebody with nobody. No media outlet yet has written the story with the headline, “Other conferences wary of Big XII’s championship game proposal.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“A “fatal flaw” means there is no way in hell it could possibly prevail. You seem awfully sure of that, and I am not sure why.”
I said their stated argument was. I didn’t say their attempt to change the rule was.
“When only two methods are commonly in use, and one is denied you,”
They are not denied one. It’s just not true. You can repeat it all you like but that won’t change the facts. The B12 is perfectly capable of staging a CCG as is. They are in no way denied that option.
“I mean, do you substantively object to the idea?”
Yes, but that’s not the issue under discussion. My point was that their stated argument had no merit. I didn’t bother to give my opinion of the merits of their desire to change the rule.
“Or are you merely saying that they argued their case with less semantic precision then they should”
Of the choices you listed, that’s the closest one. As I said in my first comment, I find their argument to be flawed. The NCAA isn’t preventing them from staging a CCG, but that’s what they are claiming. It’s spin to make them look less greedy.
“Ummmm…the NCAA does not allow post-season conference tournaments in football, either.”
Sure they do. What do you think a 13th game CCG is? It’s a 2 team post-season tournament.
“Flex games the final week of the season, I think, would rightly be deemed a logistical nightmare.”
I would too, but I’ve seen people argue in favor of doing it here on Frank’s blog. The same basic argument applies to playing the semifinals on campus in early December versus in bowls late in December, and plenty of people argued to ignore logistics and do it anyway.
“For football, there really is only one plausible option right available to them now, and it doesn’t strike me as totally crazy for them to say, “We’d like the other one, please.””
Lots of people want lots of things. It doesn’t mean they should get them. The B12 has multiple options available to them as is, and can also choose to expand if they want to avail themselves of the13th game exemption. They are still lying when they say the NCAA is preventing them from playing a CCG.
LikeLike
The B12 has multiple options available to them as is, and can also choose to expand if they want to avail themselves of the13th game exemption. They are still lying when they say the NCAA is preventing them from playing a CCG.
OK, thought exercise. Bob Bowlsby resigns tomorrow, and you’re his replacement. Tell me what you’d recommend to the school presidents and ADs, without believing you’d be laughed out of the room.
If you can’t come up with anything, then Bowlsby is right: the current system permits only one serious option, without expanding. I suppose, to be semantically correct, he could have listed all of the stupid options and explained why no sane person would adopt them. I’m not going to fault him for having omitted that step of the argument.
He does have the option of expanding, but I’ve interpreted you to be anti-expansion, so it would be most ironic if that’s what you now recommend.
LikeLike
From the B12 standpoint there is nothing to lose trying to get this rule abolished. Much better than trying to get an exemption since that has already failed several times.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“no D-2 or D-3 conference has its own tournament, which is one of the various impossible or highly impractical options Brian tossed out there”
It’s not impossible. How impractical is debatable. The NFL manages to move games around. If they want a CCG badly enough, it is certainly doable. That’s the point. They said they can’t have one, but they can. They choose not to.
“I am still waiting to hear the first plausible way, other than the one and only way allowed.”
Conveniently, you get to decide what is plausible and what isn’t.
1. 9 game RR and tiebreakers (works just fine)
2. 8 games and tiebreakers (very popular choice)
3. 7 games and tiebreakers (common)
4. 6 games and tiebreakers (the SEC did it as recently as the late 80s)
…
10. 0 games and tiebreakers (all the benefits of being independent but with the chance to win a conference, too)
11. Flex schedule for a 12th game CCG
12. Any number of games but just use polls
13. Any number of games but use a combo of polls and records (highest ranked unless they have 1 more less, etc)
That seems like more than 1 option to me.
LikeLike
@Brian: Your #1 to 4 are the identical method. I mean, when the B1G adds a 9th or 10th conference game, as it is likely to do, no one will write: “Big Ten changes the way it determines a champion.” Bumping the number of conference games up or down, however desirable it may be, is not the topic under discussion.
The others, I assume, are jokes. I take a train to work every day. I suppose you could say I rejected the options of walking, riding a horse, and swimming, which is literally true. If it’s not an option that any serious person could adopt under the circumstances, then it’s not an option at all.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Tell me what you’d recommend to the school presidents and ADs, without believing you’d be laughed out of the room.”
If they want to be a business, then act like one. Cut the dead weight. Follow the GE principle and cut the bottom 10%. Stop carrying schools like ISU just to be nice. Trim the fat and merge with the P12, then trim their fat. Own the western US as your power base to combat the SEC and B10. Work with Fox to develop a true rival to ESPN and get some west coast bias working in your favor. Force real anti-oversigning reform to hurt the SEC West. Drop the LHN to form a conference network combined with the PTN. It’ll pay more long term and a stronger conference will also make more money. Refuse to play SEC schools on the road or at a neutral site in TX or further east. Anything good for the SEC is bad for you. Demand performance from all your coaches and fire them if they don’t win big. Drop all non-revenue sports not required for Title IX compliance to club level. Spend the bare minimum on the rest.
Otherwise, act like a group of universities and quit screwing over people for every last dollar. They’re just sports. Your goal is to educate students, not compete with the NFL. Focus on your core business and de-emphasize the other stuff.
“If you can’t come up with anything, then Bowlsby is right: the current system permits only one serious option, without expanding.”
Oh, you meant about determining a champion. I’d say play a RR and use tiebreakers and use the extra bye week to have a fresher and more healthy team at the end of the year. It’s also another week when you can develop the young players much like in bowl practice. The CCG money isn’t that huge and our history shows it has often hurt our top team. That’s mostly bad luck, but why risk it? Schedule strong OOC games and you’ll be fine on SOS. Unless it’s an emergency, no playing I-AAs because that hurts everyone. Remember, all that 13th game gets the SEC is a I-AA game. It’s their 9th conference game, too. They are so big that they often miss several of the top teams in their conference while we play all of them already.
LikeLike
Mack,
“From the B12 standpoint there is nothing to lose trying to get this rule abolished. Much better than trying to get an exemption since that has already failed several times.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Your #1 to 4 are the identical method.”
Yes and no. I listed them separately for a reason. Playing anywhere from 6-9 conference games before using tiebreakers is a common solution. Playing a full round robin and playing only 2/3 of your conference mates are very different approaches to that solution, though. Playing a 9 game round robin is an unusual choice, but the B12 picked it. Listing them is also helpful for option #11, the flex schedule. The B12 could easily wrap up their conference schedule in early November if they wanted to and flex schedule the CCG in the last week with a lot of notice for fans and the schools. I wanted to show that conferences have varied widely in how many conference games were considered sufficient before you raised that as an objection to a 6 or 7 game schedule with a flex schedule for the last week.
“The others, I assume, are jokes.”
You assume wrong. The combo of polls and records is a commonly used tiebreaker right now, so it is already in use. It is often used in other sports to pick the best teams for the postseason, too. Just polls are also common in college sports to pick teams for the postseason. There is no reason a conference couldn’t adopt it to choose their champion. Flex scheduling is a viable option with potential logistics issues. Those can certainly be overcome if someone wants to try it.
“I take a train to work every day. I suppose you could say I rejected the options of walking, riding a horse, and swimming, which is literally true. If it’s not an option that any serious person could adopt under the circumstances, then it’s not an option at all.an, you guys just grease the whyeels”
You also have chosen not to bike, drive, hire a car service, car pool, take a cab, take a bus, ride a scooter, or ride a motorcycle. Those are all viable options (depending on where you live, etc) you don’t choose, but others might. Most Americans reject scooters out of hand but they are wildly popular in some countries. Does that make them a joke of a choice?
LikeLike
@bullet: “Given how much the schools are being criticized for grabbing for money and the limited number of conferences this would benefit (B12, MWC, SB) this is an easy no vote.”
You are underselling your argument ~ the MWC is now 12 in two divisions with a CCG.
LikeLike
The Big XII is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Their annual payout per team is $26.2M and the conference wants to keep it that way. But to get a conference championship game in place, they need two more teams per the NCAA rules. Since the prospects of getting two teams in the near term that will sustain that average payout per school is fairly low, they’re trying to go around the current rules.
It certainly makes sense for them to at least try it. I imagine they feel that in the current competitive environment, the SEC is bound to get two of the four playoff berths starting in 2014 more often than not. That means the Big XII is effectively competing for the two remaining ones against the other major conferences with CCGs, i.e., the Big Ten, ACC and Pac 12. Now while an undefeated Big XII team would probably get into the four-team playoff even if two SEC teams were also slotted into it, things get real problematic if they end up the season with a 11-1 record.
I doubt this proposal will go anywhere because the other major conferences are already invested in a system with two fixed divisions and a minimum of 12 teams to have the playoff. Why would they support an exception for the Big XII? The Pac 12 wouldn’t because their best expansion scenario still revolves getting teams out of the Big XII. The SEC was the first conference to do this and their CCG has been a big winner for them. The Big Ten just expanded in part in order to stage a CCG, so I doubt they have much sympathy for it. And if the ACC endorsed this action, it would give its members one less reason to stay in the conference because it would mean the ACC didn’t need twelve teams to have the CCG.
LikeLike
@cutter: The major conferences’ selfish interests could very well be the opposite of what you’re assuming. If they allow the Big XII to have their 13th game, then the Big XII will have less incentive to expand. The ACC doesn’t want the Big XII to poach their schools. The SEC would rather not have the Big XII in Florida and South Carolina. The Pac-12 would rather not have the Big XII looking at schools that they might want one day.
It’s true that the Big Ten, under the rules at the time, needed a 12th team to stage a CCG, but they didn’t have to scrape the bottom of the barrel. They hooked Nebraska, a school they probably would’ve wanted even if there were no such rule.
Beyond that, schools in many conferences are agitating to get the NCAA out of their business. You read that all the time. So I can well imagine there’ll be sympathy for tossing one more archaic rule out the window, even from schools and conferences that don’t actually benefit from repealing it. Next year, there’ll be some other rule they care more about, and they’ll remind the Big XII: “you got what you wanted, now it’s our turn.”
LikeLike
@cutter – If the Big 12 wants to get this provision passed, then it has to be couched in a way that provides a benefit to the conferences that have 12 or more schools, as well. I agree that this would get shut down if it’s simply a proposal to allow for conference championship games with smaller conferences. However, if some of the restrictions in connection with conference championship games are removed, such as the requirement to have divisions, then there could be some greater traction. For instance, all of the debate that we’re having about Big Ten divisions and concerns about schools not playing each other enough in a 14 school (or larger) league would be eradicated if you were allowed to just have the top 2 teams in the conference standings play each other. Without divisions in the Big Ten, for example, each school could have 3 permanent rivals that they play annually and then play everyone else 2 years on/2 years off while still maintaining an 8-game conference schedule (or play everyone even more frequently in a 9-game conference schedule). Note that Bowlsby mentioned getting rid of divisions specifically, which I believe was a message intended for his former AD colleagues in the Big Ten and Jim Delany. It’s a way to alleviate or even eliminate the concern of not being able to play traditional power schools such as Michigan and Ohio State as much in splitting up divisions.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@cutter – If the Big 12 wants to get this provision passed, then it has to be couched in a way that provides a benefit to the conferences that have 12 or more schools, as well.”
I think it would help more if they could explain how this is good for the players. With all the negative press the NCAA gets for making money of the players, it’s very easy to turn down a blatant money grab using an unnecessary game.
“However, if some of the restrictions in connection with conference championship games are removed, such as the requirement to have divisions, then there could be some greater traction. For instance, all of the debate that we’re having about Big Ten divisions and concerns about schools not playing each other enough in a 14 school (or larger) league would be eradicated if you were allowed to just have the top 2 teams in the conference standings play each other. Without divisions in the Big Ten, for example, each school could have 3 permanent rivals that they play annually and then play everyone else 2 years on/2 years off while still maintaining an 8-game conference schedule (or play everyone even more frequently in a 9-game conference schedule).”
Yes, that’s very true. But …
“Note that Bowlsby mentioned getting rid of divisions specifically, which I believe was a message intended for his former AD colleagues in the Big Ten and Jim Delany. It’s a way to alleviate or even eliminate the concern of not being able to play traditional power schools such as Michigan and Ohio State as much in splitting up divisions.”
Remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about OSU maybe playing MI once every 7 years or so in back to back games? This change would make that more likely as The Game will stay the last week of the season and now OSU and MI can’t eliminate each other automatically. If both schools have a lead over the rest of the conference (the same scenario that would lead to a rematch in the division setup), The Game means “nothing” again. Does that really help the B10?
Frequency of play with 8 games:
No divisions, 3 locked rivals – 3x 100%, 10x 50%
Divisions, 0 locked rivals – 6x 100%, 7x 29%
Divisions, 1 locked rival – 7x 100%, 6x 17%
Frequency of play with 9 games:
No divisions, 3 locked rivals – 3x 100%, 10x 60%
No divisions, 5 locked rivals – 5x 100%, 8x 50%
Divisions, 0 locked rivals – 6x 100%, 7x 43%
Divisions, 1 locked rival – 7x 100%, 6x 33%
I’d say it depends on the school, the divisions and the number of games whether this is better or not from a frequency of play POV. I’d prefer 9 games with no divisions without a CCG personally, but others like the CCG (I hate the rematches). MN has a lot of rivalries they want annually, so they might prefer divisions if they can get the right setup.
LikeLike
I think it would help more if they could explain how this is good for the players.
In the conferences that play such a game, do the players think it’s a bad thing? If it’s so bad, maybe we shouldn’t let any conference do it.
LikeLike
When do the players get to decide on who joins a conference? Do the kids decide when and how mush desert they get?
You are right, the 13th game shouldn’t be allowed…but no Hawaii exception? Convoluted tie breakers for larger conferences? Possibly the schedule deciding champs with no meeting? Yeah, those things should be tossed because the Entitled Conference can’t attract a “worthy” 11th and 12th…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If it’s so bad, maybe we shouldn’t let any conference do it.”
Sounds good.
LikeLike
Eliminating divisions could put odd-numbered expansion on the table.
LikeLike
That’s a big one, I think.
LikeLike
The B1G could take Virginia (if interested) and stop at 15.
8 conference games — 2 locked rivals, 6 rotating games against the remaining 12 teams.
Play a CCG between the two best teams.
LikeLike
jokewood,
The only issue would be that every week in conference play someone (or any odd number of teams) has to have a bye or an OOC game. The B10 found that awkward with 11, but obviously they dealt with it. Scheduling is easier when you can have everyone play a conference game, though.
LikeLike
@Frank
When you talk about a school having three permanent rivals the play annually and the play everyone two years on/two years off with eight or nine conference games, you’re essentially describing a pod system that has divisions whose membership rotates on a two-year basis. We know that’s doable under the current NCAA regulations because it’s the model the WAC adapted when it had sixteen teams.
Now if a conference is willing to set aside a division arrangement, but still wants to have major rivalry games at the end of the regular season, then they face the situation where they could have back-to-back games deciding the conference champion,i.e., what the Big Ten now has with Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions. From what we’ve all read so far, it looks like the B1G is going to try and move away from that possibility (with perhaps the exception of a couple of lower level teams such as Indiana and Purdue playing the last week of the year) by having UM and OSU in the same division. I also can’t imagine the Pac 12 would happy about having a replay of what happened this year with UCLA and Stanford.
I will admit that there could be a mismatch in a conference championship game because the winner of Division A is markedly better than Division B’s victor. Having the two best teams conference wise meeting in the CCG could definitely eliminate that problem. But there is a potential pitfall regarding tiebreakers and figuring out which 3 or 4 teams are actually #1 and #2 in the conference. The division setup is at least cleaner in that regard and it provides a familiar framework that fans seem to have embraced over the last two decades when the SEC first trotted it out.
We’ll see what happens. It’ll be interesting to see how the SEC and Big Ten operate in the future as they make their next expansion steps. If they adopt the pod system, then geography within these conferences will be at the pod level and not the at the division level because we expect the divisions to change members every two years in order to make sure teams play one another as many times as possible.
LikeLike
It’s only a pod system if the same group of teams each have the same rivalries. In the B1G, though, Michigan has rivalries with Ohio St and Michigan St (and to some degree Minnesota), while Ohio St has rivalries with Michigan and Illinois (and to some degree Penn St). Meanwhile Michigan St has rivalries with Michigan and Penn St, Minnesota has rivalries with Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan (Minnesota seems to care much more about the Jug rivalry than Michigan from what I can tell), Illinois has rivalries with Northwestern and Ohio St, and so on and so forth. There really isn’t any simple pod or division structure that really accomodates the B1G’s rivalries.
The SEC has the same type of issue, though to a lesser extent, since there are only a couple cross-division rivalries that really matter. Even LSU-Florida isn’t really THAT big of a deal.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Rare Shout-Out to Other Blogs | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Any Big 12-ACC alliance feels a little suspicious to me. There’s nothing other than business that makes sense about this.
An ACC-SEC relationship makes sense because it they’re both southern (most of the ACC, anyway) and overlap territory in 4 states. SEC-Big 12 makes sense with the Texas overlap and the existing Sugar Bowl relationship. ACC-B1G has made sense in b-ball because they’re both historically strong in hoops, and borne very supportive of hoops as compared with, say, the SEC, where hoops is such an afterthought except in Kentucky, Missouri, and maybe Florida.
But there’s no kinship between the Big 12 and ACC. West Virginia is the only school anywhere near an ACC school.
Sure, as an FSU fan, I think it would be fun yo play OU, Texas, KState, WVU, and TCU, but not more than SEC schools or B1G schools. I’d also rather play the weaker B1G and SEC schools than the weaker Bug 12 schools. I imagine fans of other ACC schools feel the same.
Color me skeptical.
LikeLike
Just wait until Notre Dame takes the spot of a full ACC member in the Big Ten/ACC challenge.
They’re like a bad roommate – never pays the rent and always eats your food.
LikeLike
I sense this is being done so Texas can have its cake (a 10-member conference, no football CCG) and eat it too (playing Florida State, Clemson and Miami regularly while keeping them out of the conference). Meanwhile, Iowa State and Kansas would be left playing Wake Forest, Boston College and Syracuse.
LikeLike
Texas has not had trouble schedulnig big-name OOC opponents. Those with whom it has future home-and-homes include: BYU, Notre Dame, Cal, USC, and Ohio State. When they already have that schedule, I’m not sure how “regular” you think FSU, Clemson, and Miami would be.
Similarly, Oklahoma has future home-and-homes with Notre Dame, Ohio State, Tennessee, LSU, Army (yes, Army!) and Nebraska. So they don’t need an alliance either. I have to assume it’s for the benefit of the lower-tier schools, who have trouble getting major conference opponents to come visit them.
But would Iowa State and Kansas get the same games as Texas? They won’t, and they shouldn’t. Even the Big Ten and the Pac-12, before their alliance fizzled out, said that the games would be organized based on competitive strength. They weren’t going to send Nebraska and Michigan to Washington State.
LikeLike
This can ensure schools like KSU and Texas Tech get at least one decent team on the OOC schedule.
LikeLike
IL is looking to replace their old Chief logo with a new one. Currently they are having a student competition to pick some choices for the administration to consider. There are 40+ options so far.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.392862314123441.92732.198869786856029&type=3
There are some amusing choices. Care to comment, IL alumni?
LikeLike
@Brian – Nothing less than an orange and blue Admiral Ackbar would be acceptable to me.
LikeLike
I like the shape of the state with a stove-pipe hat and boxing gloves.
LikeLike
Rabid the Squirrel is a nice option. Also Colonel Kernel or the Kraken (get a lot of those in IL, do you?). Maybe Chef Illiniwek, with the Illinois block I in the middle of his title?
LikeLike
I knew that Lake Michigan was deeper than Lake Erie, but how in the hell does the Kraken get down from Chicago? Hitch a freight?
LikeLike
I’m pulling for zombie Abraham Lincoln (credit to the Booze News circa 2007)
LikeLike
I think that Abe as a rail-splitter would be cool. However, that may be too similar to Purdue’s mascot.
As someone who grew up in Illinois, I’d suggest this logo: unmarked, non-consecutive bills in an unmarked envelope.
Or maybe the Illinois boot-leggers?
LikeLike
Zombie voters stuffing a ballot box?
LikeLike
That is perfect. Well played.
LikeLike
Andy – welcome to the SEC.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/5021189-123/lsu-jumps-to-big-lead
LikeLike
Mizzou’s basketball team has been in disarray for the last couple of weeks. Hopefully they clean up whatever problems they are having. Part of the problem is 4 of our top 7 players have had major injuries in the last month, and a fifth was kicked off the team early in the season. Also, we only returned 1 player from last year. Every other player (including all the bench players) are new. So they’re still learning to play as a team. It’s kind of amazing we’re 15-5 considering all of that.
LikeLike
Who are you playing ?
LikeLike
Not sure what the question is. Missouri has played Louisville, Florida, UCLA, Illinois, VCU, Ole Miss, Stanford, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, and Bucknell so far, next three games are agaisnt Auburn, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss.
LikeLike
A look at Missouri’s basketball roster, ranking who our best players are and how they’re doing.
1. Phil Pressey – the only player back from last year. Doing fairly well, averaging over 12 pts and 7 assists per game. But he tries to do too much and makes a lot mistakes.
2. Lawrence Bowers – averaging 17 ppg and 8 rebs per game. Missed the last 5 games with a knee injury. Came back last night for the first time and played half as many minutes as usual.
3. Mike Dixon – would have been the other player back from last year. Was All-Big 12. Kicked off the team in November.
4. Jabari Brown – He’s pretty good. Had 21 pts last night.
5. Alex Oriakhi – He’s pretty good too. Last night he got a foul called on him roughly every other minute he was in there. Played less than 10 mins in the game. That’s life on the road. In his last game he had 18 pts and 12 boards.
6. Earnest Ross – decent player. Hurt his back a couple of weeks ago, has been playing limited minutes. Played maybe 10 mins last night.
7. Keon Bell – out with a sprained ankle and a hurt shoulder.
8. Tony Criswell – He’s playing with a cast on his broken hand. It has hurt his ability to score.
9. Stefan Jankovic – believe it or not he has a major acid reflux problem. He can only play in 2-3 minute stretches.
10 Ryan Rosberg – this freshman is improving and has gotten a lot of minutes lately due to all the injuries, but he’s clearly not ready for prime time.
11. Negus Webster chan – a former Louisville commit who switched to Mizzou, he’s gotten some major minutes lately due to the injuries. He’s been a bust so far. Doesn’t look ready at all.
12. Dominique Bull – he has played maybe 3 minutes total all year. I suspect he’ll transfer.
So yeah, we’re a mess right now. And we still only lost by 3 on the road after shooting something like 35% in the game. So I wouldn’t brag too hard.
LikeLike
Andy – I wasn’t bragging, I simply wrote “welcome to the SEC.” As Sgt. Hulka said in the movie Stripes, “Lighten up Francis.”
Nobody is more shocked that LSU beat Mizzou last night than me. LSU only has about three players that would even make Mizzou’s team. My Tigers’ roster is made up largely of journeymen, cast-offs, walk-ons and a 7 foot tuba player that never played organized basketball until last year.
But the future is bright for my Tigers. 1st year coach and LSU alum Johnnie Jones was Dale Brown’s chief recruiter. LSU currently has the #6 Rivals recruiting class for 2013 with three players ranked in the top 66.
I wish your Tigers well in the NCAAs. I know my Tigers only have a very outside shot at the NIT, but I can still enjoy the upset over a ranked conference opponent and look forward to the future when the Pete Maravich Assembly Center can once again be called the “Deaf Dome.”
LikeLike
Yeah, well when your team shoots 56% for the game and my team shoots 37% you’re going to win most of the time, even if we do out rebound you nearly 2 to 1.
My point is you didn’t beat a top 20 team last night. We’re kind of a mess right now. We can clean it up and salvage the season, maybe, but right now it’s a mess.
LikeLike
Oh, and congrats on your recruiting class. I’m hoping LSU can step it up in basketball. The SEC needs more good teams.
LikeLike
Missouri has a basketball team?
LikeLike
Yeah, they’ve averaged over 27 wins per season over the last 4 seasons, and have been in and out of the top 10 most of that time. Finished the regular season last year ranked #3 in the country. Ranked #17 now. Our head coach won National Coach of the Year last year.23 conference titles. Rank tied for 26th in all time NCAA tournament apperances. Top 10 recruiting class last year. I could go on…
LikeLike
bah, should read top 10 recruiting class for next year. anyway, you get the point.
No Missouri isn’t Duke. But it’s easily a top 20 program these days. Although we’re definitely having some difficulties at the moment.
LikeLike
And ZERO Final Fours. :p
LikeLike
We came pretty darn close 5 times. But no luck so far.
LikeLike
I think so, but they must not be as good as Rutgers or Maryland or Nebraska. I mean, if they were on par with RU, MD or UN-L, they’d be in the Big Ten these days. 🙂
LikeLike
Missouri leads the all time series in basketball with Nebraska 124-91. Nebraska has never won an NCAA tournament game. Rutgers’ basketball history is abysmal.
Missouri is not in the Big Ten because the Big Ten stalled on expanding to 14 so Missouri went for the SEC offer they had sitting on the table that would have gone to someone else if we didn’t take it then.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
“Missouri is not in the Big Ten because the Big Ten PASSED on expanding to 14 WITH Missouri, SO MISSOURI went for the SEC offer they had sitting on the table that would have gone to someone else if we didn’t take it then.”
There, I fixed it for you.
LikeLike
Actually, no. The Big Ten couldn’t find an adequate partner to get to 14 with Missouri in the timeframe available to get Missouri. Also at the time they were still holding out hope for Notre Dame. When Notre Dame joined the ACC then the Big Ten immediately went to play B and took Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
It’s very possible and likely that if Missouri were available then they would have taken Rutgers spot. But at that point it was too late.
LikeLike
It appears to me that the Big Ten was after two things in expansion. For the first expansion they wanted a football power (Nebraska, Notre Dame, Texas). The second expansion was population driven. Since they took a football power that was located in a sparsely populated state; they had to compliment the first expansion with a new large population base. Could Missouri have satisfied the population base desired in expansion #2? It might have? But maybe not to the extent Maryland and Rutgers have. I’m not so sure Missouri would have been a cinch even in the second expansion, and it wouldn’t have been because Missouri’s brand is worse than Rutgers or Maryland (Missouri probably has more brand power than Rutgers). Missouri just didn’t have what the Big Ten was looking for. It would have been interesting to see what had happened if Notre Dame had said yes in the first expansion.
LikeLike
@OrderRestored83 – I think that you’re correct on this. None of us here is going to convince Andy that Missouri was behind Rutgers on the pecking order for the Big Ten (all in good fun, Andy), but I’m fairly certain that this was the case. It might not have been as much of a slam dunk as picking up Nebraska, but Jim Delany has definitely had an overarching goal of getting to the East Coast and the NYC market specifically for a long time (going back to the early 1990s where possible 14-team Big Ten plans included Rutgers). When I first wrote anything about Big Ten expansion way back in 2006 (when conference realignment was in a quiet period and few people were thinking about it), I noted that getting to the East Coast to provide a partner for Penn State was likely going to be the goal if Notre Dame wasn’t an option. (At the time, I thought that the target would be Syracuse.) As others have stated, getting Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and the Big Ten brand overall cycling through the NYC and DC markets is as important to the conference as the programs at Rutgers and Maryland themselves. Now, if Andy is skeptical of that working, then I think that’s a reasonable position. Frankly, I’m still skeptical of whether the Big Ten can pull off what Delany wants to do in the NYC market. (I’m not worried about DC – Maryland combined with the presence of Penn State/Ohio State/Michigan alums will deliver that market for BTN purposes probably better than Penn State delivers Philly as of now.) Still, the potential payoff if you’re successful in the NYC market is off-the-charts – that dwarfs the value of Missouri. So, Rutgers vs. Missouri is really a matter between risky bet/massive payoff and safe bet/decent payoff. Maryland is a different matter, as they would have been near the top of the Big Ten’s wish list (at least in terms of geographically contiguous AAU schools) in any scenario.
LikeLike
It’s all just guessing and we’ll never know. I do know, based on what I believe to be credible sourses, that Missouri was told that they would be invited in the next expansion with the right partner(s). Would Maryland have been the right partner to get Missouri into the B1G? I have no idea. I’m guessing there’s a good chance of it but I don’t know.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I completely agree, its not that Missouri is an unworthy candidate; they just didn’t fit the Big Ten’s vision in that scenario.
@Andy,
You are spot on; none of us really “know”. That’s what makes all the speculation fun. Outside of Jim Delaney and his chosen few, the rest of us are in the dark.
LikeLike
Like an attractive girl at the bar, Jim Delany whispered sweet nothings into the ears of many suitors. All of them no doubt believed that they were the guy Jim really wanted.
LikeLike
I really don’t think so. The B1G really only has so many options. This is roughly the pool:
Obvious and contiguous:
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Missouri
Maryland
Rutgers
Obvious and not contiguous:
Texas
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Georgia Tech
Stretches for one reason or another:
Florida State
Kansas
Virginia Tech
Pitt
Boston College
Syracuse
Presumably Delaney would go after the first category the soonest and the hardest, with the second category also given some attention, and the third category getting the least attention.
In category 1 we know for a fact that the B1G invited 4 out of 5 of those. My sources say that the 5th, Missouri, was in serious talks about potentially joining, but for whatever reason the plan didn’t go through, mainly because Nebraska got spot #12 and there was no suitable #14 for Missouri to join at the time, and now they’re in the SEC.
Category 2 is the focus now.
Category 3 looks unlikely, although some of you are hoping for FSU.
So yeah, talks of many schools getting phony whispers, I really don’t think so. There were a few, and they were all legit.
LikeLike
@Andy: I don’t think anyone disputes that Missouri had talks with the Big Ten. What the rest of us are saying, is that your Missouri source probably imagines the Tigers’ chances were better than they really were.
I mean, Delany wasn’t going to come right out and tell the school that Missouri was merely a contingency plan in case other, more desirable, options fell through.
I’m sure there are guys who thought they were justthisclose to a date with Kate Upton. Whether Kate thought so is a whole other matter.
LikeLike
Also, and here’s where some of you tend not to believe me but you should. The B1G’s terms were what some call “junior membership”, others call it “buying in”, whatever you want to call it. Nebraska will lose something like $30-40M over 5 years while transitioning into the B1G. Missouri was basically sitting around waiting for the B1G to expand again. It was understood that with a good partner we could join. But then the SEC comes along and sells us on the idea of joining the SEC instead. They tried selling us on it for about a year. Talked about how they planned to make it a better acadmeic league and wanted Missouri because of strong academics. Played up the SEC Academic Consortium as a potential CIC of the south. Talked up a new SEC Network (like the Big Ten network). Basically sold our leaders on the idea that the SEC would have everything the Big Ten has. And then they said that we would get full revenue share from day one. No “junior membership” or “buy in” or whatever. And they said we need you to choose now because we have other options, but you’re our top choice. So we went for it. We cast our lot with the SEC. Now the B1G is no longer an option for us.
LikeLike
Marc, you’re just being inflamatory and basically saying nothing other than that you’re a dick.
The facts are that in 2010 the Big Ten was working on expanding. They talked to a few schools. They were getting expansion scenarios together. It was a pretty fluid situaiton. They were looking at 12, 14, or 16. Missouri was slotted at 12 or 14 depending on how the rest of the pieces would come together. The Pac 12 was trying to get to 16 at the same time. I have heard from seperate people both on the coaching side and on the board of curators side at Missouri and both say that the talks were far enough along that it looked more likely like it was going to happen than that it wasn’t. When the Pac 12 move fell through the B1G put everything on pause and just took Nebraska and stayed there for a couple of years. Missouri was told that the Big Ten wouldn’t take us unless they found a partner for us. They wanted Notre Dame. Mizzou joined the SEC then Notre Dame joined the ACC partially. Then the B1G decided to make a move, and Missouri was no longer an option.
LikeLike
hehe …..Mo is the Purdue of the SEC…..
LikeLike
well, same colors at least.
LikeLike
Actually, as far as football and basketball, it’s not too far off. Missouri basketball historically is slightly worse than Purdue, and in football Missouri is a little better. But average the two and the two schools are about even I guess. Schools are similar size too. Same school colors. I guess the main difference is Mizzou focuses more on agriculture/biology/medicine/”life sciences” where is Purdue is more of an engineering school.
LikeLike
Oh, and as far as market, Missouri is the only D1 school in a state of 6.1M people, where as Purdue plays third fiddle in a state of 6.5M.
LikeLike
Marc, you’re just being inflamatory and basically saying nothing other than that you’re a dick.
It’s not personal. My alma mater (Michigan) hardly ever plays Missouri in anything. I have no animosity for the school at all. In truth, I am fairly easy-going even towards those schools Michigan does have a rivalry with. I don’t believe in insulting people, just because you want to beat them in sports.
I am just suggesting that the known facts lend themselves to another interpretation. Your tendency to insult anyone who makes that suggestion does not lend credence to your argument. I’d say it would have a lot more credibility if there were anyone on the Big Ten side saying (even off the record) that Missouri came as close to an offer as you’re suggesting.
LikeLike
Times change, but the B1G openly talked in the late 90s about inviting Missouri, Rutgers and Kansas, making it look like Missouri was #1 at that point (2 western, 1 eastern team to go to either 12 (MN/IA/WI/IL/NW/MO west, PSU/OSU/MSU/UM/IU/PU east) or 14-or stay at 11 as they did at the time). I suspect when Nebraska was added, the eastern flank became more important and Rutgers moved to #1 on the list (ND wasn’t coming). Maryland made clear they were available and moved up the list when they probably weren’t considered before. So I think the Big 10 did get the two schools they wanted (that weren’t in South Bend or Austin). And as Gee said, they are looking east and south and Maryland helps them bridge that. Bowlsby talked about how the B1G had apparently decided it could grow programs. With his connections, he probably has some understanding of the B1G’s thinking on things they have already done.
LikeLike
Marc, you do realize that I’m a Michigan alum too, don’t you? Went to Missouri for undergrad, Michigan for grad.
The “known facts” don’t lend to your interpritation at all. If you think they do that only means you don’t know much about this at all, but then why would you? I said you were a dick because you said “I’m sure there are guys who thought they were justthisclose to a date with Kate Upton. Whether Kate thought so is a whole other matter.” That’s a smarmy and dickish thing to say, by any standard, and to make matters worse you have basically no justification in saying it.
LikeLike
bullet, I suspect that the B1G had a number of combinations mapped out, some acceptable, and some unacceptable. Some of the acceptable scenarios included Missouri, others didn’t. Missouri was at one point told that there was a scenario that looked likely that included them. They couldn’t pull it off, so it was scrapped. As far as whether a Nebraska/Missouri/Maryland combo would work, in my opinion it would but as I said we’re all just guessing.
LikeLike
I’m still not convinced that Kansas and Missouri are off the table. If you guys got a call and turned it down, that’s just cutting your nose to spite your face.
I’m not saying the SEC is terrible. I’m not saying it isn’t a great move for the Tigers, because it is. It’s just not where you belong.
LikeLike
I’m not against it personally. I just don’t see us making 2 moves in a short period of time. Maybe in 20 years.
LikeLike
Yeah, who knows. This whole thing has been insane from the get-go.
LikeLike
The WV Dude has posted his latest diatribe.
Now, I think there’s a good deal of fiction and animosity in what he writes. But reports that the Big Ten has spoken to some combination of UVA, UNC, and GT, and reports that FSU inquired about membership, are have come from multiple sources. He may not be exactly right, but there is a whiff of validity in the gist of it.
When and if MD’s exit fee is knocked down and their TV money is released, we’ll find out just how solid the ACC is. His basic point seems right to me: if the schools are that committed, why didn’t they execute a grant of rights?
LikeLike
Any stock you take in what he has to say is wishful thinking. He’s like a fortune teller who tells peoplw what they want to hear.
LikeLike
The Dude just posted this on the WVU board (BGN), looks like he’s hitting the big time:
Just wanted to let you guys know I’m joining Cumulus Media, Inc where I’ll have a feature column and a regular podcast/radio show. I’ll also be receiving a WVU media pass and having guests from all over college football join me for chatting about expansion and WVU.
You guys will finally get to learn who some of the people I talk to are because they have agreed to come on the show with me.
Also I’m bringing a friend or two from BGN along for the ride. I hope to have Kevin and Jon on to talk recruiting and maybe even a few naysayers to see what’s at the bottom of the crap.
Funny that this opportunity only came my way after my wife made me quit. So I guess in a way I owe this opportunity to the free board.
Thank you guys.
LikeLike
How long will this con job continue?
LikeLike
Heard the next court hearing for Maryland is in early February. Wonder if that will show the direction in which this lawsuit is heading? If I hear more, I’ll post!
LikeLike
An SEC/Big 12 partnership? What purpose does that serve?
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/d9zGM?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-football
I guess it means UT/A&M and MU/KU would have to resume, wiht us being partners and all. It would likely be in the terms, as it would be one of the more lucrative aspects of such a partnership.
LikeLike
Maybe, and here’s a wild guess, but maybe this partnership would be to gang up on and weaken the ACC, with the understanding that the SEC and Big 12 would both take some of the schools once the ACC is sufficiently weakened. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
I think Bowlsby wants games that attract national interest (think UT-Alabama, Oklahoma-Florida). If Slive wants this deal at all, he’s going to want his whole conference to have access to UT, not just A&M.
MU/KU is a game like Iowa/Iowa State, which the parties themselves can just schedule if both want it.
LikeLike
Iowa/ISU is mandated by state law. Otherwise Iowa would never agree to play.
LikeLike
The reason doesn’t matter. The point is that Bowlsby and Slive aren’t going to do a deal so that MU/KU can play each other again. They would both consider it a local matter.
LikeLike
Is a conference-level partnership really necessary in order to get Texas to play Texas A&M or Missouri to play Kansas? Is there anything outside of pride and ego that prevents these teams playing one another as non-conference opponents?
Why is such a partnership lucrative in this era of long-term television contracts? It seems to me they only get renegotiated when conference membership changes or the contract ends. Having a scheduling partnership with another conference doesn’t seem to be a trigger for a renegotiation (I don’t recall hearing anything about ABC/ESPN swooping in and offering the B1G more money when they discussed a scheduling agreement with the P12)?
LikeLike
Texas and Kansas are boycotting A&M and MU in all sports out of spite. That’s all there is to it.
But if there’s an officially sanctioned partnership between the leagues I don’t see how they can justify continuing the boycott.
LikeLike
Texas and Kansas don’t see benefits to both sides.
The Big 12 IS ticked with Missouri (not so much A&M). Their governor bad mouthed several of the schools. Then the Big 12, Big East and CUSA all got the SEC to agree to wait a year to take Missouri if Missouri would agree. Missouri wouldn’t. Cost Big 12 $10 million in WVU’s exit fees. Cost WVU $5 million extra + legal fees. Cost BE legal fees. MAC got stuck with a 13 team conference. Could have cost FSU a shot at an MNC as they had to schedule Savannah St. when WVU cancelled and it killed their SOS. Cost Missouri extra exit fees as they paid about $3 million more than A&M and the Big 12 was willing to give them a good deal on the fees if they stayed. May even end up costing Missouri in conference distributions. Since the SEC hasn’t done their new TV deal yet, there’s a good chance the Big 12’s distributions will be higher than the SEC’s this year.
LikeLike
And its probably the reason Missouri is doing home and home with Arkansas St. The aftereffects from the late change of conference making scheduling difficult.
LikeLike
There was a lot of animosity both ways during the process. Oklahoma’s president interrupted one of our President’s news conferences with a contradictary message about a Big 12 meeting. Later on the Big 12 threatened to sue to force us to not leave the league. A lot of ugly things were said about Missouri from coaches and leaders all over the Big 12. So it’s not like the rest of the Big 12 were angels in all of this and big bad Missouri was the only one saying impolite things. Missouri paid something like $17M in exit fees. That should more than pay for any damages we caused by leaving early. I think that debt has been paid at this point and you guys can get over it.
LikeLike
As far as Arkansas State, that’s not really a big deal. We always play one FCS school, one BCS school, and then either another BCS school or a mid-tier school. Arkansas State definitely counts as a mid-tier school. They’ve had two straight 10 win seasons and bowl games. They’re not a total cupcake. They’ve played a lot of big time schools lately too. It’s pretty standard. As far as it being home and home, yeah, we were in a pinch because we transitioned from 9 conference games in the Big 12 down to 8 in the SEC, so we’ve had to fill in some gaps. We’ve done so with home and homes with Central Florida and Arkansas State. Not ideal but we’ll manage. If we feel like it we can buy out the away game later.
LikeLike
A formal SEC/B12 alliance will probably be more about basketball than football. B12/SEC challenge will be much better than the neoBigEast/SEC or even C7/SEC. Both leagues have enough average teams to go around.
As far as football, it is more likely to be limited to the lower half of each conference for annual play. Could improve scheduling for TCU, Baylor, TT, KS, MSst, MS, KY. Expect little or no participation from schools with a locked OOC opponent (FL, SC, GA, IAst) The kings will participate some years since games that have been / will be scheduled anyway will become “alliance games”.
LikeLike
Anyone heard/read anything on which Big Ten schools are exploring adding hockey?
“Berenson said six teams is a sustainable number for the Big Ten, but Eaves expressed hope that more conference schools would add hockey and that there are some exploring the possibility.”
“Another big component will be the Big Ten Network, broadcasting games into a number of markets that normally don’t get to see college hockey — including other conference towns in which schools are examining adding the sport.”
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130131/GW03/301310039/MSU-hockey-Move-to-Big-Ten-hockey-league-will-shake-up-sport
LikeLike
If the B1G is looking at adding Johns Hopkins for LAX, would they also consider Nebraska-Omaha for Hockey?
LikeLike
IMHO – No. A huge difference between JHU and UNO.
LikeLike
Looks like U of Toronto would also be a no go….although they’ve been playing college hockey there since 1891, they don’t offer schs…..
LikeLike
It’s Canada. Having to bribe kids to let them play hockey is almost offensive. Besides, all the best players go to juniors anyway.
LikeLike
Well the huge difference is that JHU is the #1 research money institution in the country.
The CIC edge is really (I assume) why this is being considered along with the need for a 6th men’s lacrosse team at this moment.
LikeLike
Main reason why they wouldn’t is that Nebraska themselves are thinking about possibly going for hockey sometime down the road. They added ice piping to their basketball arena and it would work as an ice hockey arena down the road.
Of course, the money may not be there for them to become the 7th ice hockey school for a number of years, but it’ll eventually get there.
LikeLike
Even if the BIG doesn’t go to 16, things will get crowded on the BTN unless the overflow channels start being used for other sports, or the BIG goes with a BTN2….
For example, in winter months, the BTN typically has 2 prime time liive events per night Mon-Fri. On Saturday, there might be 3-4 events…on Sunday maybe 2. Into these time slots they fiit mens bball, women’s bball, wrestling, mens and womens hockey, mens and womens S&D, gymnastics(?)….If you’re going to televise a sinificantly increased # of mens and womens hockey games, something has to give………
LikeLike
I’d expect some tape delayed showings of other events versus 17 replays of the sportscenter ripoff as their first move.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, right now they don’t show anything on a tape-delayed basis (originally)….I would think it would make sense to do so, but the decline in viewership must be large or they would already be doing it………
LikeLike
maybe the production costs preclude this??? Don’t know….but as far as I can tell, no “live” programs are shown on a strict tape-dealyed basis…..
LikeLike
Maybe it’s because they do streaming and want to build that business up? It seems like they could stream live and show a tape delayed replay of some of the smaller sports to try to build an audience.
LikeLike
Yes, the Digital Network advertises 500+ live “games” (and notes that this does not include any live football) ~ exclusively live online must be seen as more lucrative than tape-delay on BTN.
LikeLike
Live sports every minute of weekday primetime and 12 hours on both days of the weekend is what they want. Right now, there’s still a bunch of filler that few people watch.
BTW, there’s nothing much on Friday nights currently. Football also isn’t played on Satuday nights from November on. Hockey would be filling a gap there.
LikeLike
I think some of that is that midwest HSs typically have played thier basketball on Friday nights. and they didn’t want to harm the HS crowds….now, of course, $ rules everything, so that might not explain the present reluctance–maybe now its just used as a travel day only…in any event, looks like hockey could fit in there………
LikeLike
Some reluctance is a combination of advertisers’ favorite demo is often doing something else on Friday nights, but not all of the demo is out on the town every Friday night. If HS hockey games are more often played Saturday afternoon than Friday evening, Big Ten Friday Night Hockey could work.
LikeLike
Go from 3-4 live events on Saturday to 4-5, and from 2 live events on Sunday to 4, and there’s your time slots for the transition from however many hockey games they have now to 30 hockey games.
And, yes, they could indeed use the overflow channel to have two different hockey games on at the same time: go with “Big Ten Friday Night Hockey” and a regular Saturday start for the other games, they can broadcast the Saturday games simultaneously using the overflow channel.
Hockey’s in the mid-tier of subsidy sports that can be a break-even sport if it gains popularity on a campus. Its one of a relative few subsidy sports where using the overflow channel is something to seriously consider.
LikeLike
only problem with the overflow channel idea is that you may be reucing the audience for each event, esp. in a niche sport like hockey………
LikeLike
I would think that with six Big Ten teams, they should be able to work together on scheduling and on start times, so that you had a double header each Friday night, and you could do a double- or triple-header on Saturday afternoon/night. A “nationally televised game” on BTN on Friday night at UM, MSU, OSU, or PSU would start promptly at 7:00 pm ET, followed by a 9:30 pm ET (8:30 pm CT/local) at Minnesota or Wisconsin. On Saturdays, they could have start times of 4:30 pm, 7:00 pm, and 9:30 pm for TV purposes. All overflow games could start at a “normal” time of 7:00 or 7:30 locally.
Also, I don’t know if it’s been agreed upon yet, but the consensus was that there would be 20 conference hockey games, which still left 14 non-conference regular season games. So while I’m sure there would be weekends that see exclusively conference matchups (ie, three televised games), there will also likely be weekends that see no conference games (ie, up to six televised home games), which would absolutely need the overflow channels or be farmed out to the local Fox Sports affiliate.
LikeLike
But its hockey ~ that’s six games in a conference weekend, isn’t it? The Friday night can play the second game of the series as a late Saturday game, Two Saturday starts can play the second game of the series Sunday.
That’s where the twenty conference games comes from ~ five conference opponents played home and home in two game series.
LikeLike
Right, and there really isn’t enough programming that gets enough ratings for cable companies to dedicate a separate channel to the BTN. 1 channel is definitely enough for now. Maybe a BTN2 could be considered if we expand to 18-20, but for now, you just need to space out some of the games.
LikeLike
I have not heard of any other B1G schools adding hockey. It is a comparatively expensive sport, and not everyone has an alum to donate $88 million for the launch, as Penn State did.
LikeLike
Nebraska added ice piping to their new basketball arena plans (after starting construction), so they’re explicitly putting in a long-term ability to go to hockey in the next decade depending on revenue streams.
LikeLike
As I’ve mentioned on here a couple of times, Nebraska is slowly getting the infrastructure in place (the Breslow Ice Center) to start hockey. Honestly, the new arena is probably too big a venue for college hockey in the long term. It wouldn’t surprise me if they start out there and then move to a smaller ~5,000 seat arena. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see UNL add another women’s sport (lacrosse) instead of women’s hockey.
LikeLike
What’s the seating capacity of Nebraska’s lower deck? I’ve seen combined football / soccer stadiums designed for the upper deck to be closed off for better stadium atmosphere for soccer games, seems like you could do something similar with a basketball arena that is set up to take out the boards and ice up the floor. Indeed, could go one better and tarp over the upper deck.
LikeLike
@Bruce – Honestly, I don’t know what the seating will be. I realize that sections or entire decks could be closed to help keep up demand. However, that doesn’t change the fact they would still be playing in a very large building which will take away from atmosphere.
One of the biggest complaints when UNO moved from the 7500 seat Civic center to the 16000 seat Quest center was that despite having more fans, the atmosphere completely changed from a loud, hostile environment to a quiet, sterile one.
LikeLike
It makes a difference whether sections are simply not sold, if sections are tarped over, and if boarding is placed behind the seated section. While advertising (“sponsorship”) on the boarding would be the financial incentive for doing it, boarding does much more for atmosphere than just being surrounded by banks of empty seats.
LikeLike
…the new arena is probably too big a venue for college hockey in the long term…
There are always ways to work that out, e.g., don’t open sections that won’t sell. Michigan plays Lacrosse in the Big House, which they fill to perhaps 2 percent of capacity for most games.
Nebraska isn’t going to build two hockey arenas. If they added ice piping to their new basketball arena, then that’s where they’re going to play.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd –
Nebraska isn’t going to build two hockey arenas. If they added ice piping to their new basketball arena, then that’s where they’re going to play.
Are you sure about that? This is exactly what Nebraska-Omaha is doing (going from a 16000 seat arena to a 5000 seat new one). I should also mention that UNL “owns” the arena that the USHL’s Lincoln Stars (they have a long term lease) play in. If competition from UNL hockey forces the Stars to move, UNL hockey would fit nicely there.
LikeLike
@prophetstruth: If you go back many many of Frank’s blogs, a few articles were linked that indicated that there are maybe three B1G schools looking to add hockey, but had no idea where the money would come from. They are willing if they get a big donor like Penn State got. If I remember correctly, the schools identified were Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska (but don’t quote me).
LikeLike
@SpaceTetra – Illinois has always been high on the list of potential hockey schools (if not the highest) because it’s pretty much in the exact same position as Penn State was a couple of years ago: they’ve had a top level club for a long-time that sells tickets very well (probably better than any varsity sport other than football, men’s basketball and our currently elite women’s volleyball team) in a state that’s under served (and in the case of Illinois, not served at all) by Division I hockey when considering that it produces a fair amount of high school hockey talent. Unfortunately, the facilities aren’t in place and that would likely require some benefactor to rain cash from the sky. The last rumor from a few months ago was that the founder of Jimmy John’s was being talked to about bankrolling a hockey program.
LikeLike
I jsut saw an article a day or two ago about MSU hockey……it listed the revenues and expenses for hockey for the various BT programs….I don’t recall whether is was for mens only or also included womens….the long and short of the article was that the 6 BT playings schools had a total of app. $19M hockey expense v. app. $16M hockey revenue….all the schools were negative…most at around 1/2M per year…….I thought it was intertestiing that hockey at present comes that close to breaking even…..even w/o consideration of its value to the BTN…..so maybe it wouldn’t be as big a hit to Illinois’ finances as you might otherwise assume…..
LikeLike
Found that article…. is from a Lansing paper dated 1/31….anyway, it just says ‘total hockey expenses’, so you really can’t tell if it includes women’s hockey expenses (as the article was about the men’s team)…….anyway, the deficits for the 6 BT teams ranged from $437000 to $933000……pretty good article for anyone interested in the topic….
LikeLike
Regarding hockey dollars… at the U of Minnesota… Men’s Hockey is one of the “big 3”— it is a revenue producer… I am not sure of exact numbers, but believe the revenues minus expenditures at the U is typically around $3 to 5 million mark. Mariucci Arena is virtually always full at right around 10,000 capacity, and I’m sure the Gophers get something fairly decent from their regular appearances on FSN North…
There is no doubt, there is some overhead, with the facilities, equipment, travel, etcetera required. It definitely would be advantageous for any school looking to add hockey to already have some stuff in place… Starting hockey from scratch I am sure would be fairly costly…
LikeLike
If you could provide a link, that would be great. I know Michigan nets out positive (a significant positive, like 1-2M, I believe) on its hockey program, although they don’t have t support a women’s team.
LikeLike
I read the article… very interesting… Being a Minnesotan, hockey is in my blood, even though I never played (I was a grappler–too diminutive in size to be serious in hockey)…
Anyway… when I first became aware of the B1G starting a hockey league; had seriously mixed feelings. Actually still do… Many outsiders don’t understand that hockey is to Minnesota, what football is in Texas, what basketball is in Indiana, what surfing is in Hawaii… There are 5 division 1A hockey programs in Minnesota, the Mn state hockey tournament fills the Xcel Energy Center (in Saint Paul btw)—it is like a holiday weekend here. Crazy…
The WCHA teams have won a combined 37 Frozen Four NCAA Championships… There are some long-time rivalries, like I’m sure there are in the CCHA, and the other eastern leagues. Some of these rivalries will go by the way-side on the short-term, and in the long-term will take on less significance, because they no longer count towards conference points/standings.
It is my hope that the B1G has some other universities that pick up hockey in the near term—as IMHO, 6 teams is pretty B.S. to be considered an actual conference—regardless of what the BTN brings to the table. Right now, virtually all of the Gopher hockey games are already televised on the local FSN outlet…
I understand (or at least think I understand) the B1G picture—am just having a hard time adjusting to it…
Regarding bringing in another school from outside the B1G to participate only partially—regardless of who it is, IMHO is flat out WRONG… Either you’re in ALL the way, or NOT at all.
I believe that the academic end of things could/should be taken care of outside of athletics—regardless of conference affiliation… But, I am not in charge of those decision-making processes; therefore, I am only in a position to whine about, or profess my love for decisions made…
LikeLike
On the bright side, having a 6-team conference allows you to play your old rivalries in the WCHA more often.
As a Michigan fan, I’m looking forward to still playing some of the other Michigan schools like Lake State, Ferris, Northern, and Western in the non-conference.
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“Anyway… when I first became aware of the B1G starting a hockey league; had seriously mixed feelings. Actually still do…”
I think that’s expected for MN, WI, MI and MSU (it isn’t as important to OSU). They all have old rivalries and a lot of local/in-state competition and are powers. It’s a sacrifice for them, but that’s how the B10 works. Every schools makes sacrifices for the greater good. At least you have some built in rivalries in the B10, plus plenty of OOC games to play old rivals. There have to be a few WCHA schools you won’t really miss, too.
On the bright side, consider the non-local alumni and fans. It’ll be much easier for them to see B10 hockey on BTN. The BTN may also build the hockey fan base in other areas which is great for the sport.
“It is my hope that the B1G has some other universities that pick up hockey in the near term—as IMHO, 6 teams is pretty B.S. to be considered an actual conference”
It seems unlikely in the near term to me. Hockey is expensive. Maybe once the new TV deal starts, so ADs know what they’ll have to work with, more schools will talk seriously about adding varsity hockey.
“I believe that the academic end of things could/should be taken care of outside of athletics—regardless of conference affiliation…”
I agree. I think the B10 and CIC should be separate entities with a lot of overlap. I think the CIC can more easily tolerate expansion since they don’t have to worry about losing rivalries in football.
LikeLike
I think the B10 and CIC should be separate entities with a lot of overlap.
The exact reasons for the CIC being what it is are murky to me. Other than tradition, why is it limited to current and former Big Ten members? Why couldn’t they just invite MIT?
I assume there is a charter or constitution or bylaws of some sort, but those can always be changed if there is a good reason. It is not immediately obvious why a set of institutions cooperating academically also have to be competing athletically.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70756/iowa-nebraska-want-black-friday-series
NE/IA will become a permanent Black Friday game. Sorry, Badgers.
LikeLike
Good move by Iowa to sign onto that. It’s a great showcase game.
LikeLike
It will be if IA can get competitive with them. Not so much if they stay like they were this year.
LikeLike
The interesting quote from that article is this:
“Those dates would change to Nov. 29, 2013 and Nov. 28, 2014, following approval. Barta also said he expects Iowa and Nebraska to continue meeting on the final weekend of the regular season, pending Big Ten schedule changes for 2014 and beyond due to Big Ten expansion.”
Rittenberg doesn’t latch on to the idea that “Big Ten expansion” in that article means possibly going beyond Rutgers and Maryland. He does state the obvious that Iowa and Nebraska will be in the same division though.
There were a few more blog posts on ESPN that are of interest. Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez talks very plainly about that he wants the Badgers to play Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota each year. He also talks about how the fans want to see it and that it’s important to UW because the games are within drivable distances–see http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70722/badgers-alvarez-weighs-in-on-re-alignment
Another blog post talks about the B1G moving some of its conference games into the September time frame. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70681/earlier-b1g-games-may-be-on-the-table While that doesn’t necessarily speak to realignment or division breakdown issues, it’s interesting to see them going this direction. For the record, the first game I attended at Michigan was 16 September 1978 in my freshman year. It was UM’ season opener and they beat Illinois 31-0 in front of 104,000-plus people.
The last blog post discusses how the B1G needs to be conservative with crossovers–see http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70744/b1g-must-be-conservative-with-crossovers
Some excerpts from that post:
Big Ten athletic directors have strongly hinted that geography will be a more important factor in realigning the divisions. Here’s a suggestion for another priority: Maintain as many rivalries within the division structure as possible. It’s impossible to account for every “rivalry,” and division crossovers should be used to keep the most valuable annual series. But the crossover should no longer be a crutch for the league.
“If you can accommodate the vast majority of the traditional rivalries within the divisional splits,” Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon told ESPN.com, “you create a lot more flexibility when you do your crossovers to move to other places and have more variety and travel to more campuses. I would advocate that.”
The league brass must keep a schedule rotation in mind when figuring out models for 14 teams (and possibly 16 teams in the near future). As Brandon said, a setup where a Big Ten player goes through his entire career without playing a league opponent “doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
“It may be virtually impossible to protect all the rivalries through the divisional split,” Brandon said, “and to the extent you can’t, you can entertain potentially a hybrid, where maybe you have a couple of crossover rivalry games that are protected every year. But if you were in a situation where you didn’t necessarily have one of those, maybe those games could do a little more of a rotational deal.”
But every series isn’t worth preserving annually, especially at the expense of a weaker rotation. Here’s hoping the Big Ten takes a more conservative approach with crossovers this time around.
*****
Based on the Purdue AD’s comments, we can be highly certain that the 2014 and 2015 seasons will have eight conference games. Most of the athletic directors have been pretty straightforward about having an east-west split and like Brandon, I suspect they want to keep as many rivalry games intact as possible.
Wikipedia has a list of 16 Big Ten rivalry games listed here–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Ten_Conference_football_rivalry_games The ones that I’ve also seen mentioned that doesn’t make this list is Illinois-Indiana and Nebraska-Penn State–see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference#Football.
Here’s the complete list of rivalry/high value/trophy games in the conference:
Illinois-Indiana
Illinois-Northwestern*
Illinois-Ohio State (protected crossover-see comments below)
Illinois-Purdue*
Indiana-Michigan State*
Indiana-Purdue (protected crossover-see comments below)
Iowa-Minnesota*
Iowa-Nebraska*
Iowa-Wisconsin*
Maryland-Penn State*
Michigan-Michigan State*
Michigan-Minnesota (protected crossover-see comments below)
Michigan-Ohio State*
Michigan State-Penn State*
Minnesota-Penn State
Minnesota-Wisconsin*
Nebraska-Penn State (protected crossover-see comments below)
Ohio State-Penn State*
If the Big Ten were to do an east-west split with its fourteen members into two divisions with Indiana and Purdue split (IU east, PU west) and with Northwestern in the west with Michigan State in the east, then the 12 games marked with asterisks would be annual divisional games. That leaves six cross-divisional rivalry games to be addressed.
Illinois: The Illini have four rivalry games listed, but only two of the teams would be in their division (Northwestern, Purdue). If Ohio State needed a protected rivalry game, Illinois would make sense so that Indiana and Purdue could be the other protected rival.
Michigan: Minnesota is the protected crossover rivalry game game for the Wolverines and the Little Brown Jug. With Golden Gophers playing the Wolverines each year, Penn State and Nebraska then become the next protected rivalry.
With those four protected games, the conference would then cover 16 of its 18 rivalry/trophy/high value contests listed above with the exception of Illinois-Indiana and Minnesota-Penn State.
If the B1G added those games to the schedule, then it could possibly cover all 18 of these games. It would also mean in an eight game conference schedule for 2014/5:
1. Illinois plays Ohio State and Indiana from the eastern division.
2. Minnesota plays Penn State and Michigan from the eastern division
3. Penn State plays Nebraska and Minnesota from the western division
4. Indiana plays Purdue and Illinois from the western division
5. Michigan plays Minnesota and one additional team from the western division
6. Ohio State plays Illinois and one additional team from the western division
7. Nebraska plays Penn State and one additional team from the eastern division
8. Purdue plays Indiana and one additional team from the eastern division
The teams that would not have protected cross-division rivalry games would be Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, Rutgers and Maryland–three schools from each division.
LikeLike
Minnesota-PSU is kind of a fake made-up trophy game. I doubt most fans of either team even think they have a rivalry with one another. I also don’t get the sense that Illinois and Indiana fans consider themselves to be rivals much in football. Of all the schools in IL and surrounding states (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, PU, & IU), IU probably ranks last or second-to-last in desirability from an Illini perspective. Likewise, of all the schools in IN and surrounding states (PU, OSU, MSU, Michigan, Northwestern, and Illinois), Illinois is probably second-to-last in terms of who the Hoosiers want to play most.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I also don’t get the sense that Illinois and Indiana fans consider themselves to be rivals much in football.”
They’re hoops schools, what do you expect? Still, as bad as IL has been lately I think the IN rivalry will heat up. Nobody likes to lose to them regularly.
“Of all the schools in IL and surrounding states (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, PU, & IU), IU probably ranks last or second-to-last in desirability from an Illini perspective.”
Frank noted he hated IN more than PU (granted, more for hoops than football). Most IL fans say very little about IA or WI that I’ve seen or heard. They bring better teams than IN, so they’re usually more interesting, but that doesn’t make them bigger rivals. It probably also varies tremendously based on where in IL someone lives/lived. IA will mean more to those in the west than to the average IL fan, WI to those in the north, IN to those in the southeast.
“Likewise, of all the schools in IN and surrounding states (PU, OSU, MSU, Michigan, Northwestern, and Illinois), Illinois is probably second-to-last in terms of who the Hoosiers want to play most.”
That’s apples and oranges, too. IN wants OSU, MI and probably MSU for a very different reason than IL. As rivals, PU is their clear #1 but IL may be #2. OSU and MI crush them way too often to feel like rivals and MSU isn’t a rivalry either despite the spittoon. I’ve never sensed any heat on either side for IN/NW, but I’m sure you’ll let us know if NW fans consider that a rivalry.
LikeLike
Does Penn State even play Minnesota? (If so, was the last time before or after the last time we played our rivalry game with Michigan State?)
LikeLike
I thought someone was pulling a prank listing the PSU-MN game (12 meetings, last 2010) as a B1G rivalry that needs protecting.
LikeLike
This map showing student populations from the various states for the various schools is pretty damn interesting stuff……….here’s a stat showing why MD and Rutgers made so much sense for the BIG….PSU’s class is 64% from PA, totaling 4260…..of the remainder, 1110 are from New Jersey or Maryland….very few are from OH and the other traditional BT states……..
LikeLike
The latest update from The Dude:
My sources at the Pentagon have confirmed that those cavalier Virginians are on the verge of seceding from the ACC and joining forces with the Maryland rebels. The Pentagon has uncovered a B1G plot to surround Washington DC with forces from Maryland and Virginia in an attempt to take over the city’s communications networks, throwing the entire country into chaos.
Oops. Sorry folks, but the last truckload of ammunition, just arrived, and I have to help unload it and get my family into the fallout shelter. I urge all West Virginians to do likewise before the Virginians make their way here.
LikeLike
Bowlsby’s article (talking about applying for ccg with less than 12), which is posted above, also mentions, as the SEC article did, that they are looking at ooc games mixed through October and November to be more attractive for TV. So the Big 12 may also be getting away from all ooc in September/early October.
LikeLike
Everyone needs to do this.
LikeLike
No they don’t. This turns directly into having I-AA week in mid November like the SEC does. That’s horrible.
LikeLike
One doesn’t have to imply the other. The conference can schedule some big conference games in that week if it wants too (and the SEC is going to be doing this).
LikeLike
The more Majors do that, the happier Notre Dame (and BYU) will be.
LikeLike
It doesn’t have to, but that’s what history shows.
LikeLike
First of all, the Big Ten can still have all conference games the last 2 weeks of the season. This would give the Big Ten the TV rights to 7 conference games each of those weeks.
In the 3rd to last week, 2 teams can be off of conference play and encouraged to schedule their weakest OOC game (these 2 teams could play each other the next week if you’re worried about an advantage). This gives the Big Ten the TV rights to 6 conference games that week + 2 week OOC games hidden on BTN
In the 4th to last week, 4 teams can be off of conference play and encouraged to schedule their weakest OOC game that week (again, these teams can play another team playing an OOC game when they return to conference play). The Big Ten would have the TV rights to 5 conference games + 4 week OOC games that week.
That gives you 6 teams free to play 3 early conference games. Put one in week 3 and two in week 4 to give some quality early games for TV. This would help avoid the MACTASTROPHE, where the Big Ten drops out of public view for a week or two as nobody wants a decent team in the run-up to conference play.
Obviously you can do more, by giving teams conference byes roughly every 4 weeks during which they can either schedule OOC or take an actual bye. As long as there isn’t more than 4 conference teams off in the same weekend you always have 5 conference games to televise in a week.
This would give your first and second tier rights-holders a better package without changing the actual teams scheduled (only changing the order of some games). The BTN would lose out on some conference games (replaced by more OOC games), but the expansion of the conference offers more conference games to make up for it.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“That gives you 6 teams free to play 3 early conference games. Put one in week 3 and two in week 4 to give some quality early games for TV. This would help avoid the MACTASTROPHE, where the Big Ten drops out of public view for a week or two as nobody wants a decent team in the run-up to conference play.”
Slight problem. MACTASTROPHE is an exaggeration. It was the result of the NCAA moving to 12 games. B10 schedules are improving as teams had time to schedule good games.
2012 week 3 – ND, Cal, BC
2012 week 4 – ND, Syracuse
2013 week 3 – Cal, UW, MO, ISU, UCLA, ND
2013 week 4 – UConn, ND
2014 week 3 – UW, ISU
2014 week 4 – VT, MO, Pitt, Utah, Miami
2015 week 3 – VT, Miami, Duke, ND
2015 week 4 – Pitt, Utah, KU
Besides, I’d much rather drop out of sight in September than November. Remember this from this past season?
Saturday, Nov. 17
1. Arkansas at Mississippi State
2. Ole Miss at LSU
3. Tennessee at Vanderbilt
4. Syracuse at Missouri
5. Samford at Kentucky
6. Wofford at South Carolina
7. Sam Houston State at Texas A&M
8. Jacksonville State at Florida
9. Georgia Southern at Georgia
10. Western Carolina at Alabama
11. Alabama A&M at Auburn
That’s 3 byes, 7 I-AAs, 1 minor OOC game and 3 bad conference games in the penultimate week of the season. How is that better than a September Saturday being a little weak?
LikeLike
The NCAA moved to 12 games over a decade ago. The MAC stuff was a concious decision by the B1G schools. They do seem to be improving their schedules, but that is a concious decision as well. The Big 12 is doing the same thing. I think schools are getting a backlash from fans with too many low interest games. Even the Florida school of thinking is starting to question what they’ve been doing.
LikeLike
bullet,
They started off taking whatever games they could get to fill those extra slots. The big games are scheduled years in advance, sometime more than a decade ahead of time, so it’s harder to quickly move those to different weeks. As teams have had time to see how 4 OOC games works and how fans react, the ADs have been able to fine tune scheduling. Why wouldn’t there be a learning curve?
What I was trying to point out is that all these grand concerns about the B10 schedule mostly stem from 1 week in 1 year when all 11 games were MAC/I-AA. That was never the norm, usually there were1-3 decent games on any weekend, but they all coincided one year. Since then, people make too big of a deal out of it. How is having a horrible week in November, like the SEC did last year, better?
Obviously you’ll have September B10 games if/when they go to 9 games, and schools already can mutually agree to move a B10 game up into September if they want (WI/PU will be 9/21/13). Much like I don’t believe in expanding for expansion’s sake, I don’t see the need for September games just to say you have them. I worry about their impact in scheduling.
Take OSU. They like to schedule at least 1 big name OOC game each year. Now tell them that they might play a B10 game in week 3 in 2018. How do you schedule a big game around that? What if it’s a big B10 game? You don’t want to play OU and then NE back to back. That rules out week 2 and week 4, and week 1 is always unlikely. That means you have to tell OSU their B10 schedule 6-10 years in advance so they can plan around it if you want them to keep playing these big OOC games. Also, you have to consider what becomes of those late OOC games. Major schools aren’t going to play then, so they’ll have to be weak teams, independents or schools from a weak league. That’s not many good choices to spread among all the AQs. So you’ll see MAC and I-AA teams. Yay!
LikeLike
Clemson/USC, GT/UGa, Florida/FSU ?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21626115/ncaa-investigator-says-miami-investigation-was-good-work
A different view of the issues with the NCAA’s investigation into Miami.
LikeLike
Even MrSEC is getting into ACC doomsday scenarios.
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/01/how-an-sec-big-xii-scheduling-alliance-could-doom-the-acc/
LikeLike
He is so strongly biased toward the SEC, that I don’t put much stock in his stock in his expansion scenerios (it’s a good overall SEC site though). I think Frank’s ideas are much more rational.
LikeLike
He’s (actually there are 3 of them) probably the least biased SEC writer out there. Not that that’s saying much, but he really is pretty reasonable. Definitely pro-SEC, but reasonable.
LikeLike
OK, please educate me on something…
What’s the difference between Johns Hopkins and Duke University, other than the fact that one supposedly doesn’t have football and the other definitely doesn’t have football?
This isn’t a statement against Johns Hopkins. I don’t doubt their academic credentials but I find it funny that certain B1G posters mock the potential of Duke to the B1G (who, btw, also has a lacrosse program) when the conference is rumored to be considering JHU, whose only big-time sport is lacrosse. IMHO, Duke is more attached to UNC than the other way around due to their fear that they’d be left out of post-realignment Big 3/4. Take Duke and that attachment ends. UNC can do what they want. Getting into Durham would be a nice consolation for not getting a state flagship. Oh, and a bridge to GT (and maybe a real shot at FSU).
LikeLike
Duke is a super power in MBB and strong in many non-revs. JHU, on the other hand, is a Division III school.
LikeLike
Duke would be added to the football schedule ~ Johns Hopkins would ONLY be added for the sport in which it is highly regarded (since it plays no other D1 sports). So there’s no trade-off for adding Johns Hopkins for LAX.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Ten currently only has 5 D-1 lacrosse schools (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers).
The need for a 6th school is what is driving the JHU discussions. The fact that they only have lacrosse as a D-1 sport would make adding JHU nice and clean. They’d be added for all of their D-1 sports (in this case only lacrosse).
LikeLike
I find it funny that certain B1G posters mock the potential of Duke to the B1G (who, btw, also has a lacrosse program) when the conference is rumored to be considering JHU, whose only big-time sport is lacrosse.
People worry about further weakening of the football schedule, especially as the B1G just added two schools weak in football (MD, RU). The other oft-mentioned candidates — UVA, UNC, and GT — are not exactly powerhouses either, but Duke is particularly weak.
Duke would bring a first-rate basketball program, but the Big Ten is not suffering for a lack of good basketball teams. Hopkins, at least, would be joining only in the sport that it’s great at. In other words, the case for Duke is practically all academic (not that that shouldn’t count for something), whereas Hopkins brings a sport that the Big Ten lacks, while not diluting the league in any other sports.
IMHO, Duke is more attached to UNC than the other way around due to their fear that they’d be left out of post-realignment Big 3/4. Take Duke and that attachment ends.
Duke has to be there for the taking, and they’re not. I can only see two scenarios where they join the Big Ten, neither of them being the one you’re envisioning. The first is that they come in a package deal with UNC. The second is that UNC bolts for the SEC and Duke doesn’t get an invite.
LikeLike
Duke would get a piece of the pie; John Hopkins wouldn’t, because they’d only be an associate member.
LikeLike
Transic,
“What’s the difference between Johns Hopkins and Duke University, other than the fact that one supposedly doesn’t have football and the other definitely doesn’t have football?
This isn’t a statement against Johns Hopkins. I don’t doubt their academic credentials but I find it funny that certain B1G posters mock the potential of Duke to the B1G (who, btw, also has a lacrosse program) when the conference is rumored to be considering JHU, whose only big-time sport is lacrosse.”
That’s a valid question, and I’m not an anti-Duke guy so let me try to explain what differences I see.
1. JHU wouldn’t take up a valuable spot in the main conference. That’s important since the number of spots is (hopefully) limited. For free, the CIC gets the #1 research school and the B10 gets to add a lacrosse championship. It also provides a sense of comfort for MD. For people that want to stop at 14 or 16, this is a big issue. Even for 18 it could be.
2. JHU wouldn’t dilute the conference in football like Duke would. RU and MD are weak enough, we don’t want another IN to lower the SOS and make it harder to sell tickets. The B10 has a bad enough reputation without that.
3. JHU research is to Duke research as the Lakers are to Duke hoops. #1 JHU’s $1.59B in 2009 more than doubled #2 MI’s $636M. Duke was #12 at $439M (WI is #6, so Duke would be third in the B10). Source – http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf
4. Either school would add lacrosse as a spring option for the BTN. JHU is a bigger brand in lacrosse, though. JHU has won 9 of 41 NCAA titles (only Syracuse has more with 10) to Duke’s 1. That means a few more people will want the BTN just for lacrosse.
5. JHU’s location (Baltimore) will help with BTN revenue a little in MD/DC/VA while Duke would help nationally and more in NYC/NJ. Duke wouldn’t get the BTN on in NC by itself.
The key differences are #1-3. Some people hope that JHU’s research is so attractive to the CIC that they would also allow an FSU to join for football power.
“IMHO, Duke is more attached to UNC than the other way around due to their fear that they’d be left out of post-realignment Big 3/4. Take Duke and that attachment ends. UNC can do what they want.”
That’s not a good thing. You’d take Duke to help persuade UNC to come, too. You don’t want to waste a spot on a team that doesn’t bring a large state to the BTN.
“Getting into Durham would be a nice consolation for not getting a state flagship.”
How? The BTN won’t go statewide in NC just for Duke. You’ll add some people nationally and in NYC, but NC is the prize for the BTN and recruiting.
“Oh, and a bridge to GT (and maybe a real shot at FSU).”
Duke would be a better bridge than JHU, but not better than UNC.
LikeLike
Duke won’t go to the SEC if UNC does. End of question. If that’s what happens, the Big Ten will probably just expand to Virginia and Georgia Tech, leaving Duke in a diluted, Big East-like ACC.
LikeLike
vp19,
If it came down to these choices, which would you prefer?
FSU, GT, UNC, UVa, Syr, UConn
FSU, GT, UNC, Duke, UVa, Syr
GT, UNC, Duke, UVa, Syr, UConn
FSU, GT, UNC, UVa
GT, Duke, UNC, UVa
UNC, UVa
UNC, Duke
Duke, UVa
UVa, UConn
UVa, Syr
UVa, UConn
UVa, GT
GT, UNC
GT, Duke
FSU, GT
FSU, UNC
FSU, UVa
Syr, UConn
LikeLike
Transic,
A similar question that I have:
What’s the difference between Johns Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon/Case Western?
All would bring all of their D-I sports to the B10 (lacrosse for JHU, nothing for CMU/CWRU). All would bring more research money to the CIC. All are AAU. All are in the footprint.
Differences:
1. JHU would bring a 6th lacrosse team, allowing for B10 lacrosse.
Response – So what? Where is the money in having B10 lacrosse? Most of the footprint couldn’t care less and the BTN doesn’t even air it.
2. JHU is the king of research money, well ahead of #2 MI. CWRU and CMU would be in the middle to bottom of the B10 respectively, like RU and MD in football.
Response – If some is good, more is better. What is the harm in adding 2 more top 35 American Research Universities (http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf – p. 16-18)?
A lot of this comes down to what people feel qualifies someone to join the CIC or B10.
LikeLike
I was wondering about that myself. If you gave some starter money to CMU or CW to get LAX going, you could certainly bolster your academic profile. Of course, the question becomes– would they just enter the CIC without the D-1 sports hassle? U of Chicago is doing just fine in D-3.
LikeLike
CMU shows up so low on research money in large part because we don’t have a medical school. That plus we’re a lot smaller than your typical B10 schools (about 5500 undergrads, 2500 grads) – less profs to do research.
LikeLike
Some of the comments to the above-linked MrSEC article were interesting.
Here’s the link again. HT: Pablo (and others much further up, iirc). http://www.mrsec.com/2013/01/how-an-sec-big-xii-scheduling-alliance-could-doom-the-acc/
MrSEC’s article was, for me, sort of “m’eh.” But there were some interesting comments relating to how a 16-20 team SEC could be split into THREE divisions.
From Commentor “AllTideUp”:
“West = Texas A&M, Mizzou, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Central= Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
East = Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh
With 9 conference games, you could play your 5 division mates…1 permanent rival from one of the other divisions…and rotate 3 games among the other 12 schools in the league. You could play everyone at least once in a 4 year rotation.”
JRSEC added: “18 is not hard at all. Three divisions of 6 playing two teams each year from the other two divisions (covering everyone in 3 years) for a total of 9 games. Conference Championships are the 3 division champs plus the remaining team with the best record. It helps to balance the divisions this way. The strongest division would likely place two in the semi’s.”
And: “Actually (using your [AllTideUp’s] divisions) you would need to play 10 conference games (no problem with new upper tier being closed) 5 from your division where most rivals would be, two rotating from each of the other two divisions and 1 permanent rival. Now you play everyone every three years. Good divisions by the way.”
JRSEC’s reference to “upper tier being closed” is two ideas. The “upper tier” is say 64-ish teams in 3-4 super conferences and “being closed” is the idea that “upper tier” programs will only play other “upper tier” programs.
Here’s the comment: ” You see Saban and Alvarez and others have already stated that if their is a breakaway upper tier that they will only play other upper tier teams. That will be twelve games against upper tier opponents 6 home 6 away with perhaps some annual neutral site games. There has also been some discussion that if there were to be a game against non-upper tier opponents it might be played on either of the last two weekends of August as a preseason home game to be sold with the ticket book giving all upper tier teams a 7th home game to sell. It would likely take the place of the spring game with some changes in practice lengths prior to the season coming in as well. When the BCS morphs into the playoffs remember that the selection committee promised to weigh conference championships more heavily and they will. When this conference thing is whittled down to just four we will be on our way to a four champion playoff which might one day be extended to 8 teams with 4 being at large. The expanded conferences and their expanded conference championship playoffs will all be a way of deciding the ultimate national champion. It will allow the conference to make 3 regional sites happy and bring in a boat load of television money in the process. Believe me there are no problems with 18 and its easier to group the divisions geographically and account for the rivals with that configuration. It doesn’t have the symmetrical appeal of 20 divided by 4, but it could with the wild card help the fan bases stay energized past say a loss in the Alabama / LSU game and as I said it would help with the balancing of the divisions.”
Anyway, some thought-provoking ideas. Have to admit I am intrigued by the idea of a “pre-season” game or two in August against MACrifice type teams. Not sure how I would feel about the loss of the spring game.
As for three divisions, that strikes me as interesting for the B1G; sort of a hybrid-inner-outer.
Assume B1G gets to 18:
Atlantic Division: MD, PSU, 4 new ACC
Central : tOSU, Pur, Indiana, MI, MSU, Rutgers
West: Neb, Wiscy, Iowa, Minny, NW, IL
Rutgers is a bit out of place, but … whatever
Anyway, looks like only two rivalry games would be lost (tOSU-IL and MI-Minny) (well, and yes, the beloved-by-all Land Grant Trophy game). With a nine-game schedule, you play five within division games and a rotating two against each of the other divisions. I think that gets you playing each of the other 12 schools once every three years. @ 10 conference games, every school ends up seeing every non-division school every 2.4 years (if I’ve done my math correctly).
I am not sold on any of this or advocating it. Just some musings prompted by JRSEC. It is 1:29 am (CT) and I can’t sleep. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve really turned to the 3-4 fixed rivalries for each school and then “top 2 teams overall in the CCG” approach that would come out of reform to the CCG rule.
I think that’s the best approach right now for conferences of 16+.
The rotating pods sounds cool in theory but it could end up massively confusing to the uninformed public.
Just fixing 3-4 rivalries for each school and coming up with 5-6 other random conference games seems to me to be the best approach if the CCG rule could be changed.
I realize that creates a significant potential increase in Michigan-Ohio State rematches but it probably provides for the best balance in scheduling.
LikeLike
Rotating pods could be explained to the public. The main problem is that in any fixed pod arrangement, some schools get tossed into pods for no good reason, some schools who want to play each other can’t, and most proposals have some pods that are WAY weaker than the other ones.
I realize that creates a significant potential increase in Michigan-Ohio State rematches but it probably provides for the best balance in scheduling.
Most estimates are that that would happen only once every 5-7 years, or so, which isn’t terrible. If you have static divisions, splitting the two schools is just silly. The norm in sports is that you put rivals in the same division, where possible: Red Sox-Yankees, Cowboys-Giants, Auburn-Alabama, USC-UCLA, etc. But if there aren’t static divisions at all, I’ve no issue with the possibility of a post-season meeting.
LikeLike
“The main problem is that in any fixed pod arran,gement, some schools get tossed into pods for no good reason, some schools who want to play each other can’t, and most proposals have some pods that are WAY weaker than the other ones.”
Yeah, this really is the biggest issue in my mind.
By getting rid of divisions and pods, we can have fixed rivalries that the schools themselves need without requiring other games that are unnecessary.
LikeLike
@Zeek – I completely agree with you. I actually think this is the crux of what Bowlsby is getting at with his championship game request. Bowlsby really just wants to strip away the NCAA rules for determining champions.
Big 12 has 9 Central Time Zone teams so any Eastern additions will make for tough divisions. It’s better to throw out divisions and have locked rivals, then have a championship game with the best two teams.
LikeLike
There are no rules determining champs, only the 12 game limitation and a limited set of circumstances to allow for a 13th.
LikeLike
There are no rules determining champs, only the 12 game limitation and a limited set of circumstances to allow for a 13th.
If you can’t have the 13th, then there really is only one available method that makes sense. I haven’t seen any others that aren’t complete jokes.
LikeLike
Marc:
Every method is available, but must be done in 12 games. If you aren’t going to play everyone competing for one of the final position then you aren’t trying to determine by on field, head to head results, who is going to represent a division as champ. If you don’t need a division champ then you don’t need an extra game. If allowed it would simply be a money grab with a BS, err BCS esque justification.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting all conference championships prior to the SEC adopting the division and CCG model were jokes?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Should have said rules for determining conference champions. Right now you can only break into divisions with 12 teams and must play a round robin schedule in order to have a championship game. Bowlsby is asking that each conference be allowed to establish it’s own system for determining the conference champion.
LikeLike
Read the D:
You can break into divisions, pools, quads, thirds, whatever currently. The only thing denied is the 13th game unless a conf is 12 or more, divides, and plays division RR. That’s only 5 conference games required (for 12). Conferences less than 12 can RR as the B12 currently does, close to RR that B1G use to do, play no conf games and flip quarters, cut cards, use rankings or whatever. The only thing denied an under 12 conferences is the 13th game.
LikeLike
@ccrider:
What you are saying is correct. However, you can not currently have a championship game unless you have divisions. What I’m saying is Bowlsby is asking for freedom from all NCAA imposed scheduling constraints that determine whether you can have a conference championship game.
Bowlsby’s not asking for increased regular season games.
For instance: Let’s say the Big 12 wants to go to 13 teams, play 9 conference games and have up to 3 locked opponents and no divisions. Then, at the end of the season the two teams with the best records play in the conference championship game, they would not be able to do that under current NCAA guidelines.
LikeLike
@ccrider: Are you suggesting all conference championships prior to the SEC adopting the division and CCG model were jokes?
What I said is that, aside from having a CCG, there is only one available method that is NOT a joke. Namely, you play some number of regular season games, and the team(s) with the best conference record is/are deemed champion or co-champion, with some sort of tie-breaking method to decide who gets the main bowl bid. (Exactly what tie-breaking method is used is a second-order detail.)
That method and a CCG are the only ones I’ve heard of in the FBS. Several people on this board have asserted, “The NCAA is not telling you how to pick a champion,” and to back it up, they’ve suggested a bunch of other methods that no one has ever used, or to my knowledge, even considered.
When there are only two methods in existence, and one is denied, it’s a joke to claim that they still have plenty of other choices.
LikeLike
Read the D:
I disagree. The extra game was instituted so larger (unweildly) leagues could have a reasonable way to arrive at who was the league champ, through on the field competition. Breaking into divisions, acting like two conference champs entering a playoff, was the remedy that the NCAA granted a 13th game for. Leagues smaller than 12 can reasonably decide a champ on the field, if they choose to. They can arrive at the champ through any way they choose, even dividing and holding a CCG…as long as it is within the 12 games allow. Therefore, Bowlsby is in fact asking for an extra game outside the rules, or asking the rules be changed to allow what was denied the B1G and the PAC when they previously explored the same possibility.
One RRR a year is quite enough. for me anyway.
LikeLike
Marc:
So do the CCG as the 12th game! You’d only need 4 games to decide the division champ leaving 7 OOC or inter division or whatever and one for the CCG. There. You Aren’t denied anything (except the extra game) and have room for more OOC than any major conference ever while retaining a semblance of competition deciding who is champ.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 what Bowlsby is asking for on the surface is a championship game for a conference with less than 12 teams. So that is correct. But the manner in which he is asking would open up all scenarios. He is asking for de-regulation of conference scheduling/championship game criteria, etc. So what he is petitioning for encompasses what you are describing and any other method of determining a champion.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: That’s a joke. If you were a conference commissioner and suggested that to the people who pay your salary, you’d be laughed out of the room, assuming they didn’t fire you first. If it’s not an option that any sane people would choose, then it’s no option at all.
We may disagree about what is sane, but I’m pretty sure no conference anywhere has done as you suggest — certainly none in FBS — so the burden is squarely on you.
LikeLike
Marc:
Then Bowlsby shouldn’t have taken the job. Telling the presidents what they already know, and are the rules they have worked under for decades is a firing offense? This is why the PAC is really lucky they didn’t get stuck with UT in a P16. The level of entitlement expressed would make even a fanatic SC Trojan blush.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: NCAA rules change constantly. Some rule or other changes every year. Usually lots of them. There is nothing wrong with saying, “Here’s a rule we think ought to change.” It happens all the time. The fact that it has been done that way for decades is seldom an obstacle, if enough people think it ought to be done. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have approved the 4-team playoff that they just instituted — a playoff, by the way, that some of the sport’s most powerful people once said they would never agree to under any possible circumstances.
LikeLike
Read the D:
I may be wrong but the primary difference (other than the minimum conference size) is removing the full RR requirement. As I said earlier that might be something that needs revisiting for conferences of perhaps 16 or greater. No logical or competitive reason to change until the full divisional RR requirement almost fills the schedule.
These are considerations taken into account when weighing the pros and cons of expanding. Remove all restriction and the B1G could grow to 24 or 36 (or whatever) and have a beauty contest to select CCG participants (BCS revisited). Meanwhile UT and OU can jettison several conference mates and would stil be able tol hold a CCG…
LikeLike
Marc:
And there is nothing wrong with saying lets not expand a rule that no one ever intended or expected D1 football to take advantage of.
LikeLike
Using the logic that it was never intended for D1 an argument can be made to get rid of all CCGs. That is not going to happen.
LikeLike
Mack:
No. Because we have a rule that perhaps we’d have liked to not apply to D1, but we know we now can’t remove, it doesn’t follow that we will now expand it.
Perhaps without a significant financial incentive to get to 12 and a CCG much of the conference “Armageddon” movement wouldn’t have occurred, or at least much more slowly.
LikeLike
. . . . there is nothing wrong with saying lets not expand a rule that no one ever intended or expected D1 football to take advantage of. . . .
What’s wrong with it, is that it’s not a substantive argument. When I was in college, there were 11 regular-season games, no CCG, and obviously no playoffs. Not many years before that, there were 10 regular-season games, and before that, nine. Every time the rules changed, it was a deviation towards something that was not previously “intended or expected.” So, if you say, “We didn’t intend that.” Well, duh! By that argument, nobody would ever change anything.
LikeLike
Marc:
Then ask for the regular season to go to 13. Just don’t be surprised when a 14th is allowed for conferences of 12 or more to do division RR and hold a CCG in it.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a larger conference is going to have a harder time deciding a champ than a smaller one. A one game playoff provides on field result in cases where multiple teams won’t meet in the regular season.
LikeLike
Then ask for the regular season to go to 13.
Given the history of college football, I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens sooner or later. That’s not the subject under discussion, however. Bowlsby’s asking for a rule he might use, rather than some other rule that he has no desire or intention of implementing.
Now, here is what I believe college presidents will say: If we tell Bowlsby that he needs to have 12 teams to stage a CCG, then he’s gonna go out and get two more. That means, he’s probably going to poach the ACC, who will in turn poach the Big East, who will in turn poach C-USA or the Sun Belt, and so on. Those conferences would rather not get poached. Since Bowlsby’s gonna get his 13th game (if he wants it), one way or another, they might as well let him have it HIS way. There clearly is no philosophical objection to that game, only a somewhat arbitrary rule (which could easily be changed) as to which conferences can play it, and which ones can’t.
On top of that, other conferences might realize that Bowlsby’s idea could help them too. We’ve seen ample evidence, from the discussion here, that when you get to 16, 18, 20 teams, it’s hard to agree on satisfactory static divisions (or pods). So those conferences will realize that, even at their (anticipated) larger sizes, they might very well want to take advantage of Bowlsby’s proposed rule.
By the same token, it is hard to name any conference that would be harmed by it, because it would simply be an option that they are free to disregard if they do not find it useful. So, for all those reasons, I think Bowlsby stands a good chance of getting his rule adopted.
On top of that, all the objections I’ve seen are pretty weak (e.g., “we never intended that,” or “it’s been the same way for 20 years,” or “no one’s telling him how to choose a champion”). If that’s the best anyone’s got, then it’ll probably be clear sailing for Bowlsby.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a larger conference is going to have a harder time deciding a champ than a smaller one.
Did anyone ever say they didn’t understand that? Nevertheless, all options are flawed. Most conferences with 10 teams did not always, historically, play a full round-robin; and if you do, there’s still the case of “A beats B, who beats C, who beats A,” all of whom tie for the title. The Big XII had that in its south division alone. It’s not as if a CCG solves all your problems in a 12-team league, or that there are no such problems with 10. It’s a difference of degree, not kind.
LikeLike
@Marc –
Now, here is what I believe college presidents will say: If we tell Bowlsby that he needs to have 12 teams to stage a CCG, then he’s gonna go out and get two more. That means, he’s probably going to poach the ACC, who will in turn poach the Big East, who will in turn poach C-USA or the Sun Belt, and so on. Those conferences would rather not get poached.
There’s one problem with that logic. The ACC is supporting the proposal.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21620974/acc/big-12-alliance-makes-sense-to-stiff-arm-conference-realigment
If the Big 12 wanted to stage a conference championship game, it could probably do it tomorrow. Bowlsby’s idea to get rid of the NCAA’s 12-team conference minimum for such a game has support from the ACC — and probably every other conference. It is noncontroversial.
LikeLike
@Marc – Ignore my post, I misread your comments.
LikeLike
All bow down to Bevo!
Look. no rules have changed to prevent ACC, BE, ACC again, BE again, SEC, B1G, PAC, B12, B1G again, expanding. All of which set off chain reactions. Why would this be different? Have you considered that many lay waiting in anticipation of the resultant ripples?
LikeLike
“The ACC is supporting the proposal”
Do not read anything Dennis Dodd writes as fact.
LikeLike
@ccrider55: Conferences expand for a variety of reasons. I can’t recall a situation where a set of schools prosed a rule change, where a “no” vote was tantamount to saying, “If you want that, you have to expand.”
Many school presidents say they lament the current expansion boom. Although most conferences have expanded, many of the moves have been defensive, i.e., after they’d already been poached, or were under threat of same. Even the Big Ten’s two most recent additions were publicly acknowledged to be partly defensive.
So if presented with a change that makes poaching a shade less likely, I think the presidents will vote yes, unless they have better reasons for voting no. And as I noted, even the predatory conferences (the Big Ten, the SEC) would likely see this rule as beneficial to their future interests, too.
LikeLike
“That means, he’s probably going to poach the ACC, who will in turn poach the Big East, who will in turn poach C-USA or the Sun Belt, and so on. Those conferences would rather not get poached.”
Actually, the individual schools in those conferences are all hoping to advance up the ladder in the realignment game, so their best interests are probably to encourage expansion.
LikeLike
Actually, the individual schools in those conferences are all hoping to advance up the ladder in the realignment game, so their best interests are probably to encourage expansion.
For most schools, this is not the case. If you ask the 15 ACC presidents if they’re hoping that will happen, I think a majority will say, quite truthfully, no. There are probably very few ACC schools who: A) Are sure they would find a home in a better conference; and B) Actually prefer it that way.
There are some, like Wake Forest, who would very likely find themselves stuck in an evolved version of the same league with worse teams. And there are some, like UNC, who know they’d find a home, but would far rather see the ACC, as it is today, survive.
If you look at the Big East, there are only two or three schools that can be fairly sure they’d get an ACC invite at some point. The others are looking at the distinct possibility of being stuck in the Big East, with a worse collection of schools than they have now. Even the remaining school long thought to have had the best chance of getting out, UConn, is still stuck in the Big East, with a far less desirable set of colleagues than it had before.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That’s a joke. If you were a conference commissioner and suggested that to the people who pay your salary, you’d be laughed out of the room, assuming they didn’t fire you first. If it’s not an option that any sane people would choose, then it’s no option at all.”
It’s so convenient that you continue to be the sole authority on what’s a joke and what’s insane.
“We may disagree about what is sane,”
Apparently nobody is allowed to disagree with you about that, because any other alternative that gets mentioned you have pre-determined to be insane. You are the one that has limited the options to 2, not the NCAA.
” but I’m pretty sure no conference anywhere has done as you suggest — certainly none in FBS”
So what? Many of the best companies are successful because they were the first to do something new. Many of them were told they were a joke or insane when they started, too.
” — so the burden is squarely on you.”
No, it isn’t. He has the facts on his side. You have your personal opinion on yours. You don’t get to assign the burden of proof and be judge, jury and executioner.
LikeLike
@Brian: The set of things no one has done, is infinite. Lurking out there are many great ideas no one has tried yet. But out of that infinite set, only a tiny fraction of them are actually any good.
I’m not appointing myself the judge and jury of what will work. I’m just pointing out that when an amateur suggests something that none of the people who do this professionally has tried yet, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it’s actually better. I am not saying you couldn’t be right, only that you have the burden of demonstrating it.
I am not even sure what ideas you consider to be serious, since obviously none of us can actually implement our ideas. Playing all non-conference games and deciding the champion with a computer was one of your suggestions, as I recall, and I am pretty sure you weren’t actually suggesting that any conference would do that. It didn’t sound like something you’d implement if your own job or your own money were at stake.
Remember the dot-com era? Maybe 2 percent of the ways people tried to monetize the Internet were successful. It was probably a lot less than that. It’s remarkably difficult to do something no one else has done, and be successful. That’s why not everyone who started a computer company had the same results as Apple.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: The set of things no one has done, is infinite. Lurking out there are many great ideas no one has tried yet. But out of that infinite set, only a tiny fraction of them are actually any good.”
And yet you have already determined they are all insane or jokes because nobody has tried them. No matter what anyone mentions, you describe it with one of those terms.
“I’m just pointing out that when an amateur suggests something that none of the people who do this professionally has tried yet, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it’s actually better.”
No, it isn’t. First, none of us made claims about better. Second, how would we have proved that staging a CCG was better in 1990 (assuming it is)? Until it’s been tried, there is no evidence.
“I am not saying you couldn’t be right, only that you have the burden of demonstrating it.”
Which is literally impossible without actually having an AQ conference completely under your control. In other words, we’d have to be more powerful than Delany or Slive. Why don’t you set the bar a little higher?
“Playing all non-conference games and deciding the champion with a computer was one of your suggestions,”
It’s an option. So is counting all 12 games equally, not just conference games. At that point, choosing to use a ranking like the old BCS system, with or without some comparison of records, becomes a possibility. It’s been done as a tiebreaker, so it has already decided champions. Is it insane to say it might make sense to move it up to the first option depending on your conference? If a coast to coast conference ever develops (MWC/CUSA merger, for example), playing a CCG might not make sense due to travel costs and lack of ticket sales. Or maybe they wouldn’t want to risk a CCG upset knocking them out of the playoff.
“as I recall, and I am pretty sure you weren’t actually suggesting that any conference would do that.”
Suggesting it, no. Pointing out that they have the option, yes.
“It’s remarkably difficult to do something no one else has done, and be successful.”
Depends on the field of endeavor. As you say, conferences have only tried 2 things. That leaves a lot of new options available. Flex scheduling a last week CCG is a perfectly reasonable method for deciding on a champion. Does it have issues? Yes, of course. So do CCG (rematches, attendance, ratings, an extra week off for most schools before their bowl, upsets hurting NCG chances, etc) or not having a title game (ties, unfortunate tiebreakers, home field deciding the champ, etc). But we are used to those methods, so we accept those problems. It’s why Americans freak out over a mass shooting of 20 people but don’t blink an eye at 30,000+ car crash deaths annually.
LikeLike
“I am not saying you couldn’t be right, only that you have the burden of demonstrating it.”
Which is literally impossible without actually having an AQ conference completely under your control. In other words, we’d have to be more powerful than Delany or Slive. Why don’t you set the bar a little higher?
Actually, Brian, I think you are quite impressive at marshalling hard data to support the conclusions you favor. That’s what I meant by “the burden of demonstrating it.” Not that you actually have to go and run a conference. My sense is that you just don’t like CCGs, and in lieu of abolishing them entirely (your preference, but not likely to occur), you want to draw a bright line against permitting them more liberally.
If you thought that flex scheduling in the final week of the season were the way to go, you’d have produced a veritable treatise with facts and figures by now. I get the sense (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re not truly in favor of this; it’s more about what you’re against.
But it’s hard to marshal actual facts against CCGs; it’s more of a fan’s dislike (which we are all entitled to, as fans), but impossible either to support or refute with facts. Hence the smokescreen, and all the jokey alternatives that you would never implement in real life, even if you WERE Jim Delany.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Actually, Brian, I think you are quite impressive at marshalling hard data to support the conclusions you favor.”
It’s my preference whenever possible to introduce facts rather than just dueling opinions. I have no idea what applicable facts I could find for this situation, though. I have no way to put a value on a flex week versus a regular week (no CCG) versus a 12th week plus a CCG. Any numbers I put out would be pure speculation. There were no other data points at issue, AFAIK.
“My sense is that you just don’t like CCGs, and in lieu of abolishing them entirely (your preference, but not likely to occur), you want to draw a bright line against permitting them more liberally.”
I’m not a fan of them (well, mostly not in the B10), but that isn’t why I was taking the stance that I did. I honestly believe the B12 is wrong in claiming that the NCAA is telling them how to determine a champion. They have a completely viable method of staging a CCG on the same weekend as everyone else.
“If you thought that flex scheduling in the final week of the season were the way to go, you’d have produced a veritable treatise with facts and figures by now.”
If I thought there were relevant facts, I’d present them. To me, we’ve been discussing the interpretation of the B12’s statement. That is the only fact at issue. I say flex scheduling is viable, and you don’t. Since viable is a subjective term, what facts matter? You say the logistical problems are too large. I presented ways around them. If this makes you feel better:
16.9
1267
3
“I get the sense (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re not truly in favor of this; it’s more about what you’re against.”
I don’t see a need to change the rule, and I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the other conferences to OK it, but I don’t much care what the B12 does.
“Hence the smokescreen, and all the jokey alternatives that you would never implement in real life, even if you WERE Jim Delany.”
You might be surprised at what I would implement. Not in the B10, where tradition matters, but in another conference like the B12 that has few traditions due to being new.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I’ve really turned to the 3-4 fixed rivalries for each school and then “top 2 teams overall in the CCG” approach that would come out of reform to the CCG rule.
I think that’s the best approach right now for conferences of 16+.
The rotating pods sounds cool in theory but it could end up massively confusing to the uninformed public.
Just fixing 3-4 rivalries for each school and coming up with 5-6 other random conference games seems to me to be the best approach if the CCG rule could be changed.”
Or try this compromise:
Use the pods for scheduling purposes only, so the public never really needs to know about them. Then compete as 1 big conference like you want to, letting the rotating games help keep balance if the pods are unequal. The difference is locking more rivalries than your plan does and keeping them in a closed circle. The advantage is that the ACC schools can play each other a lot more than anyone else and so can the western schools and the central schools. The disadvantage is that the groups feel a little segregated.
“I realize that creates a significant potential increase in Michigan-Ohio State rematches …”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
LikeLike
According to NCAA rules, in order to have a championship game you must have two divisions–no more and no fewer–and they must play a round-robin schedule within their divisions.
LikeLike
Actually, that’s only required to get the 13th game exemption for a CCG. You can play a CCG as your 12th game with any kind of pod setup you want. You can have semifinals, too. Just not after the regular season.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Have to admit I am intrigued by the idea of a “pre-season” game or two in August against MACrifice type teams.
There are academic calendar issues with starting earlier or going later. It will be hard to convince the presidents to accept starting before Labor Day weekend.
“Not sure how I would feel about the loss of the spring game.”
I don’t think that would go away, actually. The little guys need a chance to settle their teams in, too. Getting crushed in August by AL isn’t helpful to a SB team, just valuable financially. Maybe you get one or the other? Preseason games stink in the NFL, I’m not sure they’d help in August. I’m not sure coaches want to risk injuries, either.
“As for three divisions, that strikes me as interesting for the B1G; sort of a hybrid-inner-outer.
Assume B1G gets to 18:
Atlantic Division: MD, PSU, 4 new ACC
Central : tOSU, Pur, Indiana, MI, MSU, Rutgers
West: Neb, Wiscy, Iowa, Minny, NW, IL
Rutgers is a bit out of place, but … whatever”
Easy fix:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
N – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, GT
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke
GT is far enough away from NC to not have any strong rivalries with those ACC schools (UVA sort of). Playing OSU and MI would make up for it. It also treats Atlanta the same way everyone wants to treat NYC now.
“Anyway, looks like only two rivalry games would be lost (tOSU-IL and MI-Minny) (well, and yes, the beloved-by-all Land Grant Trophy game).”
You could lock Illibuck and the LBJ, but I don’t think they would. A compromise would be to play them every other year and stop doing home and homes. OSU would play everyone once in 4 years and twice in 7 years (as opposed to twice in 6 years), plus IL twice in 4 years. MI would also play schools that same amount, changing IL to MN. That would mean the western schools playing MSU, PU, IN and GT more. The same could be done with MI/RU and OSU/MD if you insist on treating NYC as special.
OSU:
Year 1: IL, NW
Year 2: NE, MN
Year 3: IL, WI
Year 4: IA, NW
Year 5: IL, NE
Year 6: MN, WI
Year 7: IL, IA
As for the LGT game, many people liked the game, few thought it was a rivalry and nobody liked the trophy.
LikeLike
Wish list from a fellow proverbial homeless bum talking conference realignment under a bridge…
-JH in LAX … this is so classy. I quame a little. Might inspire Duke, VA etc.
-Virginia & Pitt next.
-EAST and WEST division names
LikeLike
wow, a “homeless bum” has a computer? 🙂
LikeLike
I assume you know that the odds of getting Pitt are almost negligible. They don’t add any value to the BTN via brand or footprint. They’re a good choice in a terrible location for getting a B10 offer.
LikeLike
18 team Big Ten (no pods, no divisions, 3 fixed rivals, top 2 teams in CCG)
Duke – North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech – North Carolina, Virginia, Duke
Illinois – Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Maryland – Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State – Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Minnesota – Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
North Carolina – Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Northwestern – Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Penn State – Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers – Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland
Virginia – Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech
Wisconsin – Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
If you wanted to save a 4th fixed annual game for everyone, here’s an additional set of games:
Nebraska – Penn State
Michigan – Minnesota
Ohio State – Illinois
Maryland – Virginia
Northwestern – Iowa
Michigan State – Wisconsin
North Carolina – Rutgers
Purdue – Georgia Tech
Indiana – Duke
I’d imagine though that it’s easier to just have 3 fixed rivals for everyone and the other 5 or 6 games rotate through the remaining 14 teams. That way you get to see everyone relatively frequently.
But this is how the conference would look with 3 or 4 fixed rivals.
Top 2 teams in CCG.
LikeLike
This creates a lot of flexibility in setting up rivals; this way you don’t end up with unbalanced pods or unbalanced divisions.
LikeLike
It seems to me, you’ve squandered the very advantage of such a system, namely the ability to lock only those rivalries that are actually required. Instead, you’ve created a mix of real rivalries and artificial ones, just to get each team up to three locked games.
Ohio State, for example, has no history with Rutgers; Michigan and Maryland have met a whopping three times. To lock those games makes no sense. If they’re going to abandon static divisions, they ought to leverage the opportunity to let the schedule float, where it can.
LikeLike
I locked those games to develop markets. I thought there’d be an interest in keeping Michigan going to Maryland every other year along with Ohio State going to Rutgers every other year.
Sure, some of the games have little purpose to keep like Northwestern – Purdue. But I think you can justify 3 fixed annual games at a minimum. Most of those games have a purpose.
LikeLike
But yeah, I can see the rationale behind some teams only having 2…
LikeLike
Won’t happen. It’s simply not southern enough to attract the UVA/UNC/Duke/GT foursome. They’ll feel severely outnumbered (by Midwest/NE schooles), will travel more North than South than they do now (a negative in their eyes), and lose the State of Fla (ouch). I’m sure they’ve all known for some time that the offer is on the table (formally or otherwise). They won’t do it.
LikeLike
The underlying premise of all these posts is that something happens to undermine the ACC. Explanations of how that could happen are not difficult to find. Two schools voted against raising the exit fee, and one of those two has already left.
Most people agree that the North Carolina schools won’t fire the first shot, but if shots are already fired they’ll protect themselves.
LikeLike
Yeah but that’s the problem. Who will be the first signficant defector in the supposed ACC implosion? For instance, FSU will absolutely not go to the B12 unless it’s a last resort. Every scenerio I see shows the ACC somehow sticking together, unless one of the pillaging conferences makes a concession of some kind (taking a school or two they don’t want to get the 3-4 that they do want).
LikeLike
What do you mean “not southern enough”?
If they have to play 6 games against the soon-to-be 14 member Big Ten team, that’s only 3 away games at Northern locations.
With 3 fixed rivals, those 4 schools are guaranteed to play each other annually (Duke, UNC, UVa, Georgia Tech will all have each other as their 3 fixed rivals).
That means that on a 9 game schedule, the other 6 games will be against Northern teams, and 3 of those games will be home games.
3 games in the North is too much?
LikeLike
They’ll have exactly 3 southern conference brothers. Duke/UNC/GT might even argue that UVA is becoming pretty Yankee. I get that this doesn’t matter to most B1G fans. But it matters big-time to these schools. The South would represent 25% of the league. Good luck convincing them to jump ship. Not gonna happen.
LikeLike
The fact that they’d be saying an eternal farewell to the States of Florida and South Carolina…would be perhaps the biggest problem. If you think the B1G will win them over (by just taking those 4)…you really are dreaking. I’d argue that the SEC would be an even more likely home than your scenerio (which i think is a long-shot). If B1G wants those 4 schools…they’ll have to go bigger (in the South). Otherwise it’s just pie in the sky.
LikeLike
North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech are in a division right now with Miami as their connection to other Southern states.
FSU and Clemson are in the other division.
I think you’re making way too big a deal of this. Scheduling wise, their schedule would only have 3 games physically located in the North in an 18 team Big Ten with pods.
LikeLike
Or without pods…
In any case, if they want games in Florida or South Carolina, they can schedule them.
I’m still not sure why South Carolina is even a consideration? Is there a reason why any of those schools care about playing games in South Carolina?
Looking at their student bodies and such, there’s really no reason why South Carolina is that important…
LikeLike
But if they add a Florida team they will.
I agree with you that the Sunshine State plays a much bigger role in this process than a large contingent of people on this forum believe. And yes those supposedly puritanical Presidents who view AAU status as sacrosanct will welcome FSU (or Miami) with open arms if it means landing the other four. (Michigan’s) Sue Coleman is not Fielding Yost. She and (AD) David Brandon have proven to be very open minded and (dare I say) progressive thinking in regard to expansion and the marketing of the University worldwide. I believe she sees the big picture and isn’t going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The possibility of JHU joining as associate member (Heaven forbid!) reflects this new-found flexibility. The only way the B1G is going to break up the ACC is if they can convince those schools they aren’t leaving the family jewels behind. UVA may come, but I don’t think the others will, unless they take all five (UNC/DUKE/UVA/GT/FSU).
LikeLike
@Tom: When anyone says “won’t happen” with just about anything in conference re-alignment, I’d say that person has a distinct lack of imagination. The combination of things that have already happened, coupled with those that are confirmed to have been discussed (e.g., Texas to the Big Ten, Texas to the Pac-12), ought to persuade anybody that practically nothing is off the table.
I certainly agree that most ACC schools would prefer that the ACC survive. Duke, UNC and GT are culturally southern schools, and that they wouldn’t exactly look forward to November games in the midwest. But the rumors of Maryland joining the Big Ten seemed ridiculous when they first surfaced, and look at where we are.
Florida State voted against the exit fee, and if that isn’t an obvious indication that they’re open to moving, I don’t know what would be.
LikeLike
The Civil War is over, and it was 150 years ago. Get over it ! I am frankly tired of SEC crap and we can’t go north because it’s cold . What a bunch of girls! The south can only relate to the south, what crap.People are people it’s that simple!
LikeLike
@Zeek: In any case, if they want games in Florida or South Carolina, they can schedule them. . . . I’m still not sure why South Carolina is even a consideration? Is there a reason why any of those schools care about playing games in South Carolina?
This board under-estimates the importance to these schools of playing a southern schedule. It’s not so much that they want to play in S.C. in particular, but that they like playing in the south. Look at these schools’ past and future schedules: they play northern games very seldom. And except for B.C. (soon-to-be Pitt), they don’t play outdoor games up north after October 1. (Syracuse is joining the ACC, but they play in a dome.)
Sure, they could add southern schools to their OOC schedule, but those would probably have to be September games—and September isn’t the problem. And who knows, by then the Big Ten may be up to 10 conference games, which wouldn’t leave a lot of flexibility. The Florida schools are popular, and not everyone can schedule them.
I’m not saying those schools won’t wind up in the Big Ten eventually, but make no mistake about it: the schedule is a pretty deep drawback to them.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing FSU………
I think the BIG’s preisidents realize that NEB was a HUGE jump from even IU, Iowa, MSU both in terms of enrollment and academic prestige….I don’t think they’re going to make this jump, given that there is also geographic and cultural divide….
Look, bringing in just VA and GT changes matters dramatically….those would be the 14th and 15th size enrollments in the BIG 16…..obviously they are elite academically…..essentially, other than the public/private distinction, you’d be bringing in 2 Northwesterns…not saying that’s bad…just different….throwing FSU on top of that will be too much, IMO………..
LikeLike
Don’t forget that GT would keep UGA on the schedule every year, adding another southern game. They could also pull a PSU and schedule a rotating southern game OOC. They’ll always be able to get a southern tune-up game (GA State, GA Southern, Citadel, etc), too.
Having taken care of GT, the rest are much farther north. Duke doesn’t care about having a southern schedule anyway. UNC would likely keep playing another NC school or two every year (NCSU + ECU/Ap State). UVA has even fewer issues with missing the deep south.
All of them would like some FL access, though, I agree. If not FSU in conference, they can get UCF/USF/FIU/FAU OOC at least.
LikeLike
I love this idea. I agree with MS that some of the rivalries end up being artificial, so that is a downside. but easy to fix by going fewer protected rivalries.
As said, I love the flexibility of essentially jettisoning the idea of divisions. Like in Bball, no divisions, everyone plays each other as often as possible. with only two locked “rivals” and with a 9-conference game schedule, you end up playing the other 11 teams 7/11th of the time (basically once every two years; every 4-year players gets a H&H with every other B1G school. With a 10-game schedule, it’s even more frequent.
here would be an idea for just two protected rivalry games. Not sure about the IL/IN ones. MSU would probably hate this.
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State
Michigan State – Michigan, OSU
Ohio State – Michigan, MSU
Penn State – Maryland, Rutgers
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland
MD – PSU, Rutgers
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue — Indiana, Illinois
Northwestern — Illinois, Indiana
Iowa — Nebraska, Minnesota
Minnesota – Iowa, Wisconsin
Nebraska – Iowa, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Nebraska
Anyway, then petition the NCAA to revise the rules on CCGs. The two-divisions-round-robin rules for adding the 13th game are too restrictive and impede conference cohesion beyond 12 teams.
another added advantage of no divisions: no division names !!!!!!
LikeLike
posted this above but applies here also –
@Zeek – I completely agree with you. I actually think this is the crux of what Bowlsby is getting at with his championship game request. Bowlsby really just wants to strip away the NCAA rules for determining champions.
Big 12 has 9 Central Time Zone teams so any Eastern additions will make for tough divisions. It’s better to throw out divisions and have locked rivals, then have a championship game with the best two teams.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“here would be an idea for just two protected rivalry games. Not sure about the IL/IN ones. MSU would probably hate this.
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State
Michigan State – Michigan, OSU
Ohio State – Michigan, MSU
Penn State – Maryland, Rutgers
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland
MD – PSU, Rutgers
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue — Indiana, Illinois
Northwestern — Illinois, Indiana
Iowa — Nebraska, Minnesota
Minnesota – Iowa, Wisconsin
Nebraska – Iowa, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Nebraska”
2 isn’t right, either. You also need WI/IA out west, so that group needs 3. I think the rest of the B10 would be OK with playing those 4 a little less to keep the rivalries.
Your central pairs need tweaking IMO:
OSU – MI, IL
MI – OSU, MSU
MSU – MI, IN
IL – OSU, NW
NW – IL, PU
IN – PU, MSU
PU – IN, NW
I also kept MSU from getting screwed. It’s not that MSU/IN matters, but without it PU and IN only play each other. That’s why MSU don’t get NW, in case any Spartan fans wondered. Frankly, I’d be OK with MSU/NW, leaving IN and PU with just each other locked.
LikeLike
zeek,
“18 team Big Ten (no pods, no divisions, 3 fixed rivals, top 2 teams in CCG)”
1. No to 18 teams
2. No to changing the 13th game exemption rule (I assume that’s how you wanted your CCG)
“Duke – North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech – North Carolina, Virginia, Duke
Illinois – Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
Maryland – Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State – Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
North Carolina – Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Northwestern – Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, Rutgers
Penn State – Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers – Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland
Virginia – Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech”
I’m fine with the western 4. The rest need work.
“If you wanted to save a 4th fixed annual game for everyone, here’s an additional set of games:
Nebraska – Penn State
Michigan – Minnesota
Ohio State – Illinois
Maryland – Virginia
Northwestern – Iowa
Michigan State – Wisconsin
North Carolina – Rutgers
Purdue – Georgia Tech
Indiana – Duke”
OSU/IL and MI/MN should be in the top 3 in stead of those RU and MD games. Also, it should be MI/RU and OSU/MD, not the the other way around.
MD/UVA should be in the top 3.
OSU shouldn’t get stuck with PSU since everyone but RU and MD get easier locked schedules. If the top two teams make the CCG, you shouldn’t disadvantage teams of similar caliber every year via the schedule. And yes, I’m aware the other games would reduce the disadvantage, but they wouldn’t eliminate it.
I’m not sure how many of those other games need to be locked versus you forced everyone to have 3. Why not lock all the games that should be locked and none that shouldn’t, then let the scheduler work the rotation to fill in the blanks?
“I’d imagine though that it’s easier to just have 3 fixed rivals for everyone and the other 5 or 6 games rotate through the remaining 14 teams. That way you get to see everyone relatively frequently.”
Lock 5, leaving 4 games to play against 12 teams (9 game schedule) and you play everyone else once every 3 years (all neat and tidy).
LikeLike
More on the B1G going to 9 or 10 games. Gene Smith says (again) that he prefers 10.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/76585/osus-smith-expects-more-b1g-games
LikeLike
I don’t think he says that he prefers 10. He merely lays out the pros and cons, without committing himself.
LikeLike
See the “More Expansion Looms over AD decisions” 9:00 am blog post by Bennett—-looks like Smith would favor 10 conf. games even in a 14 member BIG…….but realistically, he’s talking about 10 conf. games if the BIG goes to 16 or more…—“When you get into a discussion of things like 10….you say ‘Wow, if we had a couple more teams, it would be easier’ “.
LikeLike
Agreed, 10 is only realistic for a 16 or 18 team conference at this point.
I definitely see 9 on the horizon for the 14 team configuration.
LikeLike
Well 10 is consistent with “We want to play each other more, not less” and expanding beyond 14.
LikeLike
With a 14-team B1G, ten conference games and two fixed divisions with seven teams apiece, that would mean programs could do a 6-4 or 6-1-3 setup. Either one would ensure that every team would play the other at least twice over a four year period. All the rivalry and high profile games on the conference’s list could also be accommodated pretty easily.
Using Michigan as an example and assuming an east division of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers plus a fixed annual game with west division rival Minnesota, that would mean UM would then play three of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue or Illinois over a two period. In the following two years, the other three west teams would then be on the schedule.
I don’t know what UM would do with the non-conference games, If it wanted to have seven each year, than the two OOC contests would be pay for play. If willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven, then it’s one home and home. There’d have to be one hell of a television deal in place for Michigan to give up the gate receipts for a home game every other year (and I can’t imagine the city of Ann Arbor or its merchants would be too happy with it either).
But yes, this does open up possibilities for a conference with 16 teams or more if they’re really looking at a ten conference game scenario. In a fixed 8-team division setup with two divisions, it would be 7-3 or 7-1-2. It’d take six years (give or take) to have at least two games with each team in the conference with these setups (and assuming a home-and-home). If Virgina and Georgia Tech were to become #15 and #16, the this could be one possibility:
West – Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
East – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech
Michigan would play the seven other teams in the east and its protected crossover with Minnesota for eight of the ten annual games. The other two contests would be from the seven remaining teams: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana and Purdue. Perhaps not ideal, but certainly doable.
At 18 or 20, I think you start looking at pods, even with ten conference games. You could do a 8-2 arrangement with eighteen teams, but it would take awhile to get through every team in the conference. When you get to that number of programs, having four pods (2X4 and 2X5 or 4X5) works out better if you’re looking at getting teams to play one another as much as possible. But the pod system in those cases works out fine with nine conference games–ten really isn’t necessary.
The Purdue AD did mention that conference’s direction to the schools was to cap the number of non-conference games to be put on the schedule at three from 2016 through 2018 and two in 2019/20. Could they be phasing in a ten game schedule over time? Maybe they’re just giving themselves room to do so based on the television negotiations and/or conference expansion. Stay tuned.
LikeLike
You can do nine conference games with 6-1-2, and in your aforementioned setup, Michigan plays every other West team in addition to Minnesota once every three years rather than every two. Were the NCAA to approve a 13th game, then you can go to 6-1-3 (assuming the Big Ten is still at 14 members).
LikeLike
cutter,
“I don’t know what UM would do with the non-conference games, If it wanted to have seven each year, than the two OOC contests would be pay for play. If willing to have alternating seasons of six and seven, then it’s one home and home. There’d have to be one hell of a television deal in place for Michigan to give up the gate receipts for a home game every other year (and I can’t imagine the city of Ann Arbor or its merchants would be too happy with it either).”
The stars would have to align just right for the TV deal to increase enough for OSU and MI to be made whole for playing 6 home games instead of 7.
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2013/01/ohio_state_approves_football_t.html
OSU is raising ticket prices:
Old – $70 for all 7 games
New A – $79 for most games, $79-125 for 1 game, $79-150 for another
New B – $79 for most games, $79-175 for 1 game
Student tickets go up $4/game but have no premium prices. Staff tickets are discounted 20% as allowed by law. Smith says this will make OSU an extra $5.2M per year. OSU says they need the money to pay for repairs and such. Based on those data, I ran the numbers.
2012 game value – $6.0M in ticket sales only
2013 regular game value – $6.8M
2013 premium game (125) – $10.2M
2013 premium game (150) – $12.1M
2013 premium game (175) – $13.9M
Now, it’s known OSU won’t always use the full premium. Apparently in 2013 it’ll be WI for $110, for example. MI will be $150 or $175, and maybe a game like OU or USC. The point is, for OSU to lose 1 home game per year would mean TV going up at least $7M per school, or $100M per year for the B10. How would adding 1 more conference game even approach that sort of value?
On top of that, local businesses lose a big chunk (10%+) of their annual revenue as well. They can’t just raise prices to make up for it. Universities have to be good citizens, too. They have a duty to their local economy.
LikeLike
The point is, for OSU to lose 1 home game per year would mean TV going up at least $7M per school, or $100M per year for the B10. How would adding 1 more conference game even approach that sort of value?
If they go to 9, then they would only be giving a home game every other year, so they would “only” need $3.5 million in conference distributions to make up for it.
LikeLike
Whoops, I misread the thread (I thought this was a reply to vp19 who was talking about 9). But, yeah, at 10 conference games it would need to be a full $7 million
LikeLike
frug,
“If they go to 9, then they would only be giving a home game every other year, so they would “only” need $3.5 million in conference distributions to make up for it.”
With 9 games, OSU can still get their 7 games – 1 home and home and 2 buy games. It’s not what Smith wants, unless he buys 2 crappy AQ games, but it’s doable. Paying an AQ $1.5M for a game may be worth it, though, depending on how much they value SOS.
LikeLike
Get a 13th game allowed on the schedule? I’m all for a 10-game conference schedule.
But with 12 games, that really restricts your OOC scheduling — especially for members such as Iowa (it drops ISU at its political peril) and Purdue (which wants ND on its slate as long as possible). Also, if UNC and UVa ever join the Big Ten, they’ll find it difficult to continue politically important rivalries with NCSU and VT, respectively.
LikeLike
Gene Smith basically said that if they go to 10 conference games, the TV deal is going to have to be really stupendous, to make up for the missed home game.
Since Smith knows he could get to 7 by scheduling cupcakes, he’s signalling that OSU wants to continue to have serious OOC games every year. They’ve got OOC road games scheduled every year through 2022. He could buy them out, but I think Ohio State wants to play a national schedule. Michigan’s intentions are the same. Their plans in the out-years aren’t as detailed, but they’ve got Arkansas on the road in 2019. Michigan State has OOC road games as late as 2022, Penn State in 2020, Northwestern in 2022, and so on.
The schools with locked OOC rivals, Iowa and Purdue, wouldn’t have much flexibility at all.
LikeLike
Fans–even the most die hard–can’t be bothered to learn the composition of the Legends and Leaders divisions. But they will master the in’s and out’s of pod composition, especially if they rotate and change every few years?
KISS. Either no divisions or two divisions with obvious, identifiable names with a clearly-understood makeup.
LikeLike
1. In the above scenerio, FSU isn’t invited (only GT/UNC/UVA/Duke)…so that point doesn’t apply.
2. Regarding “the Civil War ended 150 years ago”…what ignorance. It’s not a Civil freaking War issue. It’s weather, it’s geography, it’s ACC history, it’s 3 of those 4 schools being the core of their current conference, it’s them moving out of their comfort zone, it’s them losing the State of Fla, it’s them going to Indianapolis and who knows where for conference title games (instead of NC), etc. IT MATTERS.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech’s AD just two weeks ago said that the 3 schools that they have to be with are UNC, UVa, and Duke. He said that explicitly.
‘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.’
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8857721/mike-bobinski-new-ad-georgia-tech-yellow-jackets-says-committed-acc
———————————————————————
I just find it interesting that he says that their goals are to be with UNC, UVa, and Duke. Those 4 schools are the most similar athletically and academically as well as in terms of composition of their student bodies.
Where is FSU or Clemson on that list? Maybe they want to be with those schools in the ACC. But in the longer-term, Georgia Tech wants to be with UNC, UVa, and Duke.
LikeLike
GT would probably be the only one that MIGHT consider it. Getting all 4 to agree to it is something else. Besides that, an AD at GT won’t call the shot on this.
LikeLike
GT would probably be the only one that MIGHT consider it.
As we saw in the Big East, each departure makes the remaining schools weaker. I think the premise of the above conversations, is not that all four would leave at the same time, but that this might be an endgame after a number of moves.
Yes, of course the GT AD won’t call the shots, but he would be aware of the conversations his school has been in.
LikeLike
GT is making sure they don’t get left out. The AD at GT has nothing to lose by making such a statement. If those 4 schools wanted to go to the B1G tomorrow…they could. Swofford’s alma mater would be gone from the conference he runs, the ACC would be a shadow of its former self, and it might as well give up the ghost. But those 4 don’t want to be just a small band of brothers moving into a big conference that’s very different from their comfort zone. Not all 4 of them. Start with UNC. They won’t do it until required.
LikeLike
In that same interview, when asked if GT might be joining another conference, he replied, “That’s the ultimate loaded question.”
The only conceivable interpretation of that evasive non-answer, is that they’ve considered it. Otherwise, why not just say no?
It’s a useful research exercise is to look up the comments of various ADs and school presidents, a year or two before they switched conferences. You’d find similar answers. The willingness to move usually predates the actual move by a long period of time. And if the idea’s under discussion, no one wants to commit an outright lie, hence the evasive answers like the one above.
LikeLike
Tom-
When you discuss weather, are you considering global warming in your assessment? Before you know it, the state of Michigan is going to be as balmy as Florida is nowadays (and less wet seeing that sea levels are going to rise and land ice continues to melt while drought is lowering the levels in the Great Lakes).
I wonder if these issues of weather and geography and ACC history were in place back in 2003. The conference was originally interested in going from nine to twelve and the three schools on the original list were Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. We know that Virginia Tech bumped Syracuse because the Virginia state legislature was able to strong arm UVa into getting the Hokies into the conference and the Orangemen subsequently got dropped.
Now where were weather, geography and ACC history concerns ten years ago (not to mention to a lesser degree in 1991 when FSU joined the conference)? And how about recently when Syracuse finally got its invitation along with Pittsburgh? What about when Maryland left and was replaced by Louisville–a team whose state isn’t even on the Atlantic Coast? I mean, if touching the ocean was really that important, than Connecticut would have taken Maryland’s place. Finally, of course, the conference set aside any pretext of being “all sports for every member” when it gave an associate membership to “cold weather” Notre Dame in exchange for having ND play five games with ACC members each year?
Wasn’t the ACC’s original goal ten years ago to expand the conference geographically by reaching into New England and upper state New York? I don’t recall reading about any strong objections from Georgia Tech or Virginia about that. I’m not too sure about North Carolina, but I do think Duke (i.e. Coach K) had some complaints because it was so “football centric”. That said, he seems to have gotten over his difficulties with it this last decade or so. And do you really think they brought ND into the conference thinking the Fighting Irish would never consider joining them on a permanent basis if events swung their way? I realize Notre Dame is the biggest cock tease in college sports, but with the Big East gone and ND spurning the Big Ten on more than one occasion, why not dream a little?
So now you’re trying to tell us that these same schools that were in large degree responsible for the ACC expanding northward a decade ago are now going to get all wobbly about the prospect of being in a conference that has members spanning from Nebraska to northern New Jersey and the Washington DC area. Is that just an enlarged version of what they were trying to do back in 2003?
Exactly how valuable are those games with Wake Forest, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Boston College when Rutgers and Maryland are in place and you’re one of four ACC teams that are going to be added to the conference? What about Pittsburgh and Syracuse? Does playing Miami and Florida State trump playing Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska? If FSU is part of an expanded B1G conference, would they then regain the state of Florida? And here’s a crazy thought–if Notre Dame were part of a 20-team Big Ten, would that be attractive?
Just imagine those crazy places for the football and basketball conference championship games. The new Barclay Center in Brooklyn. Perhaps the United Center in Chicago or the Verizon Center in Washington DC. Want to play the football championship game in the Meadowlands or Soldier Field or in Baltimore (and also in Charlotte)? Now that’d be a tough gig.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure that theories on global warming will not impact conference expansion decisions. At least not in my lifetime. Thanks for your thoughts though.
LikeLike
All this talk is pointless, as the NCAA rules state that, in order to have a championship game in football, you must have two divisions of at least six teams that play a round robin schedule within the division. You can’t have more than two divisions or any sort of football play-off within the conference.
LikeLike
NCAA rules change all the time. Usually, before they change, there is talk first. Hence, it is not “pointless.”
LikeLike
I see your point, Marc, but it won’t happen. The season is already practically extending into the bowl season, and adding conference play-offs will make it worse, stretching into finals week for students at many schools. And with the plan for four-team play-offs (and some people are talking about eight-team play-offs, school administrators will never allow conference play-offs.
LikeLike
Some of the most powerful people in the sport said a 4-team playoff would be played over their dead bodies, and they’ve now embraced it. The conference championship game was said to be an exception, and now many conferences have one.
Other divisions of CFB have had playoffs for years, sometimes extending to 16 teams. So please don’t tell me the concept is alien to college football.
I think the presidents will realize that if they deny the Big XII a CCG, they’ll just be telling the Big XII that they have to expand. Since many are worried about the consequences of that, I suspect they’d rather let them decide their champion any way they want.
Now, a 2-round conference championship is another story; they will think very hard about that. But when most conferences are free to stage a single championship game anyway, denying that to the Big XII is probably not a good idea, when all you’re doing is making expansion and further destabilization more probable.
LikeLike
Expand then! Conference realignment has happened continuously for a century. Don’t act like granting the B12 a special moneymaker exception is doing anyone else a big favor.
LikeLike
Granting an exception is doing the B12 a favor. Changing the rule means that all conferences are equal. If the CCG is deregulated that eliminates requirements for divisions, round robin play, etc. Therefore, a 18 school B1G can have 3 divisions and pick the participants in the CCG any way it wants. If this proposal passes it will be due to the flexibility it allows the B1G, SEC, and ACC.
LikeLike
I’m just explaining what I believe their rationale is likely to be. Sure, teams have switched conferences since forever, but there’s been a VERY accelerated pace of it in recent years, and a lot of people in the sport claim to be troubled by it. If the net effect is that the Big XII is going to get to play their game anyway, then some may be inclined to say, let them play it.
Of course, the general trend is anti-regulation. Presidents and ADs all over the country are saying that there are too many rules, and that a lot of them don’t make sense. Plus, the smaller schools don’t want to create additional incentives for the larger ones to break away.
LikeLike
If you’re looking to do favors (ha) give Idaho and NMSU a call. You’ll be at 12 (before the phone is hung up), the pecking order intact, and following the same rules every other conference has had to.
LikeLike
They’ve embraced it only because of incredible pressure for years from millions of fans all over the country, and even then, only when they saw the green it could generate. No one will ever get excited about conference semi-finals, especially when conference championship games draw such poor attendance. NCAA administrators won’t have to think about that at all, nor will the conferences..
LikeLike
The presidents of schools in the conferences Idaho and NMSU are in, along with all the others considered at risk of poaching, are highly likely to disagree with you.
LikeLike
If they’re going to add a layer to the play-off structure, it will be to expand to an 8-game national play-off, not to add conference semis.
LikeLike
The topic is three division set-ups , Marc, which the collegiate game will never employ.They aren’t fair, because the teams don’t play a round-robin schedule. And it isn’t fair to allow teams that play in the national finals, to play an extra four weeks (and get six or eight extra weeks of practice), when more than half the country only plays 12 games.
LikeLike
Back in the day the SEC had 10 teams (12 through 1963), played 7 conference games and managed to have a champion. The B1G was also playing 7 games with 10 teams back then. The CCG was never about fairness, it has always been a money grab.
LikeLike
Sorry…threads getting mixed up. I’m referring to allowing conferences to stage a single CCG with fewer than 12 schools, or without having static divisions. It is quite possible that the NCAA will vote allow that. I agree that a 4-team playoff within conferences is unlikely at this time.
LikeLike
C’mon Marc. WAC FB is going away. Gone. If they are getting into other conferences, they aren’t there yet (think TCU). And even if they were is the risk greater than when poaching WVU?
LikeLike
@ ccrider55 ~ it depends on what the new rule is whether it is just a special exception applicable to the Big “12” and the Sunbelt, or whether it is something that, for instance, allows the Big 10 to allocate 4 rivalry games per school and then play a rotating schedule to get everyone playing everyone else as often as possible.
@Marc ~ ccrider55 is referring to the two schools “orphaned” by conference realignment, New Mexico State and Idaho ~ their football teams can’t be taken from any conference, since as the last two football playing members of the WAC, the WAC is no longer authorized to run a football championship, and the two schools have to compete as independents to remain in the FBS.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
Is there a rule saying they can’t reassign schools to different, or the same division yearly? Seems doing pods, or whatever, as long as you settle yearly an even split it satisfies the rule.
Until you pass 20 I don’t see a need to alter the rule.
LikeLike
Pods shuffled into two divisions annually obey the rule ~ pods are a whiteboard sketch of how to game the current rules. Instead, its “open” networks of rivalry games that are ruled out by the division round robin requirement as numbers increase ~ OSU has a rivalry with TSUN has a rivalry with MSU has a rivalry with NW has a rivalry with the Illini has a rivalry with OSU … without all of them playing each of the rest. You have three or four annual rivalry games, without trying to form clusters, and rotate the rest, to try to play everyone as often as possible, and it doesn’t form into two divisions, you just take the two best records and have them play a CCG.
LikeLike
Eh, the FCS schools already play during the bowl season in their own championship runs. I’m not sure the bowls, as is, can continue in this new world, but I don’t the NCAA will be able to stand against the largest of the schools.
Within the NCAA: they’re one vote. In the public forum: they’re a much larger group that includes senators and wealthy backers.
LikeLike
FCS playoffs lose money, NCAA covers with march madness Money. Bowls both pay, and provide competitive and visibility opportunity for 70 schools. If a bowl can’t do that it will die. If it can, it will stay.
LikeLike
They lose money because nobody watches them. March Madness makes money because they’re highly watched, just as any future playoffs between the major conferences would be. Bowls are a large cancer that siphons money and yet somehow keep attracting schools.
That’s not my point though, the point is that the NCAA already plays games during the same period, so it’s not inconceivable for them to acquiesce to some (if not most) of the demands from the largest programs. I think for all the talk of leaving the NCAA, it’s just saber-rattling to emphasize that the NCAA needs them far more than they need the NCAA.
LikeLike
metatron,
“Bowls are a large cancer that siphons money and yet somehow keep attracting schools.”
No, they really aren’t. They’re inefficient, but the big boys make money on bowls.
“That’s not my point though, the point is that the NCAA already plays games during the same period, so it’s not inconceivable for them to acquiesce to some (if not most) of the demands from the largest programs.”
Extra games in the lower divisions in 2012:
Semis on 12/7-8
Finals on 12/15 or 1/5
Otherwise, everyone ended their years on 12/1 or earlier.
I-A:
1 bowl on Saturday, 12/15 or 12/22-1/7
The big differences:
4 teams playing on 12/8 in the lower divisions
66 teams playing on 12/22 or later in I-A
It should be noted that the Ivy league does not participate in the playoff due to academic concerns. If I-A changed their postseason so conferences could have a 4 team tournament, that’s 7+ CCG on 12/8. Will academically oriented leagues like the ACC, B10 and P12 have qualms about that? B10 schools had finals 12/6-12/20 based on checking a few of them. I think they’ll take issue with that plan.
—
Lower division NCG teams played 15 games at most.
Per Division:
15 games – 2 teams
14 – 4
13 – 8
I-A now:
14 games – 12
13 – 70
New I-A Playoff:
15 games – 2
14 – 10
13 – 70
I-A already lets a lot more teams play more games than in lower divisions, and the wear and tear is greater in each game (players are bigger and faster, and thus have bigger collisions). Conference semifinals would mean another 12 teams playing an extra game.
New I-A Playoff plus Conference Semis:
16 games – 2
15 – 2
14 – 20
13 – 70
“I think for all the talk of leaving the NCAA, it’s just saber-rattling to emphasize that the NCAA needs them far more than they need the NCAA.”
They have never wanted to leave the NCAA. They want to split I-A again, though. If the top 64-80 left, they’d just have to form their own version of the NCAA. But they know that would cripple everyone else because they’d also take the hoops money with them. They just want to stop letting the have-nots dictate how things are done for the power schools. Both sides know it and the little guys will compromise eventually.
LikeLike
With a four-team conference play-off and a four-team national play-off, two teams might play 16- game seasons, while others are playing 12-game schedules. Is this fair? And wouldn’t it be smarter, if they were willing to extend the season that far, to add a game or two to the regular season, to bring in much more revenue for every school?
LikeLike
Why is that fair for everyone else in college football, but unfair for the top ranks? A 16-team championship for D1 Football Championship Division means a round of 16, a quarterfinal, a semifinal and a final for FCS teams every year.
LikeLike
D1 doesn’t want an NCAA sanctioned playoff. D1 doesn’t share any FB money. All other post seasons are NCAA events and they get, redistribute, and share in the income.
LikeLike
But the claim in the argument is not about revenue distribution its about the different number of games if a two game conference championship feeds a two game national championship. That it is, in other words, unfair for some top tier schools to have as many as three or four games more than most schools, when in the second tier D1 FCS with a four round knockout championship, two schools have three games and two schools have four games more than most schools in their division.
LikeLike
The fairness argument doesn’t fly. Look at basketball. Last year, Arkansas played 32 games, Kentucky played 40. Most of the difference is the post-season. Arkansas lost in the first round of the SEC tournament, and their season ended. Kentucky made it to the SEC championship game (losing to Vandy), and then to the NCAA championship game (beating Baylor).
Of course, other divisions of football have long had multi-round playoffs, and whatever the merits of that system, no one said it was unfair.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Of course, other divisions of football have long had multi-round playoffs, and whatever the merits of that system, no one said it was unfair.”
D-I still plays as many games and will play more with the new playoff. The lower divisions have a shorter regular season to allow for their playoff.
LikeLike
FCS has 11 regular season games (DII=10; DIII=9); 15 games for the 2 FCS schools that played the 2012 championship vs. 13 and 14 for FBS 2012 championship). The reason for shorter season in lower divisions is that almost none of these schools make money on football.
LikeLike
Mack,
“FCS has 11 regular season games (DII=10; DIII=9); 15 games for the 2 FCS schools that played the 2012 championship vs. 13 and 14 for FBS 2012 championship).”
And the smaller divisions have larger playoffs, leading to 15 games for 5 of the 6 non-IA NCG participants.
“The reason for shorter season in lower divisions is that almost none of these schools make money on football.”
That’s part of it, but they also end early to make room for the playoffs.
LikeLike
The playoff schedule means the regular season ends before FBS, but there are slots available to add a game in the regular season if that was desired by these divisions. FCS plays 11 games in 12 weeks. Eliminating the bye or pushing back the playoffs a week (semis about 20Dec; championship is already in January) will get FCS to 12. If these schools were making big money it would happen. The DII and DIII playoffs are on the same dates, so DIII could add a game just by limiting bye weeks to what DII has.
LikeLike
I doubt they’ll push their semis to 12/22. The lower divisions have avoided that like the plague. I-AA even avoided 12/15.
Nobody in a lower division is going to give up having a bye week. Every division has at least 1 by design and the presidents have zero intention of changing that. I-A has made money for a long time and still has a bye week.
The point isn’t whether there is room to add games. There always is. The point is that the presidents have avoided doing it. The lower divisions aren’t going to lengthen their season because the presidents don’t want that many games.
LikeLike
Yes, their regular season is one game shorter in the FCS, but the four round knockout championship STILL adds four games to the regular season.
The issue raised against a four round knockout championship in the FBS ~ which might come in a variety of forms ~ is that four extra games past the end of the regular season is unfair. This in a tier where nearly half of the schools play an extra exhibition game past the end of the regular season.
LikeLike
Sorry, Marc. I should have been more clear. I might have posted in the wrong place, too.
LikeLike
Sorry if I confused anyone with the above post, which I put in the wrong place. I was referring to the discussion about having three divisions.
LikeLike
More data on NFL fandom
http://deadspin.com/5980852/who-is-americas-favorite-nfl-team-facebook-data-offer-a-clear-winner
LikeLike
via John Infante (@john_infante) State borders drawn to make 50 states of equal population. Its interesting to think about how realignment would be different with different borders.
fakeisthenewreal.com/reform
LikeLike
Interesting stuff out of the ACC. There’s talk of moving the basketball conference tournament, presumably in some years, to Madison Square Garden. I don’t know how viable that is for them but going there at least for some years isn’t going to go down well with some fans of the Tobacco Road schools. 😉
ACC considers N.Y. for tournament
LikeLike
Not very viable if the ACC cannot even get Brooklyn (Barclays) to submit a bid. A no go for Madison Square Garden since it is looking for a long term contract and the new C7 league will provide one.
LikeLike
FOIA request unveils Sun Belt conference map with Appalachian State and Georgia Southern added.
http://www.appstatenation.com/2013/02/01/exclusive-foia-request-reveals-possible-sun-belt-expansion-plan/
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21628062/big-east-catholic-7-documents-note-688-million-in-realignment-funds
Talking points C7 lawyer to Aresco. $68.8 million in funds are discussed.
LikeLike
Great article. There is quite a lot of meat in that one. I don’t know if the Big East (or whatever entity claims to be the ‘Big East’) will ever be made whole, but judging by the layers of legal issues, the lawyers will.
LikeLike
We all know that recruiting rankings are an inexact science and that a lot more than stars matter in team success. That said, talent is key as well. The main problem I have with recruiting rankings is that they are like the NFL combine. They focus too much on measurables and don’t consider system fit, needs of the team, coaching, etc.
Athalon is using the last 5 years of Rivals rankings to estimate how talented the AQ teams are. They list the B10 teams in order of average class rank in the link above, but they also list each team’s cumulative record during those 5 years. That lacks you compare recruiting success to actual success, which is key.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/recruiting-ranking-big-tens-best-football-rosters
Key results:
1. OSU is #1, and has the best record. Take out Fickell’s year, and OSU’s record would crush that of anyone else.
2. OSU and MI have a huge lead over #3. MI’s lack of success shows the fit problem as RichRod needed different players than Carr or Hoke.
3. NE is a clear #3, with MSU and PSU almost tied for 4th.
4. On field success tends to correlate with recruiting success except for WI and NW (and MI under RichRod). Both those schools run systems designed to employ unique players that don’t always get highly ranked (too small, too big, too short, etc). Also, both have smallish classes which hurts their scores.
5. The middle of the B10 has no consistency in recruiting. Their rankings rise and fall as much as 50 places. This makes for a lot of parity and inconsistency on the field.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see all the data in one table.
LikeLike
There’s some truth to the system thing, though, as far as I can tell, Iowa and Glen Mason’s Minnesota tried to recruit the same type of players and run the same type of offense as Wisconsin; they just weren’t as successful.
LikeLike
I always thought WI was more unique in their player types. They’ve had the bigger RBs, for example, so their guys don’t get rated as highly since many schools would consider them FBs. They also grow those monster OL from guys that often weren’t highly ranked. They never needed a highly ranked QB to do what Alvarez or Bielema wanted. Iowa and MN were more conventional, just good at coaching up the players.
LikeLike
I used Phil Steele’s to do the same thing. Steele uses a composite of a ton of different services. OSU and UM are way ahead still.
I always used the data to prove to PSU fans that Paterno and Co. weren’t getting enough out of their talent. PSU was always #3 (unlike your Athlon results, which granted may have been skewed by our 40-50th ranked 2012 class) behind OSU and UM. Wiscy, Illinois, MSU, Iowa always fell in line behind PSU…although I can believe that MSU has moved up now.
The Big Ten really needs to put some time and money into recruiting….lagging too far behind.
LikeLike
Given the local recruiting grounds of each school, really only PSU in JoePa’s later years has underperformed their potential in recruiting by a lot. With their brand, money, and talent in their state and neighboring states, PSU should have done as well as Michigan.
LikeLike
Amen.
For all the junk PSU fans take about “worshiping” JoePa, most of us acknowledge that his teams underperformed consistently in his last 15 years. After 2004, most of the fan base wanted him and–more importantly–his regime gone.
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
“I used Phil Steele’s to do the same thing. Steele uses a composite of a ton of different services. OSU and UM are way ahead still.”
Yeah, all of the recruiting services roughly agree on that. I posted Athalon’s link because I liked how they put all the info into 1 table including the team records. I don’t particularly favor Rivals over the other guys, and Athalon is certainly not the only place to do analysis like this.
“I always used the data to prove to PSU fans that Paterno and Co. weren’t getting enough out of their talent. PSU was always #3 (unlike your Athlon results, which granted may have been skewed by our 40-50th ranked 2012 class) behind OSU and UM. Wiscy, Illinois, MSU, Iowa always fell in line behind PSU…although I can believe that MSU has moved up now.”
Remember that Athalon included NE. Without them, PSU would be a spot higher. And yes, last year’s score being 20% of the score didn’t help. I think you’ve already seen signs that BOB recruits better than JoePa. If he’s still around to get a full 25, I think he’ll compete with OSU and MI and NE.
“The Big Ten really needs to put some time and money into recruiting….lagging too far behind.”
Yes and no.
Internal factors that impact recruiting:
1. The B10 schools have handcuffed themselves with their internal rule against oversigning. The new rule coming from the SEC to the whole NCAA will help mitigate the damage, but not end the disadvantage. It has really hurt the B10 over the past 10 years, and will continue to hurt as other teams push the envelope of 85 every year.
2. The B10 schools tend to have higher academic standards for recruits than some other places. Most leagues will accept any NCAA eligible player, but most B10 schools won’t. Having higher standards reduces the pool of eligible talent. On a smaller scale, think about NW recruiting against other B10 schools. They handicap themselves because they keep some perspective on the role of football at the university. That’s how the B10 fares compared to many other leagues in general.
3. Typically the B10 schools have been hesitant to recruit JUCO players. In part that’s because MN is the only B10 state with a bunch of JUCO programs (KS, MS and CA also have a bunch), but also comes back to their attitude on academics. IL has a bunch coming this year, so it’s not a hard and fast rule, but you’ll see that other leagues tend to recruit more JUCOs than the B10.
Combined, that’s fewer recruits allowed and higher academic standards which shrink the talent pool. Those are self-imposed restrictions that limt how well the B10 can do in recruiting. Whether they should change or not is a personal opinion. I say no, but others disagree. Regardless, lower numbers will always mean lower rankings as class size is part of the formula.
External factors the B10 can’t control:
1. Recruiting rankings are based on who signs LOIs, not who actually makes it to school. Some of the services will go back and rerank the classes in fall after we find out who didn’t qualify academically, and this hurts the oversigning schools while helping the B10. Those rankings are more useful for comparison than the ones in February.
2. Recruiting rankings of players are heavily influenced by combines where the players get reliable measurements taken for size, weight and speed. Just as with the NFL, there is a lot more that goes into being a player than combine numbers. That doesn’t prevent recruiting rankings from overemphasizing athletic ability. This is why some schools can take 2 and 3 star players and build a great team.
3. Southern players tend to get ranked higher than northern ones. I suspect spring football is a big factor here as the southern players get a lot more reps and have more film to show. Again, this lets good coaches coach up recruits in the north to make great teams but hurts northern recruiting rankings.
4. SEC bias is also a factor. Once AL gives an offer, that recruit jumps in value. Until the B10 wins more big games, this will work against them.
5. Many of the best players are in the south. Simple geography says the B10 will always be at a disadvantage to get those players. In time, population may shift again due to political changes (midwest states going to right-to-work and attracting companies), enviromental changes (global warming causing issues that force people to move north) or for other reasons. Right now, the south has an edge.
Things the B10 can easily do and are doing to varying degrees:
1. Pay coaches, especially assistants, competitve wages so they can get the best. Better coaches attract better players.
2. Quit recruiting only locally. Most schools have branched out into TX, FL and other states outside the footprint. The more they do this, the better.
3. Take recruiting as seriously as the games. I think the B10 was complacent about recruiting for too long and fell behind. If any of the coaches ever believed in sill things like a gentlemen’s
agreement, they need to get over it. You compete until the LOIs come in.
4. Spend the time and money needed. As the NCAA is loosening up the rules, schools have to be prepared to compete. It doesn’t require strippers and blow, but you do have to wow the stars to get them. This includes stuuf like having the basketball crowd chanting their names at halftime of a game during a recruiting visit. The whole school has to help out anymore.
5. Move on from running system programs to aiming for athletic teams that play a system. It’s easy for a coach to get comfortable recruiting 2 star players for his system rather than competing with everyone for 4 star and 5 star players. There’s no reason the system wouldn’t work better with more talent.
LikeLike
The trick is to find 4-5 star players who have the right attitude and mindset to work well in your system, which may be difficult.
BTW, thinking about it more, I wouldn’t call Northwestern a system school (any more than OSU under Meyer is a system school).
The reason for the overperformance is due to 2 issues:
1. Heavy use of redshirting. This reduces recruiting classes (making the recruiting rankings worse) yet the players when they actually play are better than their rankings indicate.
2. Very little attrition due to off-the-field issues.
Maybe you can call that a system, and when Fitz can convince higher-rated kids with the right mindset to come, he will try to (and NU’s recruiting rankings have been rising). However, the right mindset is still key. Jettison your philosophy to chase 4-5 star guys who aren’t a good fit, and your performance on the field may not improve or may even become worse. I had UGa as one of the kings (along with PSU) who have really underperformed compared to what their brand, revenue, and local recruiting grounds predict they should have achieved, and one reason (along with no oversigning) may be the large amount of attrition in that program.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The trick is to find 4-5 star players who have the right attitude and mindset to work well in your system, which may be difficult.”
True, but the top teams are doing it. Not every good player is a diva.
“BTW, thinking about it more, I wouldn’t call Northwestern a system school (any more than OSU under Meyer is a system school).”
I would call OSU under Meyer a system school for offense. I don’t consider it a pejorative term. But with NW, I was referring more to the use of a bunch of small, quick receivers, superbacks and athletic passing QBs (not necessarily true dual threats like Braxton Miller, but like Persa) so they aren’t competing as much against other schools. They want a slightly different type of player, and then they have their academic requirements on top of that. It works fine for them on O, but D is where the lack of raw athleticism has hurt them traditionally. That’s slowly changing as they continue to win and so can recruit better players.
“The reason for the overperformance is due to 2 issues:
1. Heavy use of redshirting. This reduces recruiting classes (making the recruiting rankings worse) yet the players when they actually play are better than their rankings indicate.”
I did mention your class size as a factor. NW was only slightly behind OSU (1.1 fewer players per year), though. However, NW was much farther behind their performance peers to be fair (3.0 fewer players per year than IA).
“2. Very little attrition due to off-the-field issues.”
But they still have the other attrition (injuries, transfers, graduation, etc). This is also the flip side of the smaller class size point. You can only have smaller class sizes but not having as much attrition. As your talent gets better, you’ll have more attrition (NFL, transfers for PT) anyway.
“Maybe you can call that a system, and when Fitz can convince higher-rated kids with the right mindset to come, he will try to (and NU’s recruiting rankings have been rising). However, the right mindset is still key.”
Of course it is. But Saban feels the same way and gets elite players.
“Jettison your philosophy to chase 4-5 star guys who aren’t a good fit, and your performance on the field may not improve or may even become worse.”
See IL, perhaps.
LikeLike
“Of course it is. But Saban feels the same way and gets elite players.”
Yeah, and I’d say that ‘Bama has just a teeny bit of an advantage in some areas over Northwestern & the other non-kings in the B10.
For a school like Wisconsin, the question isn’t “do I try to emulate ‘Bama or OSU”, because they’re not that level of program, so the number of elite players who want to play for their system is much fewer. The question for them is “do I simply try to get the highest starred players possible, system be damned, or do I try to find the best players that fit my system”. They probably have (and will have) more success with the latter approach than the former.
LikeLike
My point is, even the elite schools have to pick guys who fit their systems and will fit in the team concept. That doesn’t stop them from getting elite players. It’s a convenient excuse for coaches to say that top players won’t fit in. Finding the top players that to want to go there is the only real issue.
Nobody says NW should recruit all the same players as AL, but they should recruit just as hard and compete for any elite player that meets their requirements. The problem is when coaches (and I’m not accusing Fitz of this) limit themselves because it’s easier to chase their usual level of players.
LikeLike
Seems that you’re knocking down a strawman.
I see no evidence of coaches not trying as hard as they can to maximize the number of the best possible players who fit their system. For example, maybe there are 10 4-stars in the Sun Belt who fit Wisconsin’s system and 10 3-stars in the Midwest who fit Wisconsin’s system. With the same effort, they would get 1 4-star kid but 5 of the 3-star kids. If they would have to fill the other 4 spots with 2-star kids instead, it would not make sense for Wisconsin to, essentially, follow the RichRod strategy (which resulted in the worst Michigan recruiting classes in recent history).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Seems that you’re knocking down a strawman.”
Your own example says otherwise.
“I see no evidence of coaches not trying as hard as they can to maximize the number of the best possible players who fit their system.”
How about equivalent schools in other parts of the country out-recruiting them?
“For example, maybe there are 10 4-stars in the Sun Belt who fit Wisconsin’s system and 10 3-stars in the Midwest who fit Wisconsin’s system. With the same effort, they would get 1 4-star kid but 5 of the 3-star kids. If they would have to fill the other 4 spots with 2-star kids instead,”
Coaches are paid ridiculously large salaries to put out however much effort is needed to get the best players. They work 60+ hour weeks in the off-season mostly just recruiting. Sure, it’s easier to get the 5 3-star players. But they’re paid to put in the work to get the 1 4-star and still get 4 3-star players.
“it would not make sense for Wisconsin to, essentially, follow the RichRod strategy (which resulted in the worst Michigan recruiting classes in recent history).”
This is just factually wrong. RichRod brought in strong classes and had the team turning around in his new offense. The problem was that his defense was poorly coached (he insisted on a 3-3-5 but hired a DC who had never run it) and a poor fit for MI’s players at the time. As soon as a good DC was brought in with Hoke, MI’s D was back to the top using RichRod’s recruits. Rivals put his classes at 10th, 8th and 20th, and the class a month after his firing was 21st. The problem is that his players were completely wrong for Hoke’s systems. He wasn’t blindly chasing stars, he was seeking players that fit his spread. His offense was unique enough that few top teams chased the same skill players, so he could get a bunch of highly rated players considered too small for other teams. They were the same sort of players he got at WV, but better.
His bigger problem was all the attrition he caused on top of Carr leaving him a problematic roster (so say MI fans). That led to some huge holes in the roster that didn’t get filled quickly.
LikeLike
Great post. I agree on all points. Thanks for putting in the time and thought.
LikeLike
We all know that recruiting rankings are an inexact science and that a lot more than stars matter in team success.
Having said that, it seems you’ve found that just 3 out of 12 teams have performed out of line with their recruiting rankings: Wisconsin and Northwestern over-performing, Michigan under-performing.
Even the Michigan example might well have turned around, had Rodriguez been given more time (not that I disagree with the decision to fire him). In the Big Ten, only WI and NW have actually managed to cheat their recruiting destiny year after year after year.
As I recall, other studies have found similarly: recruiting rankings are a remarkably accurate predictor of future team success. They dominate practically any other data point you could look at.
LikeLike
OT – Interesting goings-on at the University of Texas.
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/longhorns/2013/02/ut-football-regents-to-discuss-applewhite-incident/
Could this lead to calls for a new AD, as some are saying?
LikeLike
Texas to the SEC?
LikeLike
yes…..look at the termaination of Bev Kearney…..If it was just about Applewhite, it wouldn’t be a BOR issue, but handled within the athletics department…The statement put out by the BOR makes you wonder if Dodds disclosed this to the BOR before Kearney’s termination….It will be an intersting week in Austin…
LikeLike
Bev Kearney, a very successful track coach, had a relationship with one of the student-athletes she was coaching. Applewhite’s was with a female who was a student, but not someone he was coaching. They have to review the legal side of it.
LikeLike
There’s the sexual and sexual orientation issues.
LikeLike
The biggest issue here for UT is that Dodds forced the black, lesbian track coach out for it; yet let the ginger white, male ex-football star/RBs coach stick around after he found out about their situations.
LikeLike
Dodds doesn’t have anything to do with Kearney. UT is unique in having separate men’s and women’s athletic departments. Chris Plonsky runs the women’s department.
LikeLike
But it is a PR issue.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that Dodds didn’t run the women’s AD as well. But regardless, they are still open to a major lawsuit since the university forced her out, yet they basically covered up Major’s affair since he told Dodds about it a month after the Fiesta Bowl game. I’m guessing that is why the BOR called the emergency meeting for tomorrow. They might as well just give her a blank check and hope she just goes away.
LikeLike
She violated policy by not disclosing it and having it with an extended period with one of the athletes she was coaching. She deserves nothing. She screwed up big time. She was a 40 something coach having a relationship with one of her athletes. Its a shame. She was a great coach and a great story (she was in an auto accident and they told her she would never walk again, but she did).
There was no “coverup” with Applewhite. They just didn’t have a press conference for a personnel matter. When Kearney got fired, they couldn’t go without comment. His was admitted quickly, was not with an athlete he was coaching and was a one time thing.
They may well pay her but she doesn’t deserve a dime. They were very different offenses. She really crossed a line. UT couldn’t have her there. She wouldn’t be able to recruit either. And this was leaked directly or indirectly by her attorney, so I wouldn’t want her there or her to get anything. She’s just trying to burn everybody instead of accepting that she messed up and moving on.
LikeLike
There was some thought with Muschamp gone that Applewhite (who’s now 34-was 29-30 when this happened) might eventually replace Mack Brown. But clearly he has no chance to be head coach at Texas now. He did it with his wife 9 months pregnant.
LikeLike
I’m not saying she didn’t deserve getting pushed out. I just saying that that I think she’s about to get paid, regardless of how guilty she was. With the BOR calling the emergency meeting, I’m wondering what all else will happen.
LikeLike
As a spring sport for the BTN, the B10 should consider men’s volleyball. Granted, only 2 B10 teams currently play the sport, but it only costs 4.5 extra scholarships & no new building, so it should be fairly easy for 4 more schools to start up.
Women’s volleyball evidently gets decent ratings on the BTN and though average W volleyball attendance is higher, the majority of schools that sponsor both actually have their men’s program more highly attended.
I’ve always been mystified why more schools that don’t sponsor football don’t have both men’s and women’s volleyball programs.
LikeLike
RU makes 3.
Unless things have changed a lot recently, men’s volleyball isn’t very big in the midwest. You don’t have a lot of HS teams, so you have to import players. As you know, the last thing most schools need are more male scholarships on the books.
LikeLike
1. I believe that’s Rutgers-Newark and they’re now DivIII.
2. Depends on where in the Midwest, maybe. In Chicagoland, boy’s volleyball still doesn’t have as many programs as girl’s volleyball, but it’s a big enough sport that the Chicago Sun-Times devotes regular coverage to it and does a ranking.
LikeLike
It is Newark, good catch. The NCAA says they’re D-I in VB.
LikeLike
Transitioning to DivIII. You can look on their website.
LikeLike
I just went by the NCAA’s list. I’ll take your word for it. D-I is really small for men’s VB.
LikeLike
Title XIX. Not about men’s volleyball but the cost to offset this with women’s sports. Volleyball is part of the offset for most B1G schools. A lot of Olympic men’s sports have been dropped for XIX compliance. Very few new programs get started. Soccer is another popular offset sport. All football schools have to offset football with gender asymmetric Olympic sports.
LikeLike
Another example: Northwestern has Women’s lacrosse but not men’s.
LikeLike
Yes, Women’s soccer, swimming, volleyball, softball and XCountry is full, Men’s Soccer is 7/12, Illinois and Nebraska skip men’s swimming, only OSU and Penn State have Men’s Volleyball, Wisconsin skips baseball, Northwestern skips men’s XCountry. There are 7 paired gymnastics teams, while MSU skips men’s gymnastics. Of the six men’s ice hockey schools, OSU, Penn State, Wisconsin and Minnesota sponsor women’s ice hockey ~ Wisconsin and Minnesota in lieu of offsetting men’s ice hockey with women’s field hockey, OSU and Penn State so their women’s field hockey teams can be part of their football offset.
That’s why a Johns Hopkins as a 6th men’s Cross school is so attractive ~ now that there is likely to be a Big Ten women’s lacrosse championship, there are schools that might start up a women’s Cross team to allow them to start a men’s sport other than Lacrosse.
And why there were 6 LAX Schools in the BBigEast but only one at a football school, so when Rutgers left and the C7 left, there’s none left in the NuBigEast. Basketball-only schools just play both men and women in each sport and they’re good to go on Title IX.
Title IX is a case of accidental political genius for football, as far as internal University politics ~ it makes entire women’s sporting establishments stakeholders in big time college football as the goose that lays the golden egg.
LikeLike
What does Title IX mandate? Equal number of scholarships or equal number of roster spots?
LikeLike
The opportunity given each sex needs to be proportional to the undergraduate enrollment. But “opportunity” is a very broad term and encompasses far more than just scholarships, though clearly that is part of it.
Wikipedia has a good overview.
LikeLike
Sorta both.
LikeLike
“Equivalent treatment, benefits and opportunities” suggests both ~ proportionate to enrollment. USNWR says OSU main campus is 53% male / 47% female, so it seems like the Buckeyes athletic department should be very close to 50:50 in roster spots and scholarship benefits.
LikeLike
BTW, Title IX and the big gender disparity caused by football should lead schools to push for varsity status for competitive cheerleading and competitive dance squad (with scholarships, league meets and all that. I’m surprised that there isn’t more impetus.
LikeLike
Ohio St. has competitive cheer.
Most schools have 2 to 4 more women’s sports to offset the 85 scholarships for football. The NCAA allows more scholarships for women’s sports than the comparable men’s sport.
LikeLike
Right, but cheerleading and dance aren’t considered varsity sports yet so they don’t fulfill the Title IX requirements, I believe. Pushing those up to varsity status (with the requisite number of scholarships and competition structure) would do a lot to alleviate the gender inequality in Olympic sports.
LikeLike
Another sport that the B10 should push for (though it would not be easy to divide by gender) is curling. It actually makes for pretty compelling TV.
LikeLike
A winter Olympic must watch for me.
LikeLike
Like all things title 9, the courts have had their say on whether competitive cheerleading is a sport. So far, the answer is no:
LikeLike
Interesting. Its a lot like gymnastics. They have to be more athletic than in some sports which are more skill based.
LikeLike
However, rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming are likely options, since they are Olympic “sports”.
LikeLike
This is why I think competitive team dance and competitive cheer can be considered sports with the right institutional support. They really are no different from rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming.
In Illinois, the IHSA already considers competitive cheer and competitive dance as full varsity sports (lacrosse isn’t there yet).
LikeLike
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/02/quarterback_injuries_are_mobile_qbs_like_colin_kaepernick_more_injury_prone.single.html
According to Slate, running QBs don’t get hurt in the NFL any more than pocket passers. They also get similar injuries. The most dangerous play – getting sacked (duh!). Maybe the new college spreads will slowly take root in the pros.
LikeLike
They may be more agile. The most amazing thing about Johnny Manziel is how he manages to avoid taking big hits. He has a way of gliding by and making it minor.
LikeLike
Supposedly David Brandon spoke the other day about various topics (including expansion):
“Conference realignment…Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers…more coming in this new conference landscape, staying continuous is important. Closer to travel to Maryland and Rutgers than Nebraska…talked about how unusual it is with WVU being in the B12…continuous is nice. Somebody asked about ND and he said they made their choice and seem happy where they are headed…was brief when talking about ND.”
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/global-leaders-forum-dave-brandon
LikeLike
Another vote for UVA/UNC.
LikeLike
Yeah, UVa definitely seems like a lock for #15 if it ever happens. All depends on UVa/UNC and we all suspect they won’t be first movers (UNC certainly won’t be).
LikeLike
I don’t think they’re moving at all, to be honest. Anchors don’t move, they anchor.
What I do think is happening is that there are various factions within the Big Ten right now pushing for their own agendas. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the schools we’ve dismissed over the years don’t find their way back into the conversation.
LikeLike
I would put more of a chance on an ACC breakup than a Big 12 breakup though in the medium/long-term.
The ACC’s power base isn’t consolidated into two schools like that of the Big 12. In the Big 12, Texas holds most of the cards and OU holds the remainder in terms of schools that are going to determine the future of the conference.
With the ACC, the football power is concentrated in FSU/Miami/Clemson/Va Tech, whereas the actual “political” power and population base is concentrated around Tobacco Road and the anchor schools of UNC/UVa/etc.
It’s just a completely different dynamic because the anchor schools can’t really sustain a comparable contract on their own without the football schools in the current world where football is so important to the TV deals.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the schools we’ve dismissed over the years don’t find their way back into the conversation.
I would. Those “dismissed” schools were dismissed for one or more reasons, and those reasons haven’t changed. There isn’t an inexorable law compelling the Big Ten to expand. If none of the schools they want are available, there’s nothing wrong with continuing to wait, or just standing pat at 14 indefinitely.
Of course, none of us actually knows whom the Big Ten has dismissed, or for what reasons. We only think/em> we know, to varying degrees of certainty.
LikeLike
When the ship gets pushed by the waves and grounded, the anchors get dragged along too. If you are referring to UVA as an anchor, they may not be a first mover. But if they move, UNC will get dragged along somewhere as well, not necessarily in the same direction as UVA.
LikeLike
And when things change, do you really think North Carolina is going to want to stay here? Are they jumping for joy to play tournaments in Chicago and Indianapolis? Do they relish at the thought of traveling to Lafayette and Iowa City? Why do they want to give up everything they’ve worked so hard for?
LikeLike
They don’t WANT to move to either the arctics tundras of the Big Ten or the academic wasteland of SEC Football (to exaggerate the stereotypes). Its quite plausible that UNC only moves if the ACC is so destabilized that it can be sold as the old ACC existing in name only.
Which is why, despite all of the ACCpocalypse scenarios, the ACC suffering a couple of raids and otherwise surviving the decade intact is also a quite plausible scenario. If the SEC wanted expansion, decided UNC and Duke are not on the table, and Florida OK’d FSU, the SEC expanding with FSU and VTech is one obvious scenario, and its not clear that the move actually destabilizes the ACC enough to shake lose any of the Big Ten’s preferred expansion targets, let alone shake up the ACC enough to leave the Big 12 with any more options than they have today ~ targets that they have looked at and decided to wait and see if anything better becomes available.
LikeLike
I have to hope that some of that Harbaugh magic hasn’t rubbed off on Crean (he’s married to their sister) against Michigan tonight. To look at her you’d think she was Jim’s twin, which could spell doom for the boys in blue if they happen to catch a glimpse of her blinding gaze in the stands. Assembly Hall is a tough place to play, but the Michigan contingent should be in full force. GoBlue!
LikeLike
I’m thinking aloud here so bear with me. Now let’s say that they can only get to 16 and they can’t get the schools they want in the mid-Atlantic states except for the one that’s most rumored to be, so they have to go with one in the Northeast for that last spot. Who should that be? Well, knowing how the B1G operates, they want to leave themselves with options for when certain schools they covet are ready to move. In the case of the ACC, the last thing they would want then is for several coveted schools to go to their competition. We all know that UNC does not want to leave the ACC unless and until it is no longer viable. GT is to the southwest of NC and would be isolated if no immediate partners are taken. FSU is a stretch without available partners as well.
From my standpoint the last move would be to pick UConn over BC, along with UVa. Here’s why: remember when UConn was supposed to be the replacement for Maryland? Well, several football-first schools rallied and forced the ACC to pick Louisville, instead. Well, Cincinnati is another school that has a decent football program but with a smaller stadium. However, they’re in the Ohio Valley, in an area where there’s decent recruiting going on. Of course OSU gets the cream of that state but Cincy isn’t so bad, either. If UVa goes B1G, Cincy may just be enough to convince the likes of FSU to stay in the ACC for long enough until the timing is right to get the right mix of schools to access that oh-so-desirable Florida market. Cincy’s basketball is good enough that could be acceptable to the Tobacco Road schools. If BC were to go as well, two things could happen: either the ACC stays at 12 or several schools start looking for an out, which is what I’m afraid of. Those yahoos at BigXIILand are just salivating to get into Hotlanta and such. That would screw the B1G, long term. The name of the game is recruiting, despite what certain posters here think otherwise. Those SEC and BigXII yahoos know the B1G need to move into new markets and would do anything to win in the realignment chess game. The Northeast is nice and all but hockey isn’t going to win the long-term battle. If Virginia wants to join then Delany can’t refuse them.
Neither BC, UConn or Syr are sexy picks but UConn is one that fits more with the B1G’s desire for state flagship schools. They’re undergoing a serious push to elevate the quality of their research. Their sports shouldn’t be a question, especially in basketball. I think the new men’s BB coach is going to bring some gravitas back to that program. Even if they don’t win another championship they will remain competitive for some time. Football is much more iffy, although they were in a BCS bowl a few years ago, even though it was through a weak Big East season. However, they can expand their stadium if need be. UConn can give the B1G an entire state of over 3.5 million, plus a good portion of Massachusetts, while BC may not even get them the majority of Boston.
http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2013/01/uconn-state-officials-announce-launch-of-next-generation-connecticut-initiative/
LikeLike
Get the AAU membership first...then we’ll talk.
Sorry, but there’s simply too much resentment towards Connecticut, a feeling its rise to prominence was aided in large part by ESPN (even if that channel couldn’t deliver it to the promised land of the ACC, residue from the Blumenthal lawsuit of nearly a decade ago). The nouveau riche attitude of the fan base doesn’t help either. Many in the ACC, and probably the old-money Big Ten too, would like to see Storrs twist in the wind for a while.
LikeLike
I don’t think resentment is an issue at all. The ACC took Louisville over UConn because the Cardinals are better at football. Remember, UConn “penned in” (words of a conference source) before the football schools dug their heels in and demanded Louisville.
LikeLike
agree about the AAU membership. I take the COP/C at its word that AAU membership is a requirement. My view: only ND is an exception to that rule.
I do not think FSU will be an exception to that rule. If we assume it is true the Oklahoma was told “no” on academic grounds, then I don’t think FSU is getting an invitation.
LikeLike
Zero chance the B1G adds UConn. Relative academic lightweight that was playing FCS a decade ago.
LikeLike
Would Pitt be acceptable, then? Only AAU left in the Northeast that is in an AQ league. Not a rhetorical question.
LikeLike
It depends on the needs of the conference (which are unknown) and the number of acceptable candidates (also unknown). People here seem to think no, given what little we’ve been able to cobble together. I’m not so sure.
LikeLike
UVA/15 & Pitts /16 Both AAU . Pitts more reaearch money than UVA. Then see what happens .
LikeLike
Well, it’s not all just research dollars. Pitt doesn’t have a very large fanbase I’m afraid.
I do think they’d be a politically safe choice though; not too many alumni are going to off an AD’s ear because they were added.
LikeLike
Ahem. “Going to go off on an AD in his ear.”
LikeLike
add me to the pro-Pitt camp. I understand the arguments about no new markets and the football product is not stellar. However, Pitt has to be a candidate if the B1G wants to get to 16 or 18 or 20. Aside from Ivy League and small, non-sports schools, there are just not that many AAU schools left, particularly out east.
In the ACC: UNC, Duke, UVA, GT and Pitt. Although rarely discussed, another option out east is Buffalo University. Then we have Kansas out west. That is pretty much it. Seven schools.
In my view, Pitt is on the table as an option despite being in the footprint. I’ll discuss Buffalo below.
LikeLike
Pitt has the academic credentials, but doesn’t add markets, doesn’t increase Tier 1 value, is second fiddle in their own city (which B1G already owns), and would not be financially accretive. Adding Pitt would be adding for the sake of expansion fever.
Buffalo has less than zero chance and is absolute crazy talk.
LikeLike
Unless three compelling adds are available but require an answer to guarantee all three come to the Big Ten, and a fourth is required to even things out, which is getting into the deep grass as far as permutations and combinations of expansion scenarios.
But it would have to be three compelling adds, or two compelling adds and the third required by one or the other of those two. If its just “three good adds are available”, given the increasing awkwardness with increasing size, the obvious solution is “take the best two of those three”.
LikeLike
Pitt won’t get an invite from the B10 any time soon. B10 would need to get shut out of all its ACC targets: ND, NC, Virginia, Duke, GT before they even considered Pitt or UConn, Syracuse, etc.
LikeLike
So unless the ACC is rock solid, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse aren’t on the radar. Even then the B10 might even chase after Missouri, Kansas, Vanderbilt before they’d go after Pitt and those schools in the northeast.
LikeLike
So unless the ACC is rock solid, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse aren’t on the radar. Even then the B10 might even chase after Missouri, Kansas, Vanderbilt before they’d go after Pitt and those schools in the northeast.
Why chase anybody? There isn’t some inexorable law compelling the Big Ten to add two, four, or six more members. If they can’t get the schools they want, there is no dishonor in doing nothing — in fact, that’s probably the option most fans would prefer.
LikeLike
So Pitt can only be a 16th in a 2-school expansion or an 18th in a 4-school expansion, since it adds approximately zero dollars, but is unobjectionable from the academic side and is close enough to a Prince that the t-shirt fans won’t be up in arms over it.
Who is the 15th that would be available as a single add, and would be so compelling that it adds more than 1/7 of the current prospective revenue? Who are the 15-17th so compelling that they add more than 2/7 of the current prospective revenue on their own, and just need an 18th that won’t generate any new objections on its own?
LikeLike
ND, FSU, ???
LikeLike
@Transic: UConn is non-AAU, does not deliver a desirable market, is not contiguous with the conference’s existing territory, and is not good at football. That’s four strikes against it.
If the B1G were willing to alter its principles to THAT extent, there’s a lot of schools that come into play, many of which are FAR more useful to the B1G than UConn.
The B1G would add UVA by itself, before it would add UConn as #16. Delany would figure that once he’s pried a second founder school away from the ACC, the next one won’t take that long to materialize.
Anyhow, UVA is probably not going to leave the ACC, unless it already has very good reason to believe that others are leaving soon. If Delany gets UVA, he’ll get GT, UNC, Duke, and/or FSU not long thereafter. All of those would be much preferred to UConn.
They’re undergoing a serious push to elevate the quality of their research.
That’s true, but so are a lot of schools, including FSU. If the B1G is going to take an academic “fixer-upper,” it will have to be a school that makes an extremely compelling case in every other respect. FSU does that; UConn doesn’t.
Would Pitt be acceptable, then? Only AAU left in the Northeast that is in an AQ league. Not a rhetorical question.
If they were that desperate, I do think the B1G would prioritize Pitt over UConn, but not enough to actually invite them. They could just go with an odd number of schools for a while, knowing that the game of musical chairs is not over.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd (and many many others):
Sorry, no offense and this is just discussion. I am not flaming you in particular or any on this board.
But, I must go on record as saying that the optimism here is way way way over the top. You said: “If Delany gets UVA, he’ll get GT, UNC, Duke, and/or FSU not long thereafter.”
No offense, but there is simply zero reason to believe this is true.
In my view, UVA is NOT even close to a lynchpin for the ACC.
Don’t discuss “founding member,” because a founding member has already left. Being a “founder” is not relevant to whether a school is a lynchpin. Think B1G. How many founding members are true lynchpins of the B1G? I think it is 3, certainly no more than 4 or 5.
The ACC is not falling apart simply because UVA ends up in the B1G.
The ACC is not falling apart even if UVA and GT end up in the B1G as a package deal. Neither are lynchpins.
My view: The ACC is not falling apart under any circumstances unless UNC and Duke leave. I don’t think UNC and Duke are moving to another conference. I’ve read no persuasive argument that they are leaving. I’ve read no persuasive argument that the ACC will ever be sufficiently destabilized for UNC and Duke to leave.
Thus, the ACC will not be falling apart.
My evidence: the Big East. How many teams have left the Big East over the years? Even with the C-7 leaving, the Big East is still going to be a football conference. More relevant question: how many teams had to leave and how long did it take to “knock loose” ND? By my count, 5 and about a decade. So, that could be a model for the ACC being destabilized. However, I argue the ACC has a big advantage: a larger pool of just-as-good replacement teams/schools. See: Maryland and Louisville.
Anyway more evidence: the BXII. They lost two of their best teams and a third team (all of which were AAU when they left the conference). The BXII did not fall apart. Yes, it almost did, but it did not. Unlike the Big East, the BXII has good replacement options. The ACC also has good replacement options.
More evidence: the MWC. for the last five years, the MWC has been a carousel of teams on and off. The MWC did not fall apart.
More evidence: the only conference that has “fallen apart” is the WAC.
In short, I think it is WILDLY optimistic to think that the B1G is going to get every AAU member from the southern part of the ACC. It is WILDLY optimistic to think the ACC is destabilized by the loss of UVA and GT to the extent that UNC and Duke and every other team jumps ship. There is simply zero evidence that such would be true.
Again, not flaming @ anyone in particular. Just I think there are a lot of assumptions being made without any evidence or logic to suggest said assumption are accurate.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau: You’ve misinterpreted me. I’ve said multiple times in this forum that I believe the ACC will survive.
I was replying to the very specific suggestion (by @Transic) that if UVA were the Big Ten’s #15, UConn would be #16. All I said was two things. 1) The Big Ten would probably prefer to remain at 15 schools than to take UConn; 2) If they get UVA, then at some point they’ll probably get at least one more ACC school. I wasn’t saying they’ll get ALL of the ACC schools that they covet.
My evidence: the Big East. How many teams have left the Big East over the years? Even with the C-7 leaving, the Big East is still going to be a football conference.
That’s pretty poor evidence. The entity we now call the Big East has lost every original member except UConn. Its two oldest remaining members (Cincinnati and South Florida) joined in 2005. Every other member except Temple has yet to play a league game. For all intents and purposes, the Big East did not survive, other than its brand name. It is practically an entirely new conference.
LikeLike
@MS.
sorry didn’t mean to misinterpret. Your points are well taken.
as for the Big East and the ACC surviving, yes I understand. ultimately, it depends on how we define “survive.” the Big East survived the first raid by the ACC, but didn’t really “survive ” the second (Pitt & Syr).
the point I was trying to make — and you’ve made this point too — is that ACC will survive the first few “raids” because they have replacement options that the Big East did not have.
LikeLike
btw, this point about the ACC having replacement options really goes to the point of whether the ACC can be/will be destabilized sufficiently to “knock loose” UNC.
as I’ve stated, barring some scenario where 4-8 schools leave en mass, I do not think the ACC will ever be sufficiently destabilized to knock loose UNC.
LikeLike
oh, and Gailikk’s point (below) is a good one. the last time a block of 4-5 teams was considering moving en mass — Texas, Okla + 2 or three — ESpin stepped in.
I think something like that would be likely again, particularly since the ACC is ESpin “inventory” which would be going over to Fox.
ESpin will not accept that without a fight. As Gailikk argues, below, Espin will offer the ACC more money as a pure business decision to prevent UVA, UNC, Duke and GT becoming Fox “inventory.”
Again, this leads me to believe that UNC and Duke are never going to get knocked loose from the ACC.
Since there will be no “north carolina bridge” to the State of Georgia, if GT wants in the B1G, will the COP/C make an exception to the “contiguous” rule? Don’t know.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
Actually, the last time a bloc of schools tried to leave en mass it was the C-7 and ESPN didn’t do a damn thing try and stop it.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau ~ there is no contiguous rule, though it seems to be a strong preference of some stakeholders. GTech has enough Big Ten engineering schools to speak up for it to overcome that drag.
LikeLike
How many football members in the Big East are still there that were there in 2003? Big East which once had Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers & Boston College is diminished to a league on the caliber of about the MWC.
No, I don’t see the ACC dissolving like the WAC but its not much of a reach to see them having the same fate as the Big East
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“But, I must go on record as saying that the optimism here is way way way over the top. You said: “If Delany gets UVA, he’ll get GT, UNC, Duke, and/or FSU not long thereafter.”
No offense, but there is simply zero reason to believe this is true.
In my view, UVA is NOT even close to a lynchpin for the ACC.”
I read that same sentence in an entirely different way. To me, he was saying that by the time the ACC is vulnerable enough for UVA to choose to leave, then the other targets will be considering moving, too.
“My evidence: the Big East. How many teams have left the Big East over the years? Even with the C-7 leaving, the Big East is still going to be a football conference.”
The BE is not the same but you talk like it is. The original BE was a power conference. The current BE lost AQ status. The future BE will barely beat the MAC and SB. The BE still exists tecnically, but it fell apart a long time ago.
“However, I argue the ACC has a big advantage: a larger pool of just-as-good replacement teams/schools. See: Maryland and Louisville.”
There is no pool of equivalent replacements for UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, GT, FSU, Clemson and Miami.
“In short, I think it is WILDLY optimistic to think that the B1G is going to get every AAU member from the southern part of the ACC. It is WILDLY optimistic to think the ACC is destabilized by the loss of UVA and GT to the extent that UNC and Duke and every other team jumps ship. There is simply zero evidence that such would be true.”
I don’t necessarily disagree, but there is no evidence for either side of the argument. Every conference is unique. The power, culture and money issues are different every time.
LikeLike
He’s got a point If UVA leaves for the big 10, I see no reason that the ACC falls apart .They just add 2 more when we also take Pit. North Carolina might even be happy about it as they get rid of a team that plays football. Then we wait, maybe Florida joins the AAU or UNC stops worrying about being southern. Who knows, but waiting does not hurt. This does not have to be done this year or next year for that matter.
LikeLike
Importantly, while the SEC getting UNC/Duke could quite easily tip the scales on the Big Ten getting UVA and GTech, the reverse is not necessarily true. If the Big Ten moves first, because UNC/Duke has said no to the SEC offer, it could just as easily be “HELL NO” as “well, not right now, talk to us if things change”.
GTech and UVA to the Big 10 as a first move might not shake anybody else lose: that is, it might free up VTech for the SEC and nobody else on the SEC’s long list. And just GTech and UVA leaving might not shake loose the “right” combination of schools for the Big12 to move.
LikeLike
It will not stop at VA/GT to B1G and VT to SEC. The SEC will need #16. If FSU is SEC#16 maybe there is no one willing that the B12 wants. However, the SEC can throw a bomb in the entire NC political system by going for NC State. NC could try to block (don’t count trustee votes, count politicians; about 99% of NC State alumni will favor the SEC), take the #16 SEC spot for itself, or get a bid from the B1G with Duke. Even if the ACC just loses FSU and VT it is much weaker in football. If the SEC really wants into NC for their network NC State may be the way in. The SEC believes it branding will bring the school’s athletic standing up over the next decade (it worked for SC). If the SEC goes after NC State that leaves FSU, Clemson, and Miami available for the B12. No one really knows what the SEC will do EXCEPT that it will not just take one school.
LikeLike
C. Toda,
“He’s got a point If UVA leaves for the big 10, I see no reason that the ACC falls apart .They just add 2 more when we also take Pit.”
The B10 has no reason to add Pitt. All they would do is dilute the money. They don’t add a brand or a market.
“North Carolina might even be happy about it as they get rid of a team that plays football.”
UVA is their oldest rival in football (the South’s Oldest Rivalry) and FB does matter to UNC. UVA is also a rival in other sports and an academic peer. They would not be happy to lose UVA.
LikeLike
Okay I have to point this out because I hear so much about the ACC dissolving after expansion. But I have thought over this and I wanted to point out that while the ACC is likely to dissolve in massive expansion scenarios, they will survive in the most likely scenario. So bear with me and tell me what you think.
1. If the B1G and SEC go to 20 teams, the ACC is truly dead. This I understand because it means 12 of the 14 teams in the ACC are gone and the remaining two teams are probably moving to the BIG 12. I consider this to be the least likely scenario because I just don’t see 20 team divisions happening. In fact prior to the PAC 10 trying to get to 16, no one had thought of that idea.
2. If the B1G and SEC go to 18 teams the ACC is still dead but everyone is looking in one direction. So if the B1G gets FSU, Ga Tech, Miami, and Virginia then the SEC grabs Va Tech, NC State, and either UNC/Duke or Pitt and Louisville. That leaves Clemson, Wake, BC, Cuse, and either UNC/Duke or Pitt and Lousiville. So every one has assumed that the BIg 12 would absorb the remaining schools. But everyone has forgotten about the PAC 12. Currently there is no expansion in their plans but if you are the remnants of the ACC and you have a choice of a Big 12 that makes 20 mil/year or you could jump to the PAC 12 who make 23 mil/year. And if you are NC and Duke, getting Cuse, BC, Clemson, and UConn to create the eastern wing of the PAC gives you a league to rule, a lot more money than the Big 12, and access to a network that’s already in place. This seems more likely to me than the Big 12 idea, but no one is mentioning the PAC for some reason. I still think this plan is unlikely, but if it happened then the PAC would be the greatest basketball conference with UCLA, Arizona, Duke, UNC, Uconn, Cuse, and if lucky Pitt or Louisville rather than Clemson.
3. This is the most likely scenario that I can see and is most likely to happen. Lets say the B1G and SEC expand to 16 and both take two teams from the ACC. As long as UNC and Duke are still in the ACC it means that the ACC survives. And here is why, the ACC pulls a big 12 move, runs to ESPN and starts pointing out that they have Notre Dame and that if the league dissolves that ESPN loses half their content. ESPN was willing to pay the Big 12 the same rate for 10 teams once Nebraska and Colorado left, does anyone think that ESPN won’t tell the ACC to grab UConn and someone else and just pay the conference the same money. And don’t forgot that with the addition of Notre Dame that the ACC could ask for more money (thats five premier games a year for ESPN). So the ACC could ask for 12, 18, or 24 million more per year for this.
Suddenly the ACC is making 21 mil/year (more than the Big 12) and they have 5 teams exit fees to add to the package. Since the ACC could divide those exit fees amongst the ACC teams that are left, your talking between 100-250 mil. Figure 150 mil, which is another 1 mil/yr per team in the league for the length of the ACC contract. All of the sudden the ACC is making 22 mil/year, has a better contract than the Big 12 and if they tell everyone to sign a GOR or something to guarantee this I am sure Wake, Duke, UNC, Pitt, Cuse, and anyone that wasn’t taken by the B1G or SEC would rather stay in place and make that larger paycheck. And who knows, the ACC might convince ESPN to give them some content back, or just pay more, anything to save the ACC. I figure if the Big 12 did it and they are only as valuable as Texas that the ACC can do it since without them ESPN has lost half its sport content.
LikeLike
Your #2 isn’t likely; the Big Ten may take Florida State if it feels it has to infiltrate Florida, but not Miami — certainly not until it gains AAU status and fully serves its NCAA penalties. Duke won’t go to the SEC under any circumstances, and that might make UNC hesitant to go there. If they go as a pair, it will be to the Big Ten.
There will be some sort of league called the ACC 15 years from now, but it probably will be more along the lines of what the Big East will soon become.
LikeLike
Florida State only wants to join the Big XII if it has ‘multiple’ rivals (Clemson, Miami are the rumored guesses, GT is a possibility if the B10 passes on them) while the Big XII is really opposed to more than 12 teams. No idea what side will cave but that along with the Maryland exit fee is what is holding up the imminent ACC implosion… Virginia has pretty much agreed to join the B10…
Then the SEC and B10 will battle for NC who if like FSU is rumored to want to bring along a rival with them (Duke), If both the B10 and SEC seem willing to take Duke, it’s largely up to NC where they wish to go.
LikeLike
If both the B10 and SEC seem willing to take Duke, it’s largely up to NC where they wish to go.
1. Duke doesn’t want to be part of the SEC — it’s a horrible cultural fit for that school. Case closed.
2. If UNC truly wants to go to the SEC and needs a partner, it may have no choice but to bring NCSU along for the ride. For political reasons, State can’t be stranded in a castrated ACC, and there’s no guarantee the Big 12 wants the Wolfpack (or vice versa).
It’s the easiest solution for all concerned to have UNC and Duke join the Big Ten and NCSU the SEC, leaving Wake as the ACC’s only North Carolina school (unless it then decides it finally needs East Carolina).
LikeLike
yeah I noted that the first two were unlikely to happen.
LikeLike
FSU finished #3 in the latest Director’s Cup standings for overall sports and consistently in Top 10 …Miami finished #111. FSU may not ever get a B1G invite…Miami certainly won’t (for numerous reasons).
LikeLike
#1: The B12 is not going to take WF or BC. Even if the B1G and SEC just take FSU and 5 other schools there may only be 2 schools left that the B12 would take. B12 more likely to take 4 if FSU is available.
#3: If the B1G and SEC take the 4 most valuable schools from the ACC everyone else will be looking to bail and the B12 can take another 4 and kill the league. As far as ESPN, if the SEC expands it has all that new inventory to broadcast. ESPN is not going to give Syracuse, BC, WF, Louisville, and Pitt a lot of money.
The ACC will survive unless the B1G and SEC strike within a few weeks of each other since the ACC can reload.
LikeLike
Yes, the ACC as an organization seems likely to survive if the first two raids are separated by as little as a month ~ “survive”, that is, in the sense of the car that is twenty years old though most parts have been replaced in the past ten, most of the football side of the old Big East plus whomever got left behind in the shuffle ~ perhaps Buffalo from the MAC.
And its no guarantee that the Big 12 expands by a massive number ~ if fear makes a number of ACC schools available to the Big12, the Big 12’s inclinations seem to be toward fewer. It could end up being only six schools raided, which would leave some recognizable ACC remnant as part of the NuACC.
LikeLike
Actually, it doesn’t matter how spaced out the first two raids are as long as they both occur before August 1.
LikeLike
To reiterate something I harped on before, if ESPN was interested in bailing out the ACC they wouldn’t have low balled them when they renegotiated their TV deal last year. Plus, if ESPN wasn’t willing to bail out the Big East why would they bail out the new Big East?
(Also, ESPN would only 2.5 ND games a year under the ACC arrangement. NBC keeps the games in South Bend)
LikeLike
According to a few people at the ACC meetings (or in the know supposedly), ESPN was pushing very hard to get Notre Dame to commit to six conference games.
This was just forum chatter, so it could just be nonsense.
LikeLike
It makes sense from ESPN’s POV. The more they get ND, the better. It would hurt NBC and help them but wouldn’t cost them much more.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t hurt NBC, as they only get the rights to Notre Dame home games. The ACC games are replacing Big Ten games and perhaps random Pac 12 and Big 12 games.
It hurts FOX (who has part of the Pac 12 & Big 12 package) and the value of the Big Ten package (which is going up for bidding soon).
LikeLike
Going from 5 games to 6 means ND has yet another home and home series on their schedule.
5 ACC + Navy + USC + Stanford + PU = 9
Add another ACC game and you’re at 10 HaH series, plus there are games against UT, OU, Pitt, etc. ND is losing home games by playing a 6th ACC game, so NBC is hurt.
LikeLike
My impression is that ND was already going away from ‘buy’ games, and that any additional ACC games would have to take the place of games against schools like Arizona State and Texas.
LikeLike
They may not buy games, but they still get 2 for 1s with schools like BYU I believe. ANd yes, I’m sure some of those games will go away due to the ACC games. I doubt UT and OU drop off the schedule, though.
LikeLike
Mr Frug,
So your saying that if ESPN was faced with a business decision of cost for TV rights and someone neglected to get other offers that I wouldn’t underpay them? Well now fact forward to 2012 and you have invested 240 mil/yr into the content of the ACC on your network (which is half of whats on your network), what makes more sense, losing half your content (for which you pay 240?) or to then reup contracts with the B1G, SEC, and Big 12 to try and get more games, for which you will more than likely exceed 240 mil/yr to make that happen. Remember, ESPN would then have to replace all that ACC content that just disappeared with other college sport content while two of those above conferences now have their own networks.
I said the same thing a few years ago when ESPN then turned around and paid the Big 12 to stick around, did it make sense? Sure from a business perspective it did. And that’s why I THINK (emphasizing my thoughts so no one crucifies me for it) that put in that situation a second time that ESPN will go with the best business decision.
Your mistake Mr. Frug is that you are taking a pair of past decision (non bailout of the Big East and TV contract with the ACC) and using that solely as the indicator. If you look at the whole of the ESPN decisions, not bailing out the Big East made sense, no value in that conference. And as I noted above, why not screw the ACC they were dumb enough to alienate the other competitors and give you a chance to “bend them over” if you will.
I guess I just look at all of that when I think of the third scenario above. Not saying I’m right, just that I agree with good business decisions and that would be one (I think)
LikeLike
Sure the ACC will survive. If the Big12 and SEC and BIG grab some ACC teams, ESPN will have access to those teams via T1 deals with those leagues. The ACC will reload from the BigEast giving ESPN (filler) content that they otherwise would not have access to.
LikeLike
First off, please call be frug. Mr. frug was my father.
As for your substantive points
1. The ACC does not account for half of ESPN’s content. It may be their largest provider, but it is not even close to half.
2. Your mistake Mr. Frug is that you are taking a pair of past decision (non bailout of the Big East and TV contract with the ACC) and using that solely as the indicator.
And your mistake is taking a single decision (the bailout of the Big XII) and using it as your sole indicator. (And for the record, Fox was actually more responsible for the Big XII bailout than ESPN.)
Is it possible that ESPN could save the ACC like the Big XII. Sure. But it is equally possible that they view the ACC like they did the Big East and are content to let it die.
LikeLike
Sorry Frug, just my military training kicking in there. I’ll stay more informal.
LikeLike
And to all you guys, thanks for the conversation, I just wanted to express my opinion (albeit not always well). I think we all understood it even if we don’t agree.
LikeLike
No problem dude.
LikeLike
Is it possible that ESPN could save the ACC like the Big XII. Sure. But it is equally possible that they view the ACC like they did the Big East and are content to let it die.
I doubt the ACC’s basketball value comes close to the football value of the Big 12, ESPN may come to the conclusion that UNC and Duke won’t add that much over the long haul, particularly in the post-K era.
LikeLike
Well, this brings up an important point. I really don’t think ESPN wants the ACC to die (just as I don’t believe that they wanted the Big 12 to die in 2010). This is a far different scenario from the Big East (where an entire year’s worth of Big East football and basketball games was less than the rights to about 1 half of 1 Monday Night Football game). The difference between the ACC and Big 12 rights isn’t *that* much where ESPN wouldn’t be able to kick in enough to prevent a collapse (and they might be already to kick in that amount with the contract being renegotiated as part of Notre Dame being added). ESPN has faaaar more invested in the ACC among multiple channels than it has had with the Big East. Also, the difference between having 4 top tier leagues in college football versus 5 is pretty significant to ESPN. ESPN knows what kind of bill that they’d have to pay the Big Ten if it’s a 16/18/20 team conference in 2016 and it wouldn’t be pretty for them, so I think they’ll pay enough to prevent that from happening. Having an SEC that’s the same size would be even more of a nightmare. Now, that doesn’t mean that the ACC would come close to matching the Big Ten or SEC, but they could certainly get on par with the Big 12 and Pac-12 and be at a point where even if a UVA-type wants to head to the Big Ten, there wouldn’t be a complete exodus. I think a lot of us are quick to talk about leagues getting killed off, but the Big 12 somehow survived beyond all logic (and I still think that once you take away Texas and Oklahoma, the balance of the Big 12 isn’t anywhere near as valuable as the bottom half of the ACC) and the Big East still exists as an entity despite having only 3 full all-sports members as of today. Even in the worst case scenario where half of the ACC leaves, the remainders of the ACC would still be better version of what the Big East was in 2003 (weaker than everyone else, but still had enough brand names and markets to be in the top tier) just as the Big East has become a better version of C-USA.
LikeLike
Frank – thanks for the post. I’ve been writing for weeks that ESPN would probably save the ACC if it needed saving.
I’ll go a little further and say that the ACC could lose four schools and end up stronger. Let’s say the B1G strikes first and snags #15 UVA and #16 GA Tech as most on this blog believe. VA Tech no longer has its sister school in conference and no hope of joining the Cavs in the B1G, so they ask the SEC if they are interested. The SEC says yes and takes the Hokies as #15. The SEC then kicks UNC talks into overdrive, but UNC has too many Texas-like demands and the Tar Heels would ultimately rather preserve the ACC. The SEC then tells Florida State its now or never, and FSU jumps to the SEC as #16. The Big XII then initiate dialogue with Clemson and Miami, but ESPN steps in and throws the ACC a Big XII-like lifeline. The ACC stays at 10, keeps the current revenue based on a 14 team league, half the schools get to play Notre Dame every year, and they cut a little dead weight from basketball. A round robin schedule along with getting the Irish at home every four years may be compelling. The Heels can then sit back in a Texas-like fashion knowing that they beat super conference expansion without participating, and made more money.
LikeLike
The difference is that the XII still had TX and OK. After losing the two most valuable schools (FSU, VT) you expect ESPN will pay the ACC more? In SEC terms that would be like paying more for the conference after AL, GA, FL, and LSU left. The other difference is that the XII had a contract that was way below current market prices. ESPN renewed early with some financial engineering but took advantage of its years left on the old contract. I suspect that the arbitration clause for change of composition required a market value analysis. ESPN determined that the current value of the schools left in the XII was worth more than what ESPN was paying; therefore, there was no legal way to reduce the payment. Most of the new money to the XII was from FOX tier 2 contract. The ACC contract is close to market value and will be above market value if they lose FSU, VT, GT, and VA.
LikeLike
@Gailikk: Some of the combinations of schools you’ve listed are quite bizarre (e.g., Clemson to the Pac-12). However, your bottom-line conclusion is correct: the ACC will survive, barring an unlikely scenario where it loses 10 schools in 2 weeks, or something like that.
Outside of that doomsday scenario, the ACC will just keep replenishing from the Big East. Even if it loses its 6-8 best programs, the ACC is a more valuable name than the Big East, hence schools from the latter will gladly join the former, any day of the week.
The main flaw of your various scenarios, is that you assume conferences will expand for expansion’s sake. This is untrue. Conferences don’t expand unless they make more money (per school) than they were making before. And most conferences have other requirements, as well, such as AAU membership in the Big Ten’s case.
Your scenario where ESPN pays the ACC more than it pays the Big XII is really wacky. To point out just one of its many flaws, the ACC does not have five Notre Dame games a year; it has five every two years, because the games in South Bend will be on Notre Dame’s TV deal, not the ACC’s. The incremental value is less than you’re imagining, because Notre Dame often has ACC teams on its schedule anyway; for instance, the Irish already have road games on their future schedules with BC and Syracuse.
LikeLike
@MS: agree wholeheartedly with your second and third paragraphs.
For those and many other reasons, I just don’t see the B1G going to 18 or 20.
The B1G only goes to 18 if they get some magical luck and all the southern ACC AAU schools (UVA, GT, Duke and UNC) join as a block. Then to get to 20, the B1G would take 2 of Kansas, Pitt or Univ. of Buffalo. In my view, the B1G is not taking a non-AAU member other than ND.
but as you say, ##19 and 20 need to bring added value to offset the fact that the pie is cut by two more slices. Other than ND, no ##19 and 20 options bring enough value.
For me, the big question is “how serious is the COP/C about the requirement of geographical contiguousness”? This is GaTech’s problem. Even if Delany has or will successfully pry UVA loose, and even if GT wants to join, Georgia is not contiguous.
Those seem ‘good’ additions ##15 & 16 because they add markets, recruiting grounds, population, demographics, etc. And at this point, the BTN and tv money “pie” is growing, so existing schools are still getting more $$ even if there are more slices.
But would the COP/C make an exception for UVA & GT even though GT is non-contiguous? Don’t know.
LikeLike
…would the COP/C make an exception for UVA & GT even though GT is non-contiguous?
Geographic contiguity is over-rated. Most Big Ten schools will fly to games/meets in New Jersey, Maryland, and if they join, Virginia. Once you’re in the airplane, flying to Georgia is no great leap. GT is rather easy to get to (compared to, say, Lincoln), since they play in Atlanta, a city with extremely good airline connections. Any given Big Ten team would have, at most, one trip to Georgia per season.
It’s really GT who’d be making the big sacrifice, as now they’d have no geographically close rivals at all, and they’d be facing the prospect of November football games in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Anyhow: assuming the TV numbers make sense, I am pretty sure the Big Ten would accept Georgia Tech as a combo with Virginia.
LikeLike
again, points well taken, particularly the “once-we-are-on-an-airplane” point.
agree that GT makes the biggest “sacrifice,” but various teams will have to fly North down to Atlanta. So there is some cost/sacrifice there. Is that offset by being able to recruit; have a high-profile game in a southern area (again recruit-related): etc.? Don’t know. But if GT wants in and is accepted, then everyone will fly and play their games where needed.
as said, I think UVA and GT are good ##15 & 16. They bring enough extra value to offset the two new slices of the pie.
LikeLike
Yes, GTech’s “travelling partner” in UVA is 500 miles away ~ second closest is Indiana at about 525, Columbus and Purdue at 600 miles and then Maryland at about 650miles (Google freeway miles).
But GTech travels a lot as it is ~ only FSU is under 300 miles, Tobacco Road is 400 miles away, and Miami is almost 700 miles away. GTech’s longest in-division trip in a “Big Ten East” is likely to be shorter than a trip to BC.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“But would the COP/C make an exception for UVA & GT even though GT is non-contiguous? Don’t know.”
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/525178.html?nav=742
No exception needs to be made. There is no rule about contiguous states, just like AAU membership is also not mandated by rule.
Also, GA is only 100 miles from VA as the crow flies.
LikeLike
I think that, by exception, @BuckeyeBeau merely meant an exception to sorts of candidates that the B1G is known or believed to have entertained to date.
LikeLike
yes, correct, MS. And more particularly, iirc, Delany is on record as saying he had permission to invite AAU school in contiguous states. So, if i understood what he said, that gave him free reign with UVA, for example, but Delany needed to get a north carolina school to be able to invite GT.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think that, by exception, @BuckeyeBeau merely meant an exception to sorts of candidates that the B1G is known or believed to have entertained to date.”
GT is widely considered to be one of the schools high on the B10’s list, rumored to be pre-approved by the COP/C, so that makes no sense to me. How is GT an exception?
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“And more particularly, iirc, Delany is on record as saying he had permission to invite AAU school in contiguous states.”
I remember this quote:
“We said, how do we participate in the new paradigm? Our answer was let’s look at contiguous states first, let’s look at AAU members first, and let’s figure out if there is a way to continue to bridge from Penn State into the Mid-Atlantic.”
That was from when the B10 added MD. Feel free to show me anything other than rumors since then. The B10 blog doesn’t seem aware of any such quote based on their statements, and it’s their job to know that.
LikeLike
GT is widely considered to be one of the schools high on the B10′s list, rumored to be pre-approved by the COP/C, so that makes no sense to me. How is GT an exception?
The key word is rumored. Buckeye Beau wasn’t incorrect to point out that in the only actual public comments, they’ve referred to AAU schools in contiguous states.
Personally…yeah, I think GT probably is one of the schools the COP/C has approved. But we don’t really know that.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The key word is rumored. Buckeye Beau wasn’t incorrect to point out that in the only actual public comments, they’ve referred to AAU schools in contiguous states.”
In your first response, you said this (emphasis mine): “I think that, by exception, @BuckeyeBeau merely meant an exception to sorts of candidates that the B1G is known or believed to have entertained to date.”
So when I replied that GT has been heavily rumored to be a pre-approved candidate, how was I not directly addressing your statement? The B10 is believed by a lot of people to have already approved GT.
I put the only quote I’m aware of from Delany (Beau’s claim for the statement’s source) on the subject in my comment. Based on that quote, yes he is wrong. If he is remembering a different quote, I’ll be glad to read it. Maybe it was from a president and not Delany, or maybe he’s blurring the rumors of what permissions Delany has with Delany’s actual quote that I included. But until someone produces an actual quote from Delany to that effect, I think he’s mistaken about what is actually on the record.
LikeLike
I don’t recall too many (well, actually I don’t recall ANY) discussions of Buffalo University as an option for the B1G. AAU member as of 1989.
Seems like a lot of positives. http://www.buffalo.edu/about_ub/ub_at_a_glance.html
Better cultural fit than “southern” schools; along with Rutgers and the fact that it is part of the New York State Univ. system, might help with the NYC market; along with PSU (and maybe Pitt), completely cements the Penn market and parts of New York; the research is, IIRC, better than UVA, etc. Football and Bball are m’eh, but … that is not a disqualification as we know.
here are it’s stats:
Name University at Buffalo
The State University of New York
Affiliation A flagship institution in the State University of New York system, UB is the largest and most comprehensive campus in the 64-campus SUNY system. It is a member of the Association of American Universities.
Founded 1846
Character UB is a premier, research-intensive public university dedicated to academic excellence. Our research, creative activity and people positively impact the world. Like the city we call home, UB is distinguished by a culture of resilient optimism, resourceful thinking and pragmatic dreaming that enable us to reach others every day.
Research $353 million (FY 2011)
President Satish K. Tripathi
Student Body (head count)
28,952 (fall 2012)
19,506 undergraduate
9,446 graduate and professional
Degrees Awarded
7,515 (2010-11 academic year)
Employment 6,622 full-time equivalent employees (2011)
Faculty
1,552 full-time (2011)
746 part-time (2011)
Alumni
219,673 in 130 countries (February 2012)
More than 121,000 in New York state
Annual Budget
Operating revenues: $630 million (FY 2011)
Financial statement revenues: $1.159 million (FY 2011)
UB and affiliated entities revenues: $1.4 billion (FY 2011)
Endowment $494.7 million (June 2011)
Economic Impact $1.7 billion per year
Athletics Division I, Mid-American Conference
Mascot Victor E. Bull
LikeLike
fwiw, Buffalo is the 52st tv market. You could argue that Buffalo would also bring in the Syracuse and Rochester markets (##78 and 84).
http://louisville.247sports.com/Board/59441/US-Local-TV-Market-Rankings-14201029/1
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/morning_roundup/2011/09/buffalo-tv-market-grows-ranking-same.html
LikeLike
hmm… but the stadium only seats 29,013. that will not do.
http://www.buffalobulls.com/facilities/ubstadium
LikeLike
Buffalo is interesting– I would think they would follow the same Mac-tion approach and schedule a B1G match up every year. If you go to Buffalo, are you a Bulls fan, or are you secretly a PSU, Ohio State or Michigan fan?
There is potential, and no questioning their profile, but is Buffalo a serf or a potential lord? Another question is, how many NYC folks are primarily U of B football fans? Does it shift your needle?
LikeLike
They aren’t an option is why they haven’t been discussed, every must provide significant value in football, whether that be via market or brand.
LikeLike
SUNY-Buffalo would help as much with the NYC market as SJSU would with the LA market (or UCincy with the Cleveland market). Also, there’s a difference between “meh” by B10 standards and being MAC-level.
PU isn’t anything special in football, but no one would consider Ball St. to be on the same level as PU.
LikeLike
Yes, MAC-tion is fun, but it depends on playing mostly against MAC defenses. For many Big Ten defenses, their defensive holes would qualify as the anchor of most MAC defenses.
LikeLike
What about Boston University? Given the rumors about JHU, BU would seem like a logical fit.
Large (30k), stellar academics, AAU, access to a large market.
BU already dropped its football program in order to invest more $ into hockey. They would need to drop basketball down to D3 in order to join, but that might make sense for both sides.
Clearly hockey isn’t that important to expansion, but I could see this as a smart play into the Boston market. There is no real option into Boston, so you may see lots of smaller angles to get some BTN subscribers (BU hockey, eventually Notre Dame, B1G alums, etc).
LikeLike
Hockey-only BU is intriguing, but I think they would have to drop all of their other sports down to DivIII, and even then, I’m not sure the NCAA would allow it, Then again, I foresee the big conferences breaking away from the NCAA within a decade.
LikeLike
If Boston University wanted to retain Ice Hockey as a Div1 sport but drop down its other sports, it would only have to drop down to Div2 ~ there is no Div2 Ice Hockey national championship (men or women), so any Div2 school is allowed to field a Div1 ice hockey team under the Div1 scholarship rules.
(Ice Hockey is the most interesting sport where that “automatic” upgrade exemption applies ~ the rest are men’s volleyball, which has D3 & National Championship, and the single National Championship sports of Fencing, Gymnastics, Rifle, Skiing and Water Polo).
The exception made in 2004 for the eight Div3 schools was to be allowed to offer scholarships in their single Div1 sports, and to upgrade one women’s sport if required for Title IX compliance.
LikeLike
Adding an associate member is a pretty big leap for the Big Ten. If they do it at all, it has to be extremely compelling. JH fits that description:
1) Lacrosse is their only D1 sport; 2) They are a national power in that sport; 3) They’re a research and academic powerhouse; 4) The B1G has no other realistic short-term options to get up to the sixth school they need for men’s lacrosse.
BU is nowhere near as compelling. The B1G doesn’t need them in hockey. They already have the six teams they need, and it’s likely that a couple of other schools in the league will add the sport eventually.
Hockey and basketball aren’t BU’s only sports. They’ve got men’s cross country, rowing, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor and outdoor track, and wrestling; and women’s cross country, golf, field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor and outdoor track, and softball. It’s hard to imagine that they’d drop all of them down to D3, just to get hockey into the Big Ten. And it’s hard to imagine the Big Ten wanting to be a party to such a transaction.
LikeLike
And after pulling out the prospective members of the Big Ten, the distribution of current Top20 hockey standings among the Hockey conferences is:
WCHA: 5
CCHA: 5
Hockey East: 4
ECAC Hockey: 3
Big Ten: 2
Atlantic Hockey: 1
So its making a “big move” that involves pushing a slew of BU athletic programs down into Division 2 in order to allow the BU Hockey team to take a step down from Hockey East to Big Ten Hockey. That big a sacrifice in multiple Olympic sports in order to move the Hockey program ~ likely over its loud and strident objections ~ to a weaker conference doesn’t seem like a very good marketing strategy.
LikeLike
Bruce:
Looking at a snapshot to determine how strong a conference is can lead to big errors.
The B10 ended up with 2 schools in the top 20 in football in 2012, yet no one who follows college football would deny that the B10 has 4 football kings.
In hockey, the B10 has 4 kings, some of the richest hockey programs in the country, and the most fertile hockey recruiting ground.
LikeLike
OK, so, from below, championships over the past twenty years, pulling the Big Ten school results out of their actual conferences into the pending Big Ten Hockey:
8/20 Hockey East: BC 4, BU 2, Maine 2
6/20 Big Ten Hockey: TSUN 2, MN 2, MSU 1, WI 1
5/20 WCHA: Denver 2, North Dakota 2, MN-Duluth 1 (actually 8/20 w/MN, WI)
1/20 CCHA: LSS 1 (actually 4/20 w/TSUN, MSU)
Still doesn’t seem to be a big enough move to justify screwing all of BU’s other sports and leaving a top tier hockey conference they can travel around on bus for an airplane conference.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I don’t recall too many (well, actually I don’t recall ANY) discussions of Buffalo University as an option for the B1G. AAU member as of 1989.”
For good reason. It’s a MAC school with no following and no market.
“along with Rutgers and the fact that it is part of the New York State Univ. system, might help with the NYC market;”
Buffalo is 400 miles from NYC. It’s closer to Columbus than NYC.
“along with PSU (and maybe Pitt), completely cements the Penn market and parts of New York;”
UB has no fan base and it certainly adds nothing that PSU doesn’t already give.
“the research is, IIRC, better than UVA, etc.”
Click to access research2011.pdf
In 2009, UB was #55 in total research ($338M) but #64 ($152M) in federal research. UVA was #72 ($262M) and #49 ($218M) respectively.
In the CMUP’s analysis, however, UVA ranks higher. They have 1 measure in the top 25 and 5 in the 26-50 range out of 9 total. That puts them behind MI (8/0), WI (7/1), MN (6/2), NW (5/4), Chicago (4/5), OSU (4/4), IL (4/3), PSU (3/4) and PU (1/6) while tied with MSU (1/5). MD (1/4), IA (0/6), RU (0/3) and IN (0/2) are all ahead of UB (0/1). Only NE would be behind UB.
“Football and Bball are m’eh, but … that is not a disqualification as we know.”
No, they are well below m’eh. In the last 10 years, they are #113 in I-A in winning percentage at 27.5% and are in the MAC. IN is ahead of them while playing in the B10. Their hoops team has never made the NCAA tournament and has a W% of 47.3% all time.
LikeLike
@Brian. yeah, pretty much agreed on all points. add to that they have a stadium that seats only 29,103. That will never do.
LikeLike
Theoretically they have potential, but until they jump up to the new BE or something and dominate it they are nobodies. I just don’t see them overcoming PSU and Syracuse for fans in western NY.
LikeLike
Before they jump up to the NuBigEast and dominate it, they might try dominating the MAC for a few years ~ the way that Marshall did winning six consecutive division titles and 5 of 6 conference championships before they left the MAC for a second time, this time to go play in Conference USA, where they wait for a NuBigEast invite.
LikeLike
There are some wild ideas being thrown around on here lately. Buffalo to the B1G? UNC to the Pac 12? Whew boy.
LikeLike
Well, at least nothing truly fantastical, like Missouri to the B1G. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, c’mon, when the Big Ten looked at expansion with Missouri or doing nothing, doing nothing won. Surely nobody would suggest Mizzou in the Big Ten now, with Missouri happily committed to getting beat up week in and week out in the SEC.
LikeLike
That’s because you couldn’t find a good #14 to pair with Missouri. You weren’t going to expand to 13 at the time.
LikeLike
You’re wrong as usual, Rutgers has always been in the B10’s pocket as a complimentary addition to any school.
LikeLike
it is Superbowl Sunday. what else is out there but WILD IDEAS, baby !! 🙂
LikeLike
We could use some new rumors. Somebody surf the message boards, quick.
LikeLike
Andy,
I consider West Virginia in the Big 12 to be just as fanciful as FSU in the B1G, Pitt or Cuse in the SEC, and yes I believe that UNC to the PAC is a potential move. I don’t think I’m crazy there at all. Given a choice of conference to play in, doesn’t UNC/Duke and any survivors of the ACC (say 6) look around and see whats best. If it means money, than the Pac 12 over the Big 12, if it means geography than the Big 12. Don’t worry about calling me crazy though, the drill sgts called me way worse.
LikeLike
I think you’re crazy.
LikeLike
You are looking at it from the wrong end. Why will the very conservative PAC want a bunch of ACC schools? When the PAC turned down OK they let it be known they did not feel they need to expand. It is not that FSU and NC are not better than BYU and BSU. It is that none of those 4 will add value to the PAC so it is best to stay at 12.
LikeLike
I consider West Virginia in the Big 12 to be just as fanciful as FSU in the B1G, Pitt or Cuse in the SEC, and yes I believe that UNC to the PAC is a potential move.
West Virginia to the Big 12 was two weak parties making a deal — West Virginia, because otherwise they’d be stuck in the crumbling Big East; the Big 12, because it had lost four schools, needed to stabilize the ship, and WV was the best school available.
The B1G and the SEC are the two powerhouses of college sports. Any schools they add need to be compelling. UNC, of course, would be considered compelling by either of them. That’s why UNC will never be in the Pac-12. If they need to bail out of the ACC, UNC won’t need to go that far.
Pitt and ’Cuse don’t add much to the SEC, and the B1G has already taken a pass on them.
LikeLike
@Marc, are you suggesting that the PAC is conservative. They were the first conference to attempt 16 teams at a time when everyone else was talking about 12. The PAC also declined to take BYU because they don’t want to deal with a religious school (I think that was right, I could be wrong on this one). I would call the PAC many thing but never conservative.
Also you suggest that by adding the 4-6 teams from the ACC wouldn’t add value? I think your undervaluating the ACC members that might be left. As I noted previously, if the B1G and SEC go to 18, that leaves 6 members of the ACC and 5 of them should be of value to anyone with a television contract (Wake ain’t going anywhere). Toss in UConn and you have a lot of value and access to north eastern markets for the PAC.
Look, the reason I think the ACC remnants would jump to the PAC and be welcomed with open arms is because the PAC will be on the move to keep up the with other big boys. The PAC would (I hope) realize that they have to expand to stay viable. Because if the PAC doesn’t expand then it will fall behind. Not to mention that by expanding the PAC footprint in the North Carolina, Florida, etc markets of the east coast which is full of TV money would be very strong way to grow the PAC 12 Network. Which right now in Raleigh you have to pay 5$ a month to enjoy (I subscribe). So by making it part of the mandatory package the PAC 12 could really make some money with the right combination of games.
I think that people forget that the PAC is out there, and they are like a snake that is waiting to pounce. They shocked us all with the PAC 16 offer and what is to stop them from going to 18 also once the SEC and B1G do it first.
This is all assuming that we through geography out the window
LikeLike
@Gailikk: What I’m suggesting, is that if the ACC becomes vulnerable to that extent, its most valuable teams will find homes in conferences closer to home, which would pay as much money (or more), and wouldn’t have the requirement of traveling to the west coast for half of their games. Yes, the Pac-12 has been aggressive, but it hasn’t been stupid. I have trouble imagining that a bunch of ACC also-rans (the ones the other conferences don’t want) would be sufficiently appealing to them. Washington State vs. Wake Forest is just not going to be a ratings blockbuster. And remember, many of the western games are played at awkward times when people in the east aren’t watching.
LikeLike
The white whale for the PAC is Texas (like ND for the B1G). When the PAC16 was proposed the PAC was making less money than all the other major conferences. Scott convinced the presidents that expansion to TX was required to get the big $$. CO was given an unconditional invite. The others were conditioned on TX accepting. Even when TX did not accept the PAC did not invite Missouri or Kansas despite both being AAU schools with decent brands. These two schools would have been orphaned if the PAC 16 had gone through. The PAC stayed in the mountain time zone and invited Utah which still is a project. Once the PAC got their big new TV contract they had no problem rejecting Oklahoma the following year.
LikeLike
BTW, it would be easier with a breakaway from the NCAA (which I see the power conferences doing within a decade), but if they do & JHU accepts as a lacrosse-only member, it may make sense for the B10 to offer BU (in hockey) and possibly Rice (in baseball) and a bunch of the UAA schools as 1-sport members.
From the perspective of the UAA schools, they’d get a big time sports program to build school spirit (and the benefits of the CIC), yet maintaining one sport at an elite level is much easier financially than being DivI in everything. Plus, in the Olympic sports, a scholarship to a UAA school usually trumps a scholarship to elsewhere, so they should be able to be pretty good in their one top-level sport. For the other sports, they can play each other in a DivIII-type level of competition.
So what sport would the UAA-type schools promote? From the B10’s perspective, it would be best if it’s a sport with some viewership on the BTN (hockey, lacrosse, baseball, soccer, volleyball)
JHU: Lacrosse
Rice: Baseball
BU: Hockey
Rochester: Hockey/Lacrosse?/Other?
Emory: Baseball/Lacrosse?
NYU: /Lacrosse?
CMU: Hockey?/Other?
CWRU: Hockey?/Other?
WashU: Other?
(“Other” likely being soccer or volleyball).
From the perspective of the B10, the gains with additions to the CIC are obvious. The schools can also meet with alums for fundraising and set up recruiting trips to places that they normally don’t visit regularly (Boston, Texas, StL, and Atlanta if there’s no B10 expansion southward; even Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and upstate NYS). You’d get many of the benefits of expansion without diluting the quality of the football and you may be raising the quality of your other sports.
LikeLike
. . . it would be easier with a breakaway from the NCAA (which I see the power conferences doing within a decade). . . .
I am a bit less sure of the breakaway concept, because they’d have to set up a whole new bureaucracy to replace the things the NCAA does that are still considered useful. For instance, the NCAA’s enforcement arm may be totally corrupt; nevertheless, you still need rules of some kind, along with a mechanism to enforce them.
I could imagine that at some point, a consensus of 60-80 big schools would just announce unilaterally, “This is what we are doing from now on, and we don’t care whether the NCAA’s other member institutions agree with it.”
At that point, the NCAA’s would be checkmated. Its only authority stems from its ability to punish schools in isolation. It can’t give the death penalty to 80 schools simultaneously, and if those schools leave, its influence in major-college athletics would be over. It would therefore have no realistic choice but to let the big schools call their own shots. Game over.
LikeLike
I don’t see a breakaway but a ‘split’ in divisions in football, where the B10, SEC, Pac 12, Big XII, ACC are the only conferences left in the top division.
LikeLike
Marc,
I also see leaving the NCAA as unrealistic. A point you didn’t mention is that by leaving the NCAA, the schools would cripple the NCAA tournament and destroy the main source of funding for all the other schools and sports. The power schools would also lose many of their common opponents in lesser sports. The presidents don’t want to do that kind of damage and risk the backlash (loss of non-profit status, for example).
It’s much more likely they seek another division split for FB and maybe hoops, allowing them to do what they want in the only sports that matter. As you point out, why leave one bureaucracy just to have to recreate it while losing all the institutional knowledge?
LikeLike
1. Losing opponents in lesser sports is a problem (but not a big one).
2. I don’t think the power conferences care much about other schools. If anything, the schools in the power conferences would be able to increase the money they get from basketball from the shares that they get now.
3. Considering what entities can get away with calling themselves non-profit in this country (a ton of organizations that bring in much more money than all NCAA sports combined, BTW) loss of non-profit status seems very unlikely, bordering on a fantasy of some sort.
I agree that a new division seems more likely (but a full breakaway is still a possibility).
LikeLike
1. Losing opponents in lesser sports is a problem (but not a big one).
It’s a huge problem, and it’s not confined to “lesser sports.” It’s every sport except football. I mean, in basketball, Gonzaga and Butler are national powers, while Nebraska and Penn State are terrible. In men’s ice hockey, schools like New Hampshire and North Dakota are national powers, while over half the Big Ten doesn’t even play.
LikeLike
1. Why can’t the Catholic League be brought in to the new organization?
2. Yes, the other sports would be impacted (hockey and baseball come to mind), but even the programs that eek out a profit are relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.
LikeLike
@Richard: When people refer to a “breakaway” from the NCAA, they are usually referring to the top ~80 (or so) football schools. If you include schools like the Catholic 7, then at that point you’re referring to most of Division I.
LikeLike
The biggest issue there is the basketball championship. Right now its the NCAA goose that lays the golden eggs, and the breakaway basketball championship would not automatically just take its place. The NCAA would still have ample teams to field a 32-team tourney, and the non-football Div1 schools and the mid-major schools still in the NCAA Div1 would have ample incentive to keep it going. However, with two competing national college basketball tournaments, each will be devalued.
So far, the armed truce in the NCAA Div1 has been that the big football schools get football revenue while the NCAA BBall tournament, the biggest single revenue source in college sports, is used to fund the NCAA infrastructure with the surplus after overheads divided between participants, schools on the basis of athletic scholarships, and schools on the basis of participation.
If that armed truce breaks down, the result could have unanticipated consequences that do not rebound to the benefit of the big football schools.
LikeLike
At one time the NIT was the big basketball tournament. The NCAA greatly diminished its value. The big football conferences have 80%+ of the top basketball programs. If there is a breakaway, the new tournament will eclipse the NCAA within a few years. It will be harder for schools outside this group to recruit top players, so the number of power schools outside will decrease over time. The NCAA knows all this and will do everything in its power to prevent a breakaway since that will be a fatal blow to its finances.
LikeLike
“The NCAA knows all this and will do everything in its power to prevent a breakaway since that will be a fatal blow to its finances.”
Whether it would be a fatal blow or a crippling blow is not something the NCAA would want to test.
However, if push came to shove, they’d likely put up a fight, and that would diminish the media market value of the breakaway national championship substantially up front, and quite possibly with a long term hit as well, which is a factor that reduces the incentives to the big schools to breakaway.
LikeLike
To pursue any school that doesn’t have a football team, the school will need to fit the B1G profile (large, research focus university), near the footprint, and have a strong program in a sport that has some tv viewers (baseball, hockey, lacrosse, and maybe soccer as only possibilities).
The fear of partial membership leading to a slipper slope is misplace. Going through the list of all AAU school, only 4 options jump out at me:
Hockey: Boston U, U. Toronto, McGill
Lacrosse: John Hopkins
Rice doesn’t seem like a great fit due to: geography, baseball focus in a weak baseball conference, small enrollment, etc.
While college hockey in Toronto isn’t popular due to major junior hockey, I think this could be an interesting long-term play for both the Big Ten and Toronto/McGill. These are large schools, near major population areas, with a great research focus. These programs routinely play against NCAA programs. With some minor revenue coming from the BTN, I have no doubt they could at least be competitive in a Big Ten Hockey conference.
I am sure Boston U could figure something to do with its other sports (some stay with the B1G, some drop down a division).
I think in many ways having larger conferences (a B1G 20 plus another 2-4 non-football members) helps the non-revenues. A large conference could lead to an imbalanced schedule for non-revenues with a focus on regional clusters to reduce travel costs.
LikeLike
Toronto (with an NCAA waiver) is the perfect associate addition. Great academics, huge BTN potential and international flava to boot. No doubt it has been talked about, but whether they would ever pull the trigger is anyone’s guess.
LikeLike
In addition to the 4 schools I mentioned above (BU, McGill, Toronto, and Johns Hopkins), the only other school that I could eventually see as a partial member would be New York University. Decent enrollment, excellent academics, perfect fit in the footprint, etc. Unfortunately they don’t have any athletics that are noteworthy. If a wealthy alum (and there are many) agreed to donate $100mm to fund a division 1 hockey team, that would be another interesting addition.
My point is that there aren’t a lot of partial members that would fit the B1G profile. Even JHU isnt a perfect fit, but would make sense in the same way Duke might (exceptional academics and a dominant lacrosse team).
LikeLike
Toronto doesn’t give ath. schs. for hockey or any other sport. While they could change that policy for hockey, they’ve been playing Canadian colllege hockey since the 1890s….does not seem likely.
LikeLike
Also, Rice plays football in an FBS conference.
If the school isn’t an upgrade to the Big Ten championship in question, then there’s no point to it. For instances, I know less about hockey than I do about soccer, rugby league or rugby union, so I don’t know if any of those schools have a hockey program that moves the needle, but I do know that the Big Ten Hockey championship is not going to start out as the dominant hockey conference in the nation. A fixer upper that is an existing Big Ten school starting a hockey program is one thing … explicitly recruiting a hockey fixer upper when it will ONLY be playing in the Big Ten hockey championship, and in particular recruiting a not-yet-existing program at a school that has not been running a Div1 Hockey program doesn’t strike me as a big winner.
LikeLike
BU is one of 3 schools tied with 5 hockey titles (2009 most recently).
1. MI – 9
2. Denver, N. Dakota – 7
4. WI – 6
5. BU, BC, MN – 5
8. MSU, MT, LSS – 3
LikeLike
And look at the last two decades, pulling the Big Ten results out of their actual conferences:
8/20 Hockey East: BC 4, BU 2, Maine 2
6/20 Big Ten Hockey: TSUN 2, MN 2, MSU 1, WI 1
5/20 WCHA: Denver 2, North Dakota 2, MN-Duluth 1 (+3 TSUN, MSU)
1/20 CCHA: LSS 1 (+3 MN, WI)
It just doesn’t look like a move that’s going to excite BU hockey about abandoning their top tier bus hockey conference for an airplane conference.
LikeLike
I wasn’t arguing that it makes sense for BU, just pointing out the BU’s hockey team does move the needle. You questioned if it did.
LikeLike
I did ask if it did, and thanks for answering. But BU Hockey just isn’t as analogous to JHU Lacrosse as JB was putting forward ~ its a Division 1 school with a strong hockey program, not, like Denver College or JHU, a no-scholarship Division 3 school with a single Div1 men’s program.
LikeLike
Makes me wonder. If you know so little about hockey, why are you commenting on it?
What makes you so sure that the B10 would not be the dominant conference in college hockey? As Brian listed, 4 of the top 10 in NCAA hockey titles are B10 schools, and I’m pretty sure that the top 5 programs with the most resources for hockey consists of 4 B10 schools and UND.
LikeLike
“Makes me wonder. If you know so little about hockey, why are you commenting on it?”
Because its one of the more marketable of the non-revenue sports.
“What makes you so sure that the B10 would not be the dominant conference in college hockey? As Brian listed, 4 of the top 10 in NCAA hockey titles are B10 schools, and I’m pretty sure that the top 5 programs with the most resources for hockey consists of 4 B10 schools and UND.”
I was echoing the observation from a MN sports reporter that except for MN, the prospective Big Ten Hockey schools don’t look much like dragon slayers this season.
And despite the “top 5 programs with the most resources for hockey” purportedly included 4 Big Ten schools, yet Hockey East has more championships in the last twenty years than the Big Ten schools, and four of the last five.
What JB is proposing is to convince Boston University to screw: men’s cross country, rowing, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor and outdoor track, and wrestling; and women’s cross country, golf, field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor and outdoor track, and softball. In order to make a sideways move of their hockey team from Hockey East to Big Ten Hockey.
And looking at the TV coverage of their schedule this year, they already get lots of carriage on NBC Sports, CBS Sports and the regional New England Sports, so the BTN isn’t a big carrot.
I just don’t see how that gets college hockey fans in Boston on the phone demanding that they get the Big Ten network on their cable systems. It seems more likely to get outraged college hockey fans in Boston on the phone demanding that the Big Ten network get yanked off of their cable systems.
LikeLike
Minnesota’s full of sour grapes because the Gophers and Badgers left the WCHA.
LikeLike
Nothing against the State of Minnesota and its four glorious seasons of almost winter, winter, still winter and roadwork, but when I said “Minnesota” I was referring to the Gophers. Are you saying the Gophers have sour grapes because the Gophers and Badgers are leaving the WCHA? Why would the Gophers have sour grapes over that?
LikeLike
Except for OSU, the hockey B10 schools didn’t want to leave the WCHA and CCHA to form the B10. They have longstanding rivalries in those leagues and get to play several powers that will have to be OOC now. MN fans complained more than any of the other schools.
LikeLike
So the newspaper’s guy covering Gophers hockey was jumping on the position back when the Gophers were ranked number 1, Wisconsin was somewhere closer to 20 and none of the CCHA teams were ranked to basically say “see how this is not going to work!”?
Yeah, that bodes well for the strategy of talking BU into relegating all of their other sports to a lower division so their hocket team can jump from bus trips in one top tier hockey conference to plane trips to play in Big Ten Hockey.
LikeLike
Four of the six Big Ten schools are blue bloods in collegiate hockey.
LikeLike
To respond to a few of the comments…
1) BU wouldn’t leave Hockey East for the Big Ten.
Sure they would, for the following reasons:
Academics: CIC, etc.
$$: BTN should be able to match or exceed Fox.
Potential: My suggestion was to add BU, U Toronto, and McGill. Assume another 2-3 schools from the B1G eventually add hockey (from Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Nebraska). The B1G has the potential to have a core hockey footprint of Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, DC, New York, Boston, Montreal, and Toronto. In other words, the only places that care about hockey. It might not be the best hockey conference next year, but Delaney could sell the vision of a super-conference. Minn, Mich, MSU, Ohio St, BU (and maybe ND) would be a great core for the conference.
2) What about Men’s cross-country, etc.
I don’t know much about the non-revs, but why not put all sports in the B1G? Move to unbalanced schedules to reduce travel costs (BU plays Rutgers more than Minn). The only sport that would have to drop is basketball. I don’t know if this is a deal breaker.
3) BU hockey won’t get the BTN on in Boston.
This is definitely true. But there is no way to get the BTN on in Boston with one school, so a different approach is needed. ND plus BU hockey? UConn plus BU hockey? BU could be part of a package needed to deliver the market.
I don’t expect BU to be added, but I love the idea of a power hockey conference. Given the low ratings of hockey, this wouldn’t transform the B1G in any way….but it could definitely differentiate the conference and provide some decent programming.
LikeLike
“2) What about Men’s cross-country, etc.
I don’t know much about the non-revs, but why not put all sports in the B1G? Move to unbalanced schedules to reduce travel costs (BU plays Rutgers more than Minn). The only sport that would have to drop is basketball. I don’t know if this is a deal breaker.”
The whole “move to the Big Ten instead of the Patriot League” would be the deal breaker ~ Boston University is moving to the Division 1 conference that places an emphasis on the “scholar” in scholar-athlete right alongside the Ivy League. Its kind of doing that on purpose.
“I don’t expect BU to be added, but I love the idea of a power hockey conference.”
For your dream of the Big Ten being not merely A top tier conference but THE top tier conference ~ seems like you’d need to get both BU and BC in the conference. And so it would need a much looser associate membership model than the minimum required for Lacrosse to get JHU, where JHU could put “all of its scholarship sports” into associate membership.
There could be another angle to bulk up Big Ten Hockey somewhat, which shows up from looking at the actual JHU case and how they got to continue to offer Lacrosse scholarships as a D3 school in all other sports.
There are seven Division 3 schools that have the “single Div1 scholarship sport” exemption, in a political D3 battle that JHU won in 2004. There’s one CMUP top-50 research, AAU school among those seven ~ that’s JHU ~ and a second with a top-50 graduate program according to the USNWR rankings, RPI. So the “CIC associate membership” angle doesn’t go very far as far as recruiting single-Div1 hockey schools.
The four hockey single-Div1 schools are Clarkson, Colorado College, RPI and St. Lawrence. Their Title IX offset sports include women’s ice hockey for Clarkson, RPI and St. Lawrence. Seems like the gender equity argument would swing a bigger stick there than some form of associate CIC membership ~ add Clarkson, RPI and St. Lawrence and there’s seven women’s ice hockey teams.
The Colorado College Title IX offset sport is women’s soccer, I don’t know how the Big Ten women’s soccer programs would feel about a trip to Colorado Springs.
LikeLike
Omitted from the above ~ though it should be obvious ~ Clarkson, St. Lawrence and Colorado College are even more extreme institutional mis-fits than JHU and RPI.
Sanity would be to leave the WCHA and ECAC alone and build the strength of the Big Ten Hockey conference organically rather than through Empire Building.
LikeLike
Frank,
People are ripping you off.
http://collegefootballrealignment.wordpress.com/
Same host, same topic, same “theme” even. It only started in December, though.
LikeLike
Their 4×16 list has Missouri & Kansas in the B1G and WVU & Cincinnati in the SEC. I think that says all we need to know.
LikeLike
Oh and TCU in the SEC as well. 😐
LikeLike
Reading those articles I see someone who hasn’t really followed the in-depth discussions on re-alignment over the past few years. Not just here but on places like Shaggy & even the WVU Scout board.
LikeLike
His premise, overall theme is the ACC survives while it’s the Big XII that gets raided. Big XII payouts are soon to be getting near twice the amount as the ACC. Big XII is in good health as long as Texas wants to be there and with its LHN, it has to be. ACC schools are vulnerable as long as their conference payouts are significantly lower than that of their neighbors; B10, SEC & Big XII.
LikeLike
Where are the sources that suggest: “Big XII payouts are soon to be getting near twice the amount as the ACC”? Hopefully, it’s more than just WV bloggers who were basically trying to create controversy and shake loose some realignment talk from FSU and Clemson last spring.
With regards to the ripoff realignment blog…a lot of the write-up seems to just be one person’s fantasy. Four 16 team conferences with complementary markets and symmetrical strengths is just an indication of OCD behavior. The blog won’t take-off unless it gets grounded in more realistic discussions.
LikeLike
The guy is completely clueless.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-northwestern-wrigley-field-chicago-cubs-20130202,0,3232897.story
NW and the Cubs are partnering. Look for a bunch of future NW games of various sports in Wrigley (lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, others?), with football returning in 2014 or so (depends on when renovations finish). Expect an almost annual November NW home game in Wrigley in the future. They say they prefer it to Soldier Field because it’s unique while ND, IL and others play at Soldier Field.
LikeLike
Glad the Cubs are making some renovations to Wrigley. I have attended a few games there. While its neat to walk back in time once every couple years, the place is really a dump. If I had been a Cub season ticket holder the last several years, I’d be pissed. The Red Sox have done a much job at preserving Fenway.
LikeLike
I don’t know what they have planned, but they’d need to move the fences or something to make a football field fit.
LikeLike
Alan:
Cub fans must consider the ever-present smell of urine part of the charm. Or they’re too drunk to care.
LikeLike
Richard – I guess. The first time I walked into a “restroom” in Wrigley, I thought I was in Starkville, Mississippi.
LikeLike
The electrical engineer at the Super Bowl went to Michigan. Go Bucks.
LikeLike
58-45
LikeLike
I find it funny that the only way for the Browns to win the Super Bowl is to move to Baltimore…
LikeLike
This Super Bowl pitted the NFL’s two surviving members of the late ’40s All-America Football Conference — the 49ers and the former Cleveland Browns.
LikeLike
Much like the Cleveland Browns are officially still in Cleveland, the Colts have roots in the AAFC, albeit a rather twisted link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Baltimore_Colts
LikeLike
Didn’t the “cigarette smoking man” from the X-Files state that the “Browns would never win a Super Bowl” or was that Buffalo? Can’t remember which…. ;-o)
LikeLike
Buffalo. It was from the episode “Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man”
(I’m a geek)
LikeLike
You all get ties for Christmas.
LikeLike
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/03/4597276/expansion-cold-be-on-big-12-horizon.html
Ft. Worth writer seems convinced B1G is going to 16. Bowlsby sounds a little more open to expansion than most quotes. Not a lot new, but another MSM voice expecting it all to happen.
LikeLike
There’s a theory that I’ve seen several times on this board and others regarding Florida State that doesn’t add up to me. The theory goes that if the Big 12 and Florida State were close to joining forces, the SEC would swoop in and prevent the Big 12 from getting into Florida.
Why? The SEC already allows the ACC into Florida.
Anyone care to help me follow that logic?
LikeLike
They couldn’t prevent the ACC? But, perhaps they are willing and able to block an additional power conference from penetrating the region?
LikeLike
The schools and conferences never share their whole strategy, so we are left guessing as to what they might, or might not, be willing to do. Personally, I do not think the SEC would try to block FSU from joining the Big XII. To the contrary, I think they’d welcome it. The SEC most likely wants to expand into new markets, rather than duplicating markets it already has. If FSU, Miami and Clemson go to the Big XII, it might weaken the ACC enough that UNC and VT (the schools Slive realy wants) are there for the taking.
The SEC already allows the ACC into Florida.
Mike Slive isn’t Alexander the Great. He can’t decide who enters particular territories. The ACC and SEC had overlapping territories for many years, so their presence in Florida was not considered unusual. The suggestion, is that rather than see a third conference in its territory, the SEC would offer FSU again, and this time the Seminoles would accept.
That scenario doesn’t seem likely to me, but at least I can see where it is coming from.
LikeLike
D – the SEC didn’t “allow the ACC into Florida.” For the over 20 years, Florida State wanted to join the SEC, but the SEC wasn’t in expansion mode. Florida did sponsor FSU’s application each time though. Then the SEC was ready to expand in the early 90s, FSU was asked to join, but decided to join the ACC, in part because Bobby Bowden thought the ACC provided an easier path the national championships.
I know I’m in the minority, but I do think FSU will eventually be a member of the SEC. While it doesn’t add new cable households, it adds drama and increases the value of the Tier 1 CBS contract. CBS gets FSU/UF every year. Throw in a random FSU/Bama and FSU/LSU and CBS has ratings gold.
Would the SEC want the Big XII in the state of Florida? Probably not, but taking FSU (when available) is not strictly a defensive move. FSU is the most SEC-like school out of any school not currently in the SEC. That being said, I don’t think FSU will leave the ACC until they are convinced that the ACC can no longer compete with the other power football conferences.
LikeLike
The SEC wasn’t the juggernaut it is today back when FSU turned them down. Heck UF was a pretty historically insignificant program until Spurrier took over. FSU primarily joined the ACC for its great geography, excellent bball, much better academics, and to differentiate itself from uf and Miami. It was a very different era.
LikeLike
Florida State and North Carolina are going to have some interesting decisions to make in the near future regarding their futures in the ACC and where they would go if a decision was made to leave their present conference.
I could absolutely see FSU ending up in the SEC for the reasons you suggest. I just wonder what a program that opted not to join the SEC two decades ago because it felt being in the ACC allowed it an easier path to the national championship would be thinking in the current day. If Florida State’s goal is to get into the four-team playoff when 2014 rolls, around, does it make sense for them to join the modern day version of the SEC?
Or does an expanded Big XII make sense with a nine-game schedule and the likelihood of being in an eastern division with West Virginia, perhaps Clemson or Georgia Tech or Miami (or perhaps all three) along with some of the more northern schools in the present Big XII (Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State). I expect any Big XII West Division would include Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas, Texas Christian, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State at its core. That means a hypothetical 12-team BXII East would be FSU, WVU, ISU, KSU, KU and let’s say Clemson.
We also don’t know what the level of interest is with the Big Ten, but if FSU joins, it’d be at a minimum as a 16-team conference, but more likely one with 18 or 20 teams. In each of those cases, a pod system would be in place that would have FSU playing three or four teams presently in the ACC with four or five other games being with Big Ten teams that range from Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska to Indiana and Minnesota. Would Florida State think it’d have a better chance getting into a four team playoff within an expanded Big Ten? Would the prospect of playing UM, OSU, UN-L, PSU and perhaps Notre Dame be considered ratings gold? Would having the Seminoles in the Big Ten increase the value of the Tier 1 games and the Big Ten Network? My guess on the answer to all those would be yes.
UNC has the potential to be a lynch pin in all this as well and they’d have the same questions that FSU would have? Could North Carolina compete in football in an expanded Big Ten or a bigger SEC? Would it make sense for it’s men’s basketball teams to compete against the programs in the SEC or the B1G? Is the prospect of playing a basketball tournament in Chicago or New York or Indianapolis or Washington DC outweigh the options the SEC would lay out (which I assume is Atlanta?).
LikeLike
I could absolutely see FSU ending up in the SEC for the reasons you suggest. I just wonder what a program that opted not to join the SEC two decades ago because it felt being in the ACC allowed it an easier path to the national championship would be thinking in the current day.
Playoff access is way over-rated. University presidents and athletic directors tend to worry about predictable annual revenue, not about winning a national championship perhaps one year in every ten, if they’re lucky. No school outside of the SEC has won the BCS Championship Game more than once.
The larger concern for FSU is being in a conference that routinely has a much lower payout, due to lower-ranked bowl tie-ins and a large inventory of regular-season games that don’t attract large numbers of viewers. Sure, they’d naturally prefer to make the playoff, but that’s not what drives revenue. That’s why the Big Ten is one of the top two conferences, despite placing a team in the BCS Championship game in just three of 16 years.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily believe playoff access is over-rated. Schools presidents and chancellors have been willing in the past to have their athletic departments operate at a loss because their football and men’s basketball teams provide multi-hour promotional events for their universities. They’ve also supported a bowl system that provides very little financial benefit to individuals schools, but provide a unique stage to get publicity for their schools that they might feel they couldn’t get in a more lucrative playoff.
When you look at the modern day Big XII, you can see that the schools in that conference essentially made the same computation FSU did regarding the post-season when the Seminoles joined the ACC in 1991. Where most major conferences have a CCG, the Big XII has made the decision not to have one because it may hurt (in their opinion) the chances of one of their schools getting into the BCS championship game. That thinking may change now that we have a four-game playoff coupled with larger conferences coming on line.
That doesn’t divorce any of this from the question of revenue, and I agree that Florida State could join the SEC or the Big Ten to achieve the goal of greater self-sufficiency for their athletic department. So now the question for the brain trust in Tallahassee becomes given the two possibilities, which is optimal outside of the dollars and cents question. Academics and research will probably be part of that discussion. How the two conferences work internally also has to be a consideration along with the futures of the two conference’s dedicated networks. And yes, I also think that just like Bobby Bowden did in 1991, they’ll make a computation on how successful FSU could be in the win and loss column by playing in the B1G compared to the SEC.
LikeLike
You’re conflating separate issues. If a playoff exists, naturally you’d rather be in it than not. At the time FSU chose the ACC over the SEC, there was not the huge revenue disparity between the two leagues that is shaping up now, so FSU’s choice (to maximize the probability of reaching the BCS championship game) was a rational one.
But among the factors that drive revenue, the impact of reaching that game is a second-order effect, especially given the rarity of its occurrence. If another conference offers, say, $5-10 million more per year in overall revenue, no rational school would turn down that offer because the probability of being a playoff team is marginally lower.
Most conferences pool bowl revenue, so FSU gets the same payout if they go to a major bowl or if Boston College does. In the BCS era, the Big Ten and Big XII have frequently placed the maximum of two teams into BCS bowls, whereas the ACC has usually placed only its champion. This is more of a factor, financially, than whether a particular team makes a particular game. It will be even more exacerbated in the new system, because the ACC’s main bowl (the Orange) is the least lucrative of the major bowls, and there is no longer a limit of 2 teams per conference.
LikeLike
Alan –
Adding FSU to the SEC now would also let the current SEC West schools play in Florida more often. I don’t think they’re worried now, but the Alabama and Mississippi schools might find this appealing after a few years.
Also, if the Big 12 does repeal the rule requiring divisions to stage a championship game, the SEC could operate with an odd number of schools. So they could add FSU as school 15 and not worry if a UNC or Virginia Tech would follow.
LikeLike
The SEC never invited FSU in the early 90s. They voted the same day as the ACC did and declined to offer FSU membership. This was well documented in newspapers all over the South at the time.
LikeLike
When they found out FSU was going to the ACC they saved face and voted not to offer FSU membership. South Carolina was well down the list. The spot was FSU’s. They didn’t take it.
LikeLike
I guess “allows” is the wrong word. It’s more along the lines of the SEC doesn’t seem to be bothered by the fact that the ACC is in Florida, so why would they be bothered if the Big 12 is in Florida.
LikeLike
I would think the SEC deems the Big 12 a more viable threat than the ACC because of its significantly stronger football brand.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“There’s a theory that I’ve seen several times on this board and others regarding Florida State that doesn’t add up to me. The theory goes that if the Big 12 and Florida State were close to joining forces, the SEC would swoop in and prevent the Big 12 from getting into Florida.
Why? The SEC already allows the ACC into Florida.
Anyone care to help me follow that logic?”
1. The ACC is there by default. Why split 3 ways what you can split 2 ways?
2. The SEC sees the B12 as legitimate competition for football supremacy, but not the ACC.
3. The SEC finally got a foothold in TX and thus a big advantage over the B12 (FL and TX access). Why cede that edge by letting the B12 into FL?
4. The B12 has TX already so the SEC doesn’t want them to also have FL. Conversely, the ACC only has FL.
Some combo of those factors is probably behind the thinking of most people that feel that way.
LikeLike
Since the SEC offered FSU a spot when FSU decided to give up independence, it seems more accurate to say that they CALLED the “don’t allow the ACC into Florida” play, but the play was not a success. It was rather the Big East that they allowed into Florida, since they made no move for Miami when it gave up independence to join the Big East in 1991.
LikeLike
It was pretty widely believed at the time that Miami was their 2nd choice after FSU for their #12.
LikeLike
If they also had Miami as their #2 choice and that also didn’t work out, then they would only have “allowed” the Big East into Florida contingent on keeping the ACC out.
Florida and East Texas are the major population growth areas in the SEC footprint ~ it certainly is worth considering expending one of two adds on improving their position in Florida and the other on making a move into Virginia.
LikeLike
The SEC voted NOT to extend an offer to FSU when FSU gave up independence.
The SEC people met in an emergency meeting the night that the ACC extenede an offer to FSU. The SEC declined to invite FSU. I beleive the record on this is quite clear, as it was well documented at the time in every newspaper in the country.
SEC homers have rewritten history because their egos can’t accept the fact that a team in another conferefence could actually be better then an SEC team. Personally, I believe SEC conference hacks are egomaniacs with an inferiority complex.
And why do people think Bobby Bowden made the decision anyway???? To believe that one has to believe that Bobby is the only coach in any sport in the entire history of sports to make a decision on conference expansion. Which is bullshit.
Even Joe Paterno didn’t get a vote when PSU joined the B1G.
LikeLike
The SEC only voted not to offer FSU because they already decided on the ACC. If FSU had given the thumbs up, they would have been issued an invitation. Although you are right that Bowden wasn’t the leading decision maker.
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051301/col_6160687.html
LikeLike
My understanding is that Joe Paterno favored joining the Big Ten (after the Big East turned them down), and Bobby Bowden favored joining the ACC. Neither of them did that on his own, but I’d say they were instrumental in recommending decisions that their higher-ups ratified.
LikeLike
Ohio State blog Eleven Warriors interviewed Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon. See http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/02/19299/michigan-dave-brandon-this-michigan-and-ohio-state-thing-is-special
Nothing really earth shattering concerning conference expansion or the new B1G divisions that hasn’t been discussed on this message board before. It sounds like he and OSU AD Gene Smith are leaning towards a nine-game schedule in order to have as many conference football games as possible while still keeping seven home games per year (for financial reasons) plus an annual home-and-home with an interesting non-conference opponent (for fan and media interest).
No mention of a 6-3 or 6-1-2 setup for the future schedule yet. If the latter, it’ll take six seasons to get through all the teams in the opposite division if those games were home-and-homes. If 6-3, then a team could go through six of seven opponents from the opposite division over a four-year time frame (if those were home-and-home series).
LikeLike
“Q: Why is there such a big push to change the conference schedule? It’s worked just fine for 50 years.
DB: Well, 50 years ago we had 10 teams in the Big Ten. Now we have 14. If you’re a kid coming in as a freshman and you’re going to be part of the Big Ten Conference with 14 teams, if you only play eight conference games a season, you’re going to go through a whole four-year career and not play some of the other teams. !— That doesn’t feel particularly right. You’re trying to build conference continuity and cohesion. —! We want to travel to their campuses, they want to travel to our campuses, and you’re going to put yourself in position where you aren’t going to be able to do that.”
Emphasis mine.
LikeLike
My guess is they’re still debating whether to just have a single crossover game protected (Indiana-Purdue or Michigan-Michigan State depending on the rivalry that’s split up) versus having a full slate of crossovers.
LikeLike
@zeek-
Part of that debate may be predicated on where Michigan State and Purdue end up. If MSU is in the east with Michigan, that allows UM to play three western teams a year with no protected crossover. I suspect that might be of some interest to the ADs in the western division when it comes to selling tickets to their home games.
I can see a scenario where the only protected crossover game is Indiana-Purdue with the other twelve teams in the conference operating without such games. OTOH, if the conference wants to play as many rivalry/high value games as possible, they may just adapt as many protected crossovers as possible and accept the idea that there may be a six year rotation for teams from each conference to play one another home-and-home.
The bottom line here is there’s an active tradeoff in whatever decisions the presidents, conference commissioner and athletic directors eventually make. Those decisions also may have a short shelf life as further expansion takes hold.
LikeLike
Minnesota needs Michigan and Illinois needs Ohio State to visit every other year than the other way around. They will insist on those games being protected. If Michigan State goes to the East and Purdue to the West, these rivalries can take place regularly; with Purdue in the East and MSU in the West, the Little Brown Jug is kaput, at least annually.
LikeLike
Before Nebraska joined, neither of those rivalries was protected annually. Michigan-Minnesota skipped 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. Ohio State-Illinois skipped 2003-2004.
Even in an 11-game league, there wasn’t a way to give everyone all the games they want. It gets even harder with 14.
LikeLike
Why does Minnesota need Michigan to visit every other year?
If you look at their 2012 attendance figures, the Michigan-Minnesota game (48,801) was third highest in attendance behind Syracuse (50,085) and Northwestern (49,651). Minnesota even had over 47,000 for their game with New Hampshire. UMinn’s lowest attendance number was 41,062 against Purdue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Minnesota_Golden_Gophers_football_team
If you look at the 2011 season, the attendance figures for five of the home games the Golden Gophers played was higher than the 2012 Michigan game (New Mexico State, Miami-Ohio, North Dakota State, Nebraska, Wisconsin). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minnesota_Golden_Gophers_football_team
The Little Brown Jug hasn’t been played for annually as Marc Shepherd mentioned below, so not having this game on a regular basis isn’t a precedent either. With Nebraska now in the same division as Minnesota and Wisconsin plus Northwestern likely to go there after the divisions are set up, my assessment is that having Michigan on the schedule each year may not be as necessary as you now believe.
LikeLike
Do you think the Big Ten would be the first to go to a 16-team superconference?
DB: I have no way of knowing, and I don’t know where 16 teams came from in terms of superconferences. Does that mean no one would go to 18 or 20? I don’t know what the finish line looks like, and I don’t think anyone else does either. When you look at some of the conferences that are fragile, there could be programs looking for a home. Things could move quickly, or we could be in a mode where this settles down and we stay where we are for a while. This is a difficult call.
…….That number 20 has been mentions by AD’s from both Michigan and Ohio State. The fact that they’re bandying that number without pause is an indicator of where we’re headed.
LikeLike
Yeah, bandying 20 makes it seem more likely we are heading to 18.
LikeLike
http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/sports-tv-programming-rights-costs/
Overview of RBC Capital Markets’ David Bank’s report on sports media.
The rewards for airing games — from rising ad sales and pay TV affiliate fees — still outweigh the rising amounts that football, baseball, and other sports rights holders are charging. As a result, channels offering sports “should be able to expand [profit] margins,” Bank says.
LikeLike
Here’s another interesting quote from that article:
Still, Bank’s a fan of News Corp‘s unannounced, but widely expected, plan to convert Speed into a national multi-sports network likely to be called Fox Sports 1. It would be a financial success, he says, if Rupert Murdoch’s company can raise the pay TV fee to $1 per subscriber per month from Speed’s current 22 cents, and increase distribution to 90M homes from 81.4M. Although it won’t initially threaten Disney’s ESPN, “Fox has succeeded as the insurgent in two other significant cases: broadcast (with the launch of Fox in the mid-80s) and cable news (with the launch of Fox News Channel in the mid-90s).”
****
When the Big Ten enters negotiations with the major networks for its Tier 1 and Tier 2 football games along with men’s basketball in a few years time, I can see a real prospect of ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports entering into a bidding war to acquire them. While David Brandon may say that he doesn’t know what the finish will be for the B1G regarding the size of the conference, he and the rest of the conference leadership have to be mindful about what will be considered valuable by the networks since–let’s face it–that’s the main driver for expansion in the first place.
This is the kind of thing that also opens the door to a non-AAU program like Florida State as a potential expansion candidate. One of the two primary goals behind expansion is to make the athletic departments as financially self-sufficient as possible, so bringing in a program like FSU with such a strong football brand now becomes a more reasonable scenario.
The question for the Big Ten is how does this all come together once the ACC/Maryland lawsuit is settled (or perhaps earlier). Virginia and Georgia Tech are thought to be the two most likely candidates at this point, but is getting GaTech into the B1G a prerequisite for Florida State? And if yes, does that mean a fourth team has to be invited along with FSU to get the conference to 18?
Having North Carolina along with Virginia, Georgia Tech and Florida State would pretty much be the ideal expansion scenario for the B1G in the wake of adding Maryland and Rutgers. I could see the networks being very excited about an 18-team B1G operating across 16 states from Nebraska to New Jersey to Florida. I can imagine the conference staying at that number and waiting (one more time) for Notre Dame to figure out what it wants to do regarding conference membership.
LikeLike
@cutter: Yeah, I’m pretty sure that would be Jim Delany’s dream: UVA, UNC, GT, FSU.
I’m not sure how likely that is. Let’s suppose for argument’s sake that UVA is available. GT and FSU, of course, do not share the Carolina schools’ long-term ties to the ACC. Even if the ACC loses those two and UVA, it might not be enough to pry UNC loose. The Tar Heels might still prefer to take UConn, Cincinnati, and USF from the Big East, and remain with the ACC.
If UVA, UNC, GT, and FSU are Jim Delany’s dream, his wet dream is to add Notre Dame and Duke to those four, and stop at 20. But Notre Dame won’t budge that easily, and I can’t think of another pair that make financial sense, if the Irish aren’t one of the two.
So if we go with your scenario, I think Delany stops at 18 and waits.
LikeLike
IF FSU, Va, and GT came to the BIG I think UNC would follow….not much doubt about that…..but what I really don’t see is VA going to the BIG without UNC agreeing to do so as well…….unless UNC and Duke/NC State went to the SEC….
LikeLike
I don’t think FSU with UVa and GT would be enough to pry UNC…but if Delany pursued Duke as #17, it might persuade Chapel Hill to go Big Ten rather than SEC, especially since I believe an ACC without Duke would severely diminish its appeal for the folks in sky blue. A weird strategy — and there’s the slim chance UNC could say no and you’re left with needing FSU for #18 — but it just might work.
LikeLike
If FSU/GT/Duke agreed to go to the B1G (a big IF)…UNC would follow.
LikeLike
On the CMUP research rankings, if GT/UVA and Duke left the ACC, UNC would be the last top 50 research school left in the ACC ~ they presently have five, and Maryland is already heading out the door.
Indeed, that is one way to make sense of the UNC+Duke to the SEC rumors, as an argument to UNC that jumping to the SEC wouldn’t be slumming academically ~ “if you both come, that will make five Top 50 research schools in the SEC, same as in the ACC today, and more than the ACC will have after Maryland leaves”.
LikeLike
If I’m UNC I like the status quo. I love the ACC and want it to continue as it is. However if UVA, GT, and FSU follow Maryland out of the ACC and into the B1G, I no longer recognize the conference. If I was a Tar Heel my first concern is for my school. If those schools are leaving the remaining ACC will no longer be the conference it once was athletically or financially. If I was a Tar Heel and saw those three schools were heading to the B1G, I’d chose to join the B1G and use what ever leverage I had to bring along Duke.
I’d take a long look at the SEC but in the end the academics in the B1G are better and many of the other ACC schools are headed there. More than likely at that point UNC would be placed in a 5-team pod made up of former ACC schools. The SEC might take Duke to get UNC but is more likely to land VTech than UVA and less likely to take GT and FSU. The Big 12 is a geographic hassle and doesn’t have the same academic perks.
At 19 teams the B1G would offer the last spot to ND. Maybe they take it. Maybe they don’t. If they don’t to join a B1G conference with UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, and FSU, who should the B1G invite to be #20? Miami? Syracuse? BC? Kansas? Missouri?
LikeLike
(AAU issues aside) I would choose Miami but I think, if there was an open spot, UVA would push for VT. I also have to believe Kansas (being AAU) would be a target.
When all is said and done, however, I think ND, looking at the big picture and the final spot, would take it. Once these conferences consolidate with 16-20 members, it’s going to be tougher and tougher for ND to cherry pick their schedule.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState: Virginia wouldn’t have the leverage to push for VT. Even ignoring the AAU issue, Delany’s financial case doesn’t work if he takes two schools from the same market. If he wasn’t willing to offer Pitt (an AAU member in a more populous state), VT doesn’t have a shot. If UVA leaves for the Big Ten, VT has a pretty good shot at an SEC invite down the road, so I don’t think the state legislature will be concerned about their fate.
I don’t know how Kansas gets around the GOR issue, but maybe there is an angle we haven’t seen yet. They might have more trouble than UVA separating from their in-state sister school, as unlike VT, K-State doesn’t have a likely parachute to a better conference.
One of the great mysteries of re-alignment, is what it takes to pry ND loose, if it can be done at all. I think they have a standing offer with the Big XII, to join on more-or-less similar terms as the ACC. Obviously, the ACC was preferable, both culturally and geographically. If the ACC were no longer viable, they could take the Big XII’s offer, and would still be able to play the national schedule that is so important to them.
The key to understanding ND is that almost every major conference, and some of the minor ones, have regular games against them. Schools in those conferences want to keep playing ND. If the Irish are forced into a conference, most of those games will go away. My sense, therefore, is that nobody’s going to try to “force” them to relinquish independence, because in that case schools in almost every conference, except for the one they join, will lose games that they want to play.
LikeLike
Plus, if the ACC was no longer viable, they could well end up playing some of the same east coast schools under a Big12 deal.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s giving up five/six games, but they’ll recoup three if the Big Ten goes to ten conference games.
LikeLike
@metatron: Notre Dame’s giving up five/six games, but they’ll recoup three if the Big Ten goes to ten conference games.
That doesn’t quite state the position, as I understand it. (I’m not a Notre Dame fan; nevertheless, I do try to understand where other people are coming from.)
Under the terms of their ACC deal, they’ll keep annual games with Purdue, Navy, Stanford, USC, and Navy, frequent (but not quite annual) games with Michigan State and/or Michigan(*), frequent (but not annual) games with BYU.
They’ll also play a national schedule, with future home & homes against the likes of Texas and Oklahoma; and a smattering of lesser FBS opponents, to whom they don’t grant return games, like Arizona State, Rice, Temple, and UMass.
Lastly, they’re committed to play five ACC teams a year, but many of those teams were already on the Irish schedule anyway (Syracuse, Miami, BC), or have been regularly in the past (Pitt, Florida State, GT, UNC).
In the scenario where they join the Big Ten, they’d need to give up practically all of their national schedule. I can certainly see why they’d do everything they can to resist that outcome. Fortunately for ND, the schools they play, still want to play them, so it’s an “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of arrangement.
LikeLike
Metatron:
If the B10 plays 10 conference games, that’s even worse for ND as they would not be able to play Navy, USC, and Stanford annually. If they stay independent, they can still play PU and those 3 annually.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten goes to ten games, Michigan, Purdue, and MSU will be hard pressed to commit to them every year. That’s three potentially off the schedule, so Notre Dame is losing a net of two games when they don’t play rivals in the ACC (and less if they do).
LikeLike
@metatron
ND already announced they are dropping the Michigan series and MSU will no longer be annual.
LikeLike
Metatron:
What frug said.
To ND, there’s a big difference between “like to play a lot” to “have to play annually”. With the ACC arrangement, they can still keep all of the later.
LikeLike
Purdue, without a doubt, would keep the ND series. It’s the only game they play that is always televised nationally, and they’d have trouble attracting comparable opponents to West Lafayette.
Michigan, on the other hand, can replace the Irish more easily. It’s not as clear to me what the Spartans would say about it, but as I noted, most schools like having ND on their schedule.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8914300/state-attorney-general-taps-ex-prosecutor-lead-sandusky-scandal-probe
PA’s new AG honors her campaign promise by opening an investigation into why the Sandusky investigation took so long under former AG and now Governor Corbett. I don’t expect much to come of this except some bad PR for the governor.
LikeLike
Brian:
“PA’s new AG honors her campaign promise by opening an investigation into why the Sandusky investigation took so long under former AG and now Governor Corbett. I don’t expect much to come of this except some bad PR for the governor.”
Keep watching, you might be surprised. (I don’t think Corbett himself is the most interesting target, although I wouldn’t be surprised if there are fireworks there, too.) My popcorn is certainly ready!
LikeLike
I have too much faith in politicians to cover things up to expect any really good dirt to come out.
LikeLike
Brian:
> I have too much faith in politicians to cover things up to expect any really good dirt to come out.
Maybe, but I’d keep watching anyway. 😉
LikeLike
Oh, I will. I just won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmancave.com/expansion-report-big12-b1g-acc-future/
The Dude tries to quantify value of expansion candidates to the Big XII. Concludes that WVU is worth more than FSU.
Also
…Delaney and FSU had begun formal talks. The Seminoles are just beginning the exploration phase of the process and face substantial resistance from within the Big 10.
LikeLike
I laugh at the first part, and believe the second.
LikeLike
frug,
He did explain WV being ahead of FSU. One of his factors were 2012 TV ratings. With WV being in a brand new conference, I’m sure their numbers were inflated this year. On the other hand, the ACC was down again this year so FSU’s numbers suffered. He also used 10 years W%, and WV was #13 to FSU’s #26.
LikeLike
Problem is he chose to explain instead of making a better model.
LikeLike
His factors weren’t bad, but his weighting seems odd. I would have liked to see the separate scores for each factor and then his formula to make a total score to see where he went so wrong.
LikeLike
yes, exactly. you want a model to be taken seriously, let’s see the math !!
and agreed. the factors have some face-value legitimacy although, in my opinion, the Dude is confusing …. not sure … maybe ‘worth” with “cash-flow value”?
Anyway, he starts with the basic idea is that each current BXII makes $26.M per year and thus any new school must bring at least “$26M in value” to the conference to justify being added. That is straightforward. We’ve discussed this many times on this board. If the pie is being sliced into smaller pieces, the pie needs to grow. For myself, I’ve thought of this mainly in terms of additional revenue from the TV contracts.
However, the Dude then goes on to conflate “adding $26M of value” with “being worth $26M.” Thus, he factors in things like merchandise sales, research funding, ath. department budget and “reputation” to conclude that “the value of [every] ACC schools seems to match the Big 12’s wish list.”
I doubt that is the calculation that the BXII is going to use.
I’d also throw out the idea that Forbes runs a yearly column on the “value” of various CFB programs. Personally, I see no need to reinvent the wheel. I’d start with those and add factors if you think Forbes under-represents some metric (like research funding).
LikeLike
“Concludes that WVU is worth more than FSU.”
. . . But are they worth more than Mizzou?
LikeLike
Well my brother Bill’s got a still on the hill;
Where he runs off a gallon or two.
Now the buzzards in the sky, get so drunk they can’t fly;
From smellin’ that good ole mountain dew.
LikeLike
The funniest comment was this: “Rumors of Boston College moving to the #16 on the Big 10’s wish list are premature.”
As I recall, the Dude himself was the source of those rumors in the first place. The only thing he is debunking is his own inaccuracy.
In the massive understatement department, he writes, “given the choice between FSU and Boston College the Seminoles win hands down.” Thanks for clearing that up.
However, the following seems quite believable: ” The Seminoles are just beginning the exploration phase of the process and face substantial resistance from within the Big 10.”
LikeLike
“However, the following seems quite believable: ‘The Seminoles are just beginning the exploration phase of the process and face substantial resistance from within the Big 10.'”
What I like about that is how it expands the decoder ring for Dude-speak: initial tentative exploration is his own personal definition for the phrase “are in formal talks”.
LikeLike
There are parts of his analysis that rings true based on what I’ve heard, i.e., that Virginia and Georgia Tech are the two most likely candidates to receive formal invitations to the Big Ten as the 15th and 16th members of the conference.
I could also see the B1G and Florida State having discussions at this point, but the idea that there’s substantial resistance within the conference to adding the Seminoles seems rather speculative. The academic side of the B1G may have objections, but I’m hard pressed to imagine the athletic directors having a major problem with this seeing that the addition of FSU will help substantiate any revenue projections the conference has at this point.
Boston College has never been part of any realistic expansion scenario the B1G has contemplated since this process started. Have they been vetted? Yes, but unless bringing BC into the conference is some sort of prerequisite for adding Notre Dame, then that’s a real long shot at best.
LikeLike
@cutter: Athletic directors don’t vote on which schools are admitted to the Big Ten; presidents do, and they’re renowned elitists. Multiple B1G sources have said publicly that AAU membership is a high priority to them—perhaps not an insuperable obstacle, but clearly a factor they consider. So I think it’s probably true that there is at least some resistance to FSU, the only question being how substantial it is, and what needs to happen to overcome it.
LikeLike
Again, this antiquated view that the Presidents are these cloistered, Mount Olympians, impervious to the changing world beneath them. Tell me, how did Nebraska gain acceptance?
The Presidents obviously knew they were on the brink of losing AAU status.
OSU President Gee: “I believe there is movement towards three or four super conferences that are made up of 16-20 teams.”
With twenty obviously being discussed, even at the Presidential level, (UofM AD Brandon seconded this notion) I’d be interested to know how you think the B1G gets to twenty. You claim Kansas, Florida State or VT would never make the cut, so who are you’re candidates for 17-20?
LikeLike
You also dismissed Notre Dame as a possibility.
LikeLike
@GLS: Who is the “you” that you’re referring to? You replied to my post, but I never said those things?
LikeLike
“so who are you’re candidates for 17-20?”
Notre Dame, Virginia, UNC, GA Tech, Duke, and Virginia Tech. VA Tech is in the AWRU 151-200 group, and CMUP group 3.
LikeLike
Marc Shephard,
@GreatLakeState: Virginia wouldn’t have the leverage to push for VT. Even ignoring the AAU issue, Delany’s financial case doesn’t work if he takes two schools from the same market. If he wasn’t willing to offer Pitt (an AAU member in a more populous state), VT doesn’t have a shot. If UVA leaves for the Big Ten, VT has a pretty good shot at an SEC invite down the road, so I don’t think the state legislature will be concerned about their fate.
I don’t know how Kansas gets around the GOR issue, but maybe there is an angle we haven’t seen yet. They might have more trouble than UVA separating from their in-state sister school, as unlike VT, K-State doesn’t have a likely parachute to a better conference.
One of the great mysteries of re-alignment, is what it takes to pry ND loose, if it can be done at all. I think they have a standing offer with the Big XII, to join on more-or-less similar terms as the ACC. Obviously, the ACC was preferable, both culturally and geographically. If the ACC were no longer viable, they could take the Big XII’s offer, and would still be able to play the national schedule that is so important to them.
The key to understanding ND is that almost every major conference, and some of the minor ones, have regular games against them. Schools in those conferences want to keep playing ND. If the Irish are forced into a conference, most of those games will go away. My sense, therefore, is that nobody’s going to try to “force” them to relinquish independence, because in that case schools in almost every conference, except for the one they join, will lose games that they want to play.
———
Just wondering, if none of them have the potential to be #19 or #20, then who?
LikeLike
@GLS: I never said that FSU didn’t have a chance; to the contrary, I strongly believe they do.
I never dismissed Notre Dame; I just said that it’s not clear what it would take to pry them loose, if it can be done at all. I also didn’t dismiss Virginia Tech. What I waid was that if the Big Ten gets Virginia, it is highly unlikely to want VT as well (a second school in the same market), given that it already rejected Pitt.
I also said that I don’t know how Kansas would get around the GOR issue, which is entirely true: there is no precedent for that. That’s not the same as saying they’d never make the cut.
It’s true that Gordon Gee said that he sees a move to super-conferences of 16-20 teams. That includes the possibility of stopping at 16. I think the case of 20 teams means that all of the Big Ten’s dreams are realized, and of course, it’s distinctly possible that won’t occur.
I think the Big Ten’s dream schools are UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, Notre Dame, and FSU. In total, that adds up to 20.
LikeLike
Sorry, then we’re in full agreement.
LikeLike
If there is substantial resistance within the COP/C about FSU, I doubt that Delany has the ok to even begin discussions with them.
LikeLike
ADs might have some objection. Tallahassee is not exactly a major airline hub. There would be lots of charters.
LikeLike
They apparently weren’t terribly enthused about PSU given how difficult it is to get there.
LikeLike
@greg: As we’re parsing a fan blog, I wouldn’t get too hung up on precisely how “substantial” the resistance is. Obviously, if the COP/C said, “No f___ing way we’d ever take FSU,” then I doubt Delany is talking to them. But there are a lot of intermediate points between “No f___ing way” and “Welcome to the Big Ten,” and we don’t know where on that continuum FSU lies.
LikeLike
I doubt Delany has permission to talk to them unless there is a nearly certain invite in his pocket.
LikeLike
@greg: There were reliable reports that Delany vetted something like 10-20 schools, prior to the Nebraska invite. Do you think they all had “nearly certain invites”?
The Big Ten presidents are academics. They like data. They are deliberate. Their professional bias is that information is better than ignorance. They know they are making permanent decisions. The set of possibilities they are willing to study is surely far, far more than those they would ultimately decide to act upon.
Anyhow, the idea that Delany can speak only to those that have near-certain invites is somewhat circular, because frequently, the information you need before inviting a school is obtainable only by talking to them.
LikeLike
This is where the addition to the Dudespeak decoder ring comes in handy. “Open formal talks” isn’t RESTRICTED to just opening formal talks, but stretches as far as “engage in highly preliminary exploratory discussions”. Whomever Delany may have permission to initiate discussions with, would he be forbidden from responding to inquiries initiated by somebody else? That seems highly implausible.
There have been accounts of the Maryland entry, and there were a number of points of contact before it reached the stage of bringing a set of Maryland people into a conference room in some airport hotel, having them sign the NDA’s, and present the Big Ten’s financial projections in their current situation and with Maryland added to the league.
And THAT was not the opening of formal talks, that was just the step of getting Maryland the commercial-in-confidence information for them to decide whether they wanted to open formal talks or not.
LikeLike
Brian and other buckeyes: Ezekial Elliot’s dad just posted this on twitter:
LikeLike
more
LikeLike
Is it just me, or do those photos makes MO’s jersey look purple?
LikeLike
Looks like they used a cheap scanner.
LikeLike
On the subject of EzE:
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/4-Star-Texan-Dontre-Wilson-Has-Committed-To-Ohio-State-113453
Dontre Wilson committed to OSU tonight. Despite being listed as an all-purpose RB by scouts, he is 5’10” and about 175 pounds. He definitely was recruited by OSU to play slot WR. As weak as our WRs were last year, we need all the help we can get. By comparison, EzE is 6’0″ and 210 pounds. That’s a true RB. He may not choose OSU, but there is no competition between them.
LikeLike
Yeah, I have no idea what he’s going to do. It seems like they’re purposefully trying to make us think it might go either way.
LikeLike
Needs more Kerry Coombs.
LikeLike
Where ever EzE attends school, I wish him success.
LikeLike
Buckeye.
LikeLike
After all those years of Tressel failing to close strong, I’m just not used to OSU getting so much good news on NSD.
LikeLike
Yeah a week ago I would have said that there’s no way Bell, Wilson AND Clark would end up in Columbus. I wasn’t worried about Elliot. Bill Greene & Nevada never wavered in saying he was coming and every insider said the coaches were confident.
Hopefully the Johnny Townsend situation gets squared away. I also feel for Taivon Jacobs, he was a kid who I think really wanted to be a Buckeye but things got in the way. I look forward to seeing he and Diggs lining up together in the future.
LikeLike
I’m not clear on what the issue is with Townsend. Did they pull the scholarship offer and ask him to grayshirt? Did they ask him to be a preferred walk-on instead? Or did he just suddenly become indecisive?
As for Jacobs, my only real issue is that he didn’t think about staying near his child until after OSU signed a couple of other WRs. How did he not realize earlier that would be an issue? I’m all for him taking care of child though, don’t get me wrong. OSU will be fine without him, especially with Clark and the other recent commits.
LikeLike
With Townsend nobody really knows. His father stated today that his scholarship offer was unchanged and Meyer said emphatically that no scholarships had been pulled. His dad also stated that the hold up was due to a family matter. All the other talk seems to imply the issue is something on the academic side of the house…so who knows.
Taivon is 18 years old, sometimes it takes awhile for the reality of a situation to sink in. I’m certainly not going to criticize him for putting family first. Of course Clark & Wilson go a long way towards assuaging the blow.
LikeLike
Looks like Townsend to Florida. Stated reason is a desire to play closer to family.
LikeLike
http://www.toledoblade.com/sports/2013/02/03/When-it-comes-to-recruiting-football-crazed-Ohio-is-among-nation-s-best-in-producing-top-prospects.htmlRecently
A good article about how culture impacts recruiting and the differences between the south and other areas.
LikeLike
Nice piece. admittedly a bit of a “puff piece” from a local (e.g., Toledo) newspaper, but it’s conclusions are fact and data based. I like the measuring tool: Per-capita rate of players above the national average. So, “Ohio players filled FBS rosters last season at a per-capita rate of 1.61 times the national average — higher than California (0.97) and about even with Texas (1.63).” Other states of note: “Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida all supplied FBS rosters at a rate at least 1.74 times the national average.”
Nice antidote from the “doom-and-gloom” we normally see about the decline of football in the north and the alleged imminent demise of the B1G if we fail to get fertile recruiting grounds in the south.
The underlying research is from Theodore Goudge. here’s a Grantland link that shows Goudge’s data in a USMap form (scroll down a bit for the map).
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8654190/on-urban-meyer-ohio-state-wisconsin-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers
Some interesting states at the top of the list. Mississippi is the there near the top supplying players to FBS rosters at 2.12 times the national average. Not surprisingly, Alabama is there at 2.06. But who’s the highest? Hawai’i. Never would have guessed. They are 2.90. Another interesting state is Utah at 1.34. Nebraska is pretty high at 1.14.
Interesting data and map.
LikeLike
as for the Grantland article itself, the author Michael Weinreb makes this statement:
“There are millions of Big Ten alumni — including me — fanned out across America, … and we bleed out an extra six dollars to the cable company in order to watch two or three football games a year and 18 hours a day of high-definition propaganda on the conference’s Riefenstahl-ian television network.”
As I discovered on google, Riefenstahl was a 1930s era German filmmaker most famous for the film “Triumph of Will” generally considered a pro-Nazi propaganda film.
I thought this statement by Weinreb was very ironic given that he basically works for ESpin. Grantland is owned and operated by ESpin, one of the most successful propaganda/hype machines ever created.
Further, by Godwin’s Law, I hereby declare Weinreb the loser.
And this is yet another piece of evidence showing how much ESpin hates the B1G in general and the BTN in particular. Weinreb should have gotten a nice $$ bonus for his articulate and subtle body-slam against the BTN.
LikeLike
Beau – what’s even more interesting from my perspective is the Blue Chips map contained in the Grantland piece. The only three state over 2.0 are Louisiana (2.93), Mississippi (2.21) and Texas (2.01). Louisiana is pumping out blue chippers at almost three times the national average.
LikeLike
There’s a lot to absorb from that map.
1. OH fits in with the south in terms of player production (blue chip and otherwise).
2. Per capita data can sometimes be misleading.
MS is the 31st most populous state at 3.0M. LA is #25 at 4.6M. AL is #23 at 4.8M. The midwestern states aren’t nearly as prolific in per capita terms, but they are bigger. That helps reduce the discrepancy. For example, IL is #5 at 12.9M. It out-produces MS overall despite lagging tremendously per capita. The other thing to note is that AL and MS aren’t growing faster than the midwest. The coastal states from VA to FL are, and TX is exploding, but the rest of the south is smaller than the midwest and not growing very fast.
3. TX and FL are juggernauts for recruiting (duh).
LikeLike
It might be better to look at blue chip recruits per BCS school in the state. Since scholarships are limited by school that shows the surplus / deficit from the state. OSU and LSU do so well since they are in high blue chip production areas without competition. Mississippi does not produce the same absolute numbers of blue chip recruits and has to split them between two schools.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/?sct=uk_t11_a4
An interesting analysis of the predictive value of recruiting rankings. A compilation of the past 4 classes does as well to predict success as the preseason AP poll for that season. Considering all the extra factors human voters can use, that result surprised me.
LikeLike
Matt Hinton of CBS Sports reaches similar conclusions.
LikeLike
re: the SI article.
No offense to anyone that liked it, but, for me, it was a pile of mushy, disorganized, illogical bullcrap pretending to be “scientific.”
For example, the table with the AP pre-season and final poll ranks with the “rival model” in the middle is … well … unexplained. (Or maybe I missed it.). What do the blue and red signify? The title says: “Recruiting More Accurate on 16 of 25 Teams.” Sorry, but how the F did you come up with that conclusion?
Just as importantly, to be of any value, a model must do better than 50-50. Otherwise, it is just coin-flipping.
Here, the author says that “Recruiting [is] More Accurate on 16 of 25 teams.” In my view, that is not much better than saying “recruiting is more accurate on 12.5 of 25 teams.”
the SI author also admits to simply throwing out inconvenient data. In particular, the “rivals model” fails to account for Boise and TCU. So, instead of coming up with a proper model, the author simply throws those results out. As he says: Rivals “… routinely underestimates the rankings of Boise State and TCU … Excluding these two teams from the data set, the Rivals’ model performed as well or better than the preseason AP Poll 45 of 92 times.”
Now THERE is some good science.
There are all sorts of other problems with the data and how the data has been manipulated.
But more generally, the alleged correlation between subjective recruiting rankings and subjective polls seems specious at best. Put differently, I think you have apples being correlated with apple pie. It’s pretty much the same thing.
Concerning the Hinton article:
I have been a long-time fan of Hinton’s approach to evaluating “stars.” He has been doing this since his days as SundayMorningQuarterback.
His basic idea is that the number of stars correlates strongly with odds to become an All-American and/or NFL draft selection.
His table from the article linked by Marc Shepard:
5–Star: 1 in 4 [odds of becoming an All-American selection]
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
Those numbers are solidly rooted in actual data.
Then Hinton takes on the Team Rankings. Again, I love his approach. The subjective measure is not measured against another subjective measure. Rather, the rankings are measured against head-to-head game results.
Basically, in head-to-head matchups, the team with the higher ranked recruiting class won 66.4% of the time.
Again, solidly grounded in data and no inconvenient data is excluded.
As usual, Hinton makes a very very solid case for the predictive power of star rankings.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
For example, the table with the AP pre-season and final poll ranks with the “rival model” in the middle is … well … unexplained. (Or maybe I missed it.).
He roughly explains it. He didn’t provide his math in the article which was a definite flaw. He did regression analysis to create a model based on the Rivals rankings. Unfortunately, he didn’t share the resulting model. The chart compared that model to the preseason and final AP polls.
What do the blue and red signify?
Red was for when the AP poll was more accurate, blue for when the Rivals model was. That’s self-explanatory since he showed the AP poll in red and the Rivals rankings in blue.
The title says: “Recruiting More Accurate on 16 of 25 Teams.” Sorry, but how the F did you come up with that conclusion?
He counted. I’m not sure where your confusion about that is coming from.
Just as importantly, to be of any value, a model must do better than 50-50. Otherwise, it is just coin-flipping.
No. It’s 50-50 (well, 64-36) compared to another method, so it’s at least as accurate as the preseason AP poll. Considering all the other knowledge the voters have (injuries, busts, NFL early entries, coaches, schedule, etc), it’s amazing that just using the recruiting classes can be as predictive.
the SI author also admits to simply throwing out inconvenient data. In particular, the “rivals model” fails to account for Boise and TCU. So, instead of coming up with a proper model, the author simply throws those results out. As he says: Rivals “… routinely underestimates the rankings of Boise State and TCU … Excluding these two teams from the data set, the Rivals’ model performed as well or better than the preseason AP Poll 45 of 92 times.”
You misunderstood him. He didn’t throw out any data. He pointed out that those teams were ones that the AP poll consistently did better on. So if you look at the results just for the top recruiting schools (AQs, in other words), then the Rivals model does even better compared to the AP poll. He admitted early on that the recruiting rankings are only useful to separate the top teams:
“Analysis was restricted to the top teams in the FBS, since the Rivals’ ratings tend to differentiate between these schools to a much greater extent than they do the lower-ranked teams. For example, in 2012, top-ranked Alabama had 140 more points than second-ranked Texas. Yet the difference between the 84th-ranked team (FIU) and the 122nd-ranked team (Army) was just 141 points. This small margin between so many schools makes it difficult to accurately rank them. Teams from AQ conferences typically occupy the top of Rivals’ rankings, but the ratings for Notre Dame, BYU and Boise State were also factored into this study, to better compare the Rivals’ model with the preseason AP Poll.”
He is pointing out a limitation in the use of recruiting rankings while also showing how useful they can be for the top teams.
LikeLike
@ Brian:
regarding the table. thank you for explaining it. to me, the color scheme was not obvious at all.
Even with it explained, I still find the table pointless. a better table would have been a comparison of the Rival Model’s top 25 to the preseason AP top 25.
Further, I think a deviation-from-actual metric might have been interesting. I’m not going to do the math, but I don’t know which “wins.” The Rival’s Model is giving up nearly 60 points just on Kansas State and Boise. whatever.
Further, on this actual table, “better” is meaningless. Take USC and ‘Bama. The author gives the “victory” to the Rivals model but so what? AP preseason says “Bama was #2, they ended up #1. The “Model” said ‘Bama was #1. I am not impressed.
Then USC was #1 in the AP preseason poll. The “Model” had USC at #4. USC ended up unranked. But the “Model” “wins” the prediction contest? Again, I am not impressed. Both were way way way way way off on USC (as were hundreds of other pollster and predictors).
There is too much cheery-picking of the data here for my tastes.
Anyway, I know you liked this article. We disagree about it.
FWIW, if SI and this author are serious, they should start this as “Rival’s Annual Preseason Poll.” Then over a few years, we can see the preseason predictions and see how predictive they are under “live conditions.”
I mention this because of the feedback effect. The AP voters are fully aware of other polls. If there is actual predictive value in the Rival’s Model, I suspect the AP voters would start factoring in the Rival’s poll in much the same way KenPom and the RPI have been co-opted into voting behavior for Bball.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“regarding the table. thank you for explaining it. to me, the color scheme was not obvious at all.”
Maybe it’s an occupational hazard of me having seen way too many tables, charts and graphs.
“Even with it explained, I still find the table pointless. a better table would have been a comparison of the Rival Model’s top 25 to the preseason AP top 25.”
Both have pluses and minuses.
“Further, I think a deviation-from-actual metric might have been interesting.”
I agree.
“Anyway, I know you liked this article. We disagree about it.”
No, I only linked it because I found the result that the freshman class rankings were most important to the model to be interesting. I would have expected it to be the juniors or seniors.
LikeLike
Sounds like preseason polls are predictors for the success of recruiting rather than the other way around.
LikeLike
I think he “found” that good teams tend to recruit well and be good teams again the next year.
There are plenty of links that show analysis comparing recruiting results to winning games. Comparing to the final AP poll was a new twist, but interesting since it may be a slightly better metric than just Ws and Ls. I would have liked more quantitative analysis, but I’m guessing he was word-limited for that article. Also, he really works for another website that has premium content containing statistical analysis of sports. They’ve been writing some stuff for SI, but the goal is to grow their brand.
http://thepowerrank.com/the-top-10-things-to-know-about-the-power-ranks-methods/
So Beau, the article didn’t suffer because he fudged the data. He hid his methods so you’ll pay for his content.
LikeLike
@Brian.
thanks for the link to ThePowerRank dot com site. I now see that linked at the top of the SI article.
And thanks also for pointing out that the author (Ed Feng) “hid his results so you’ll pay for his content.”
THAT is the stench I was smelling. Mushy-mouthed pseudo-science slaved to a grubby pursuit for $$ (aka snake oil saleman).
I particularly liked —- in a loathing sort of way —- this steaming fly-infested pile:
“What in the world does statistical physics have to do with sports?
Well, statistical physics studies how the interactions of molecules on the nanometer scale produce bulk behavior on the human scale. For example, the attractive forces between molecules in a liquid result in the spherical shape of a water drop. Statistical physics considers all of these interactions in describing the properties of the drop surface, such as its energy.
In sports, teams are the molecules. These teams or molecules interact by playing games. The statistical physics of our algorithm considers all interactions or games to produce team rankings, which are like the bulk properties of the water drop.”
Oooooo, CFB is all connected, like a spherical water drop. Ooooooooo, it’s so mystical and energy and holistic and hologram and crystal and power bracelet and deer antler spray. I am seriously rolling my eyes.
Now, having poured sarcasm all over Mr. Feng, I would be quite interested to see a real scientific effort to measure the 121-ish CFB teams as a whole in some sort of “round” way rather than in so many linear lists. We all try this via eyeball tests and clearly-false-but-fun-none-the-less transitive principle discussions (tho’ sometimes the transitive principle works spectacularly; ND barely beat OKLA; A&M beat the tar out of OKLA; A&M beat ‘Bama, so ‘Bama will beat the tar out of ND).
However, there is nothing static about CFB, not even from week to week. Injuries, the ups and downs of athletes, the weather, schedules, illnesses large and small, interpersonal relationships, etc. etc. etc. There is certainly nothing static about CFB from year to year. Players graduate, leave for the NFL, new recruits, new coaches, new conferences, sanctions, etc. etc. etc.
This is the glory of college sports for us fans. This is the problem for science.
Moreover, in CFB, all the individual pieces are unique; they are not the same (and therefore not fungible, interchangable and predictable) like individual molecules of water.
Btw, there is a “blog” tab on ThePowerRank cite where over the months, Mr. Feng offered various predictions. IMO, he was not much better than the average blogger. Here was his prediction before Stanford-Oregon: “Our team rankings give Oregon an 87% chance to remain undefeated. But their injuries along the defensive line alone should worry Duck fans. The Vegas line started at 24 but dropped to 20.5. It might be a closer game than anyone expects.”
As you may recall, Oregon lost.
Anyway, for all his “science,” IMO, Mr. Feng did not offer a prediction about Stan/OR that was particularly unique or daring or correct.
LikeLike
His big claim seems to be that their model is slightly more accurate than the Vegas line at picking winners.
LikeLike
Well if we’re talking about preseason predictive accuracy…
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2012.html
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1247713.html
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1247716.html
😀
Ps yes recruiting talent matters a lot, and no I’m not impressed by his modelled predictive accuracy numbers. Seemingly good in one year, but…
the Rivals’ rankings went 8-16-1 against the preseason AP Poll in ’09, but 16-9-0 in ’12
That doesn’t exactly suggest long term success. I’m also curious how the trams he had in the top 25 but the ap didn’t ended up faring… Auburn anyone?
LikeLike
Matthew smith,
“Well if we’re talking about preseason predictive accuracy…
http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/2012.html”
Congrats.
As for your CFN links:
1. Could you add more CYA disclaimers at the bottom? Just kidding, I’m sure they demand those.
2. Re #3, have you tried to make the more cynical model and actually shown it’d be more correct, or is that just talk?
3. A little odd that your confidence levels didn’t match your overall success very well. Are you going to tweak the algorithm to change how you compute confidence, or do you think this year was a fluke?
4. Why pick so few games? Do you have a method to choose which games you pick?
“Ps yes recruiting talent matters a lot, and no I’m not impressed by his modelled predictive accuracy numbers.”
Do you agree it is surprising that the most recent recruiting class rankings are the most important of the 4 classes? That’s the part that caught my eye. Maybe it is really showing that the good teams tend to get the best recruiting classes and then be good again more than anything else, but I still thought it was interesting. Actually, I’d like to see him show that what I just said isn’t the case. Perhaps the previous year’s final AP poll outperforms the preseason AP poll, too.
“Seemingly good in one year, but…
the Rivals’ rankings went 8-16-1 against the preseason AP Poll in ’09, but 16-9-0 in ’12”
Rivals recently (2012 or 2013, I think) changed their formula for calculating team rankings significantly. Still, I agree that 1 year is anecdotal.
“I’m also curious how the trams he had in the top 25 but the ap didn’t ended up faring… Auburn anyone?”
I’d like to see more info, too, but I’m not going to pay to satisfy my curiosity.
LikeLike
Mostly because I’m bored– a 20 team B1G comparison to the new MLB divisions:
NL East – Phillies, NY Mets, D.C. Nats, ATL Braves, and Miami Marlins
AL East – NY Yankees, Toronto, Boston, Baltimore, Tampa Bay Rays
NL Central (2013) – Chicago Cubs, St. Louis, Milwaukee ( Algonquin for ‘the good land’), Cincy, Pittsburgh
AL Central – Chicago White Sox, Detroit, MSP, Kansas City, Cleveland
East – Clear saturation in the eastern seaboard, specifically Boston through DC. Two outliers in Florida. Toronto and Atlanta are on islands to an extent.
Central – If you draw lines from Milwaukee to Detroit to Pittsburgh to St. Louis and back you envelope most of the teams (with Cincy being just outside). Minneapolis and Kansas City are major cities, but are six hours away from other teams in their divisions (though Milwaukee and St. Louis are closer).
If you were to apply this model to the B1G, you’d get something close to this:
B1G East (ironic) – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State, UVa, Syracuse (!?!?), and BC (!?!?).
B1G Central – Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, and Ohio State. (Ohio State and Michigan are about equally ‘East’).
Clearly, there are differences between the availability of college teams that ‘own’ a market, and baseball. There are also differences in the market appeal of college football in certain areas (the Northeast isn’t as supportive of teams, compared to the Southeast) vs. baseball. The MLB has also ignored the state of North Carolina (and ignored D.C. for years), which may not be the case for the B1G.
Is this the format that they’ll follow? Probably not. But it does bring up a few questions given that the MLB has successfully monetized markets with this geography. Can G-Tech deliver Atlanta? Was the MLB (and later the ACC’s) execution of the ‘two teams in Florida’ idea successful enough to warrant emulation? Is upstate New York worth exploring? Will the Boston market (not the chicken variety) ever be a part of the expansion calculus? If you sub in UNC and Duke for Cuse and BC above, is that the model you go with (filter out smaller ACC programs or markets)?
LikeLike
The baseball analogy doesn’t really teach any valuable lessons. The concentration of teams and markets in the two sports is totally different. There is no logical reason why New York and Boston have “kings” of baseball, but not of college football; and yet, that is the case. MLB had no Florida teams whatsoever before 1993, whereas college football already had a long tradition there.
The other huge factor is the length of the season. In baseball, everyone in the league plays everyone else multiple times. In football, if two teams are not in the same division, they could go years with out meeting. So if you have static divisions, you need to ensure that no crucial rivalries are divided. Your alignment splits Michigan from both Michigan State and Ohio State, and there is no way they would allow that to happen.
Once again, there’s no logic in this. In an alternative fantasy universe, Michigan and Indiana could have been the fierce, neighboring-state rivalry, rather than Michigan and Ohio State, but it didn’t turn out that way. You can’t just draw lines and ignore all that.
LikeLike
If Michigan ends up in the ACC-lite division, I’m calling for David Brandon’s head on a pike.
LikeLike
Serves you right for wanting to go east.
LikeLike
He’ll really love it when the B1G goes to twenty and UM is in the east and OSU remains in the West. Michigan craves the East Coast only slightly less than ND.
LikeLike
ACC-lite with OSU and PSU?
David Brandon is like manna from above compared to Billy Martin. In fact, with exception to the bumble bee jerseys of 2012, I don’t think he’s made a false move yet. Both DB and Sue Coleman are creative, big-picture people. That’s exactly what Ann Arbor needs as we enter this brave new world.
LikeLike
College education (particularly at the elite level, think US News top 100-200) is probably going to go through the most upheaval that it’s seen in a long time over the next 20 or 30 years.
The era of tuition hikes ranging out much faster than inflation seems to be nearing an end, and it’s coming at the same time that we’re going to start witnessing dramatic changes in the college age cohort (for one thing that cohort has been shrinking for a few years, and for another the demographic/geographic mix of students will change hugely).
Leadership at these institutions will probably mean a lot more over the next 20 years than it did over the past 20 when leaders could count on steady increasing student counts (with tuition hikes to augment the financial inflows) along with easy endowment gains due to the asset value gains of the 90s and 00s.
(It’s similar to how policy stakes are vastly higher over Obama’s terms than they were over Clinton’s; far more big items on the agenda – big recession/crisis, wars, boomers reaching retirement, China as an economic force, etc.).
LikeLike
Colleges are pricing themselves out of the market !
LikeLike
I would say that the Big Ten has a lot of people who think that way, and that’s why the main emphasis around expansion is on the academic side with financial self-sufficiency for the athletic departments being more of a secondary issue. The COP/C is more concerned with the members of the research consortium than who is going to hold a crystal football over their head at season’s end.
If the conference gets to 18 or 20 teams, my assessment is that they’ll use a pod system with an eye towards keep the individual pods regional and focused upon ensuring the high value/rivalry games get played as often as possible. But once you get to that number, there are some of these games that just cannot be played on an annual basis.
I wrote before that if Delany had a wish list, the next four members would be Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Florida State. If that list extended to 20 teams, then Notre Dame and Duke would probably round it out.
Pod A: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
While Illinois might also make sense here as a replacement for NW, I want to make sure for Brian’s sake that Ohio State and the Illini play for the Illinibuck on an annual basis.
Pod B: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Illinois has four rivalry games in the Big Ten and this setup accommodates two of them (Indiana, Ohio State). Those annual games with Northwestern and Purdue are going by the wayside. Indiana-Purdue also gets broken up in this alignment.
Pod C: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Purdue, Notre Dame
This pod gives PSU games with two teams in close proximity along with one major program in Notre Dame. Purdue is added because the Boilermakers are only B1G team due to play ND on an annual basis. ND also gets two games each year against teams on east coast.
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia
This is strictly a geographic grouping with teams that have a long relationship through the ACC.
The pods swap out every two years so that teams get to play everyone else in the conference at least two times in six years (Pods A/B with C/D, A/C with B/D and A/D with B/C) with nine conference games. That would be a round robin in each of the divisions with three non-conference games on the slate.
Here’s the composition of the divisions:
Years 1/2 –
Division A: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Division B: Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Years 3/4 –
Division A: Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Division B: Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, North Carolina, Ohio State, Virginia
Years 5/6 –
Division A: Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Northwestern, Virginia, Wisconsin
Division B: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
LikeLike
The trouble with static pods is that they protect too much, and they also protect too little. I don’t think there’s ANY chance that they’d set up a system, where any school is deprived of its #1 rival.
Indiana would say, with some justification, “Why does Penn State get to preserve regional rivalries with both Maryland and Rutgers — schools it hasn’t played since the mid-1990s — when we don’t get to keep playing Purdue every year?” At the same time, Purdue is getting annual games with Rutgers and Maryland, and it has no substantial history with those schools at all.
My first preference would be to abolish the rule requiring static divisions, protect whatever games you need to protect, and just stage a #1 vs #2 game at the end of the season. If you must have divisions, re-align them every single year, with all of the crucial rivalries kept.
For example, assuming the same 20 teams as you did, imagine the following clusters:
A: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State
B: Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana
C: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
D: Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
W: Northwestern, Illinois
X: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Y: Nebraska, Iowa
Z: Florida State, Georgia Tech
Now, arrange A thru D according to the combined winning percentage the prior year (use whatever tie-breaker you want), and do the same with W through Z. Now, you divide the 2- and 3-team clusters into divisions, so that they are evenly balanced. At the end of the year, do the same again for the following season, and so on, forever. (Obviously, the algorithm would need to be spelled out in more detail, but it is not hard to do.)
It’s easier if the NCAA’s dumb 2-division rule is abolished, but if it remains on the books, nothing says you can’t tear up the divisions every year. The putative 20-team Big Ten just doesn’t divide sensibly into 5-team pods; there are really just combinations of 2’s and 3’s that you care about.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepherd-
One major problem I can think of with your system is that the conference and the individual teams would not know years out, let alone next season, what teams it could be expected to play with your system. What you’re suggesting would be a planning and logistics nightmare.
The second problem is that it would be pretty difficult for the average fan to comprehend year in and year out what to expect on the conference schedule or the composition of the divisions themselves. If you want the people who follow the game to have any sort of attachment to the conference itself, you’re going to have to minimize the churn involved. I don’t think there’s any school in the conference who wants to publish a future schedule with most of the dates having an opponent known as To Be Determined.
I did think about having the in-state rivals all in the same pods to make sure they play one another annually, but there’s no really great solution there. If you move Northwestern from Pod A to Pod B to pair up with Illinois, and have Indiana go from Pod B to Pod C to team up with Purdue, then you have to move one of the Pod C teams to Pod A, which has the four western most schools in it. The only options are one of the two easternmost schools (Maryland or Rutgers) or Notre Dame. I really can’t see ND wanting to play those four schools on an annual basis though and to be frank, I imagine the B1G would want them to have at least one game on the east coast each year (one of Maryland and Rutgers).
If you’re looking for perfection in these arrangements, then you’re on a hopeless search. I do agree with you that Purdue would be in a shotgun marriage with Rutgers and Maryland, but the offset to that is annual games with Notre Dame and Penn State. Is it a compromise for the Boilermakers? Yes, and it’s just like what Wisconsin dealt with when the B1G first split in divisions when Nebraska was made the 12th member.
The one thing the setup above does is it tries to split up in the best manner possible the six major programs in the conference (FSU, ND, PSU, OSU, UM, UN-L). At least in this manner, there’s “balance” in the number of kings in each division four years out of six. Again, it’s not perfect, but it’s perhaps the best that can be done given the programs involved coupled with their geography.
LikeLike
cutter,
“If the conference gets to 18 or 20 teams, my assessment is that they’ll use a pod system with an eye towards keep the individual pods regional and focused upon ensuring the high value/rivalry games get played as often as possible. But once you get to that number, there are some of these games that just cannot be played on an annual basis.”
I tend to agree. Static divisions would mean too few games against old foes for those stuck with mostly newbies. You can keep most of the major rivalries alive this way. On the other hand:
E – ND, PSU, RU, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU + PU
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, MI, MSU, OSU + IN
works pretty well for almost everyone except PU and IN. At that point I’d just add VT and Miami to the east and keep all the B10 schools in the west.
“I wrote before that if Delany had a wish list, the next four members would be Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Florida State. If that list extended to 20 teams, then Notre Dame and Duke would probably round it out.”
I disagree. If it was solely up to Delany, ND would be much higher (I assume we’re ignoring schools like TX, UF, etc). FSU might be, too. The only reason it’s so low is academics. I’d think Delany might go: 1. ND, 2. FSU, 3. Miami, 4. GT, 5. UNC. 6. UVA. That gets him footprint, demographics and brands.
“Pod A: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
While Illinois might also make sense here as a replacement for NW, I want to make sure for Brian’s sake that Ohio State and the Illini play for the Illinibuck on an annual basis.”
Don’t worry about me. I think NW fits better in that group, though. It’s closer to WI and all those schools have a bunch of alumni in Chicago.
“Pod B: Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Illinois has four rivalry games in the Big Ten and this setup accommodates two of them (Indiana, Ohio State). Those annual games with Northwestern and Purdue are going by the wayside. Indiana-Purdue also gets broken up in this alignment.”
Purdue is getting screwed here.
“Pod C: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Purdue, Notre Dame
…
Pod D: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia”
The last one is obvious.
“The pods swap out every two years so that teams get to play everyone else in the conference at least two times in six years (Pods A/B with C/D, A/C with B/D and A/D with B/C) with nine conference games. That would be a round robin in each of the divisions with three non-conference games on the slate.”
I’d change every year and get rid of home and homes for non-pod games. That way you rotate through teams faster. Everyone will play every team in 3 years this way. Also, I have to think they’d strongly consider going to 10 games if they got to 20 teams. That extra game would let them preserve a bunch of rivalries.
LikeLike
@cutter: One major problem I can think of with your system is that the conference and the individual teams would not know years out, let alone next season, what teams it could be expected to play with your system. What you’re suggesting would be a planning and logistics nightmare.
Can you explain why? In the system I suggested, next year’s schedule would be known as soon as this year’s season was over. I don’t think any team sells tickets any earlier than that. Every Big Ten school owns its stadium, so there is no potential scheduling conflict.
The second problem is that it would be pretty difficult for the average fan to comprehend year in and year out what to expect on the conference schedule or the composition of the divisions themselves.
I don’t see that difficulty either. Do you know the 2013 NFL schedule yet? Do you know which opponents your favorite team will be playing, home or away, on what dates? No, you don’t. All you know is that the three teams in your four-team division will be on the schedule at some point. And many NFL teams, unlike Big Ten teams, aren’t exclusive tenants in their stadiums.
If you’re looking for perfection in these arrangements, then you’re on a hopeless search.
I am not looking for perfection, just avoiding a fatal flaw. Any system in which a school loses its primary rival won’t be adopted. No chance whatsoever. Will every rivalry be protected? Of course not. Even before Nebraska joined the league, Michigan and Minnseota didn’t meet every year. But they never would have dreamt of a system where Northwestern and Illinois didn’t meet.
By the way, if you don’t like the system I suggested, I could give you half-a-dozen more. It’s not hard. But any system the Big Ten adopts will, at a minimum, preserve the in-state rivalries, Michigan/Ohio, and Wisconsin/Minnesota. Those, I believe, are non-negotiable.
LikeLike
@Brian-
You make two really good points. If the conference put a high priority on making sure each team in the B1G would play one another at least once over a four year time frame, then the only way to do it is to abandon the home-and-home concept and rotate the membership of the divisions annually. The only problem with that is the yearly churn in the division lineups that may put the fans following these teams off. That’s something the conference would have to think out.
I’m kind of split on the whole concept of ten conference games when you get to 18 or 20 teams. In static divisions you would get a 8-2 or 9-1 setup and that sort of thing doesn’t work as well as a pod system.
In a pod system with 18 teams and a home-and-home setup, there would be two 5-team pods and two 4-team pods that flip back and forth every two years. Assuming UVa, UNC, FSU and GaTech, it could be set up like this:
Pod A: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Pod B: Georgia Tech, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia
Pod C: Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Pod D: Indiana, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
The four year rotation would be Pods A/C and B/D in Years 1 and 2 and Pods A/D and B/C in Years 3 and 4. A team would have eight games within its division and two with teams in the other division.
If you’re in Pods A and B, those two games would be against teams from the other pod (A or B) and those programs would play every team in the conference at least twice in a four year period.
If you’re in Pods C and D, those two games would be against teams from the other pod (C or D). In four years, a team would play four of the five teams from the other pod.
With 20 teams over a four year period, a team could play 12 of the 15 teams outside its own pod if a ten-game schedule was implemented. Not ideal because it doesn’t mean every team plays everyone else in that time frame, but perhaps the best set up possible.
The one negative I have with the ten game conference schedule would be the potential problems with the non-conference schedule and how it ties into teams getting those seven home games for revenue purposes. Some schools might be willing to play alternating years of six and seven home games in order to have a quality home-and-home opponent and others might go a different route. Michigan, for example, has single games with no return date in the next few years with Oregon State, Brigham Young and Colorado–I don’t know if everyone could pull that sort of thing off.
Perhaps the bottomline on all this is that if the quality of competition within the conference is really good, it might not be necessary to have that really good non-conference opponent on the schedule in order to please the fans, appease the networks, etc. If the B1G were to schedule conference games early in September (which they’d have to do almost anyway due to the nine or ten-game B1G schedule), that might make things more interesting.
We’ll see. If for some reason we see another western school join the Big Ten (such as Kansas), then putting together pods for a 18- or 20-team conference might be a bit easier. That’s not a likely scenario, but it would sure put a different spin on things.
LikeLike
Just an addendum to my earlier comments:
Prior to Nebraska joining the league, Big Ten teams had only two locked games. They announced the rotation of the non-locked games a few years in advance, but in principle I can see no reason why this has must be done. The pro sports leagues generally don’t announce more than one year at a time, and I can’t find next year’s B1G basketball schedule either.
So I just don’t see any basis for the claim that flex scheduling for conference games would be a “planning and logistics nightmare”; or that, in a 20-team B1G scenario, fans would have trouble following the sport without locked 5-team pods.
In fact, I think fans would quickly figure out that the 5-team pods are practically the worst way of going about it. “Sorry, we’ve got 12 games, and we couldn’t figure out a way for Purdue and Indiana to meet every year” is not going to be very persuasive.
(By the way, Purdue/Indiana is the second most-often played rivalry in the B1G with 115 meetings, and ranks sixth in FBS among active rivalries, behind only Wisconsin-Minnesota, UNC/UVA, Miami/Cincinnati, Auburn/Georgia, and Oregon/Oregon State. You think they’re giving that up?)
Although I gave one example of the nuts and bolts of how it could work without pods, they probably wouldn’t put all the details in a press release. The NFL has a pretty complicated formula to decide who plays who every year (outside one’s own 4-team division), but most fans don’t know that formula even exists. They just wait to see when the schedule is announced.
Of course, one lesson of all this is that fans just might not like a 20-team Big Ten, which is a whole other story.
LikeLike
cutter,
“If the conference put a high priority on making sure each team in the B1G would play one another at least once over a four year time frame, then the only way to do it is to abandon the home-and-home concept and rotate the membership of the divisions annually. The only problem with that is the yearly churn in the division lineups that may put the fans following these teams off. That’s something the conference would have to think out.”
If they are doing pods, then the divisions are churning every 2 years anyway. All most people will remember are the teams in their pod. Frankly, I’m not sure most people care who is in their division. They can look at the standings online or in the paper, but every gameday story will tell them if it’s a division game or not. I think fans would willingly trade 2 years of stability for seeing every team in a shorter period.
LikeLike
Apologist.
LikeLike
I am sure that there is plenty to nitpick, so nitpick away.
LikeLike
A 5-year grant of rights would probably be enough to ensure that the ACC survives in its current 15 member form for at least the next 10-12 years.
That would pretty much get the ACC through the big contract negotiations that are ongoing (SEC Network) or likely to come up in the 5 year time frame (Big Ten’s next T1/2 contract).
I think FSU and Clemson are really the only wild cards.
Miami and Georgia Tech are much more similar to the rest of the ACC than they are to schools in any other conference (private and smaller elite public universities respectively), and they’re located in urban markets like others in the ACC.
Also, their student bodies and alumni groups are East Coast based, I’m not really sure they’d desire leaving the ACC with just FSU and Clemson as a southeast quartet off to the Big 12. Miami and Georgia Tech are more motivated by other considerations than football (academic branding, East Coast presence) than are FSU and Clemson.
It comes down to FSU and Clemson, and Clemson’s only alternative to the ACC is the Big 12. The Big Ten and SEC aren’t really going to consider Clemson in their expansion rounds, so Clemson is the much more restricted of the two.
FSU has value to the SEC and Big Ten but there’s question marks as to whether they’d be able to get into the Big Ten without AAU status, and there’s question marks as to whether the SEC is explicitly wanting schools in the Virginia and North Carolina regions (to the exclusion of FSU) next as a way of growing its territory for its future network.
That really means that it could be Big 12 or bust for both schools. And getting the Big 12 to act on expansion could be difficult if the Big 12 doesn’t want to be the conference that sets off a chain reaction that implodes the ACC and creates an 16-18 team Big Ten and a 16 team SEC.
LikeLike
Well that wasn’t very nitpicky at all!
LikeLike
The conventional wisdom is that the B1G must move before anything happens. Certainly the B1G is likely to have the biggest projected revenue. On the other hand, the new TV contract hasn’t happened yet and their targets, as Frank has pointed out, aren’t too enthused about leaving the ACC.
I agree with you that FSU may be the key. If they believe the $ advantage to moving to the Big 12 (or SEC should the SEC want them) is enough, that could well be the first move out of the ACC. The Big 12, with the SEC and B1G not yet having updated contracts, has the biggest value per school. If FSU doesn’t think its enough, then perhaps UVA and everyone else stays put. Deloss Dodds, who has been anti-expansion, has even said he is in favor of expanding with the “right two”, so there really isn’t any doubt the Big 12 would say yes if FSU asked for an invite.
LikeLike
Yeah, I tend to agree.
The Big Ten’s targets (and the SEC’s presumably) are not first movers in this equation.
It seems as if FSU and the Big 12 would have to be the first movers regardless of the Big Ten’s revenue projections.
LikeLike
FSU isn’t going to the Big XII unless they go with a couple or more of their buddies (Miami, Clemson) while the Big XII doesn’t want to expand past 12. Given this, along with the Big XII is likely FSU’s 3rd choice after the SEC, B10 (if not 4th after the ACC) means were left waiting till something significant happens before (Virginia going to the B10) anything happens with FSU.
LikeLike
4th after current ACC by a wide margin. B12 is last resort.
LikeLike
FSU absolutely is not going to B12 unless its in survival mode. Our own Prez pretty much dogged that conference publicly too.
LikeLike
No halftime show at next year’s Super Bowl?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273313/Super-Bowl-2014-Next-year-NO-Halftime-Show-NJ-cold.html#axzz2K20Hikz8
LikeLike
The NFL took a HUGE risk scheduling an outdoor Super Bowl in a cold-weather city. Suppose there’s a blizzard right in the middle of it? Suppose there are single-digit temps, as there were a few weeks ago?
LikeLike
@Marc – Suppose there are single-digit temps, as there were a few weeks ago?
I don’t hear too many complaints with the conference championship games.
LikeLike
@Mike: NFL conference championship games are played at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The majority of the crowd are fans of that team, who are accustomed to the normal range of local weather.
Super Bowls are staged in neutral sites. Most of the tickets are sold long before anyone knows who will be playing; most of the attendees are not local.
LikeLike
What is the issue? Football can be played in cold weather. Anyone from out of town will know that the cold is possible. Its not like New York becomes inaccessible when it gets cold.
LikeLike
Its not like New York becomes inaccessible when it gets cold.
How much time have you spent in New York after a foot of snow has fallen?
LikeLike
New York gets a foot of snow 4 or 5 times a month, so I can see why you’re concerned.
LikeLike
To the contrary, it seldom occurs. But if you don’t see the potential — I stress, the potential — for a P.R. debacle, you don’t have much of an imagination.
LikeLike
I also see the potential – the potential – of a hurricane in New Orleans.
LikeLike
I admit I’ve never been to NYC. However, the NFL has managed to stage Super Bowls in Detroit, Minneapolis, and Indy without incident. Yes, they were held in domes but given the length of time for fans to prepare for the Super Bowl getting appropriate gear for an outdoor Super Bowl shouldn’t be a problem. In addition, bad weather isn’t only an issue in northern locales. For example, lightning in Miami, ice in Dallas, or a dust storm in Phoenix could cause similar issues as a foot of snow in NYC.
LikeLike
Sometimes, I am not sure who is being serious, and who is not. February is not hurricane season in New Orleans. I don’t recall many games in Phoenix being affected by dust storms. Ice storms in New York are quite a bit more common than ice storms in Dallas. Etc., etc.
Of course, it’s not my problem if they have a terrible time. I’ll be comfortably at home, in front of my TV set. But if you don’t see the real potential (not the merely theoretical, like a freak earthquake) for it to turn out badly, and reflect poorly on everyone who came up with the idea, there is probably nothing more I can do to help you.
It’s true that the NFL has held Super Bowls in cold-weather cities before, but it has never put the game itself outdoors in those cities. And as a current NYC resident and former Detroit resident, I can tell you that Detroit is far better able to handle severe winter storms. (Among many other problems, two of New York’s three airports are on the water, and all three have shared landing patterns that are much more prone to closure.)
Terrible weather in outdoor stadiums in February is a not uncommon experience. The people who attend Super Bowls (which probably includes none of us) pay A TON of money (or their employers/sponsors do) for what amounts to a week-long party. The lack of a halftime show referenced above (if that turns out to be the case) is a black eye already, even before the potential for even worse weather is taken into account.
Not that the NFL’s reputation is my problem; I am just pointing out what they signed up for.
LikeLike
Marc, there is a slightly higher risk of a problem in NYC than other locales. But its not exponentially higher. You argued about the potential – the potential – then acted like the potential isn’t there in other cities. C’mon.
LikeLike
Well, for starters, we know the NFL has never staged a Super Bowl without a halftime show, so they’re already in uncharted territory, and that’s before we even know what the weather will be. New York had single-digit temperatures just a couple of weeks ago, and snow storms that (basically) shut the whole city down happen every 2-3 years. That’s quite a bit more than any of the other hypotheticals, such as February hurricanes in New Orleans, that have been tossed out.
To be clear, the odds of it happening THAT particular Sunday are not that high, but writing as a New York resident, and knowing what can quite easily happen here, I’d say the NFL has taken on quite a bit more risk than they did in any other Super Bowl.
LikeLike
my guesses and my predictions;
my guess is that the decision to hold the SB in NY was a divisive decision that is still raw, leaving many on the “losing” side still angry and passive aggressive; further, someone among those “still angry” has floated the idea that there will be no half-time show to “prove” they were “right.”
my prediction is that we will continue to read things like this all the way through next year’s SB. my further prediction is that sabotage-via-passivity will cause some serious problems. Finally, I predict there will be a haft-time show.
LikeLike
The Super Bowl should be held in New Orleans EVERY year, the greatest big event party city in the world!
LikeLike
As long as they don’t mid playing in the dark.
LikeLike
What happened to all the FIMA generators? Could they be rented for a weekend? 🙂
LikeLike
…FEMA… 😦
LikeLike
I say bring back the marching band if they’re going to have a halftime show.
LikeLike
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2013/2/4/3952290/ohio-state-updates-athletic-logo-ruins-everything
Ohio State’s new logo.
LikeLike
If you scroll down the comments Nicholas Jervey did a slight modification that separates all the letters and while subtle it looks nicer than either the new logo or the previous one.
LikeLike
Looks good. I want the logo re-design job because OSU just paid millions to fill in some empty space.
LikeLike
They also decided against a bunch of other choices, I presume.
LikeLike
Beats the hell out of UM’s uniform designer. The ones they have on right now are insane. I didn’t think they could get any uglier than the old yellow ones. I guess I wasn’t thinking hard enough.
LikeLike
This is a great game though.
LikeLike
B10 owes OSU an apology.
LikeLike
You can’t put yourself in a situation where the refs can stop you from winning, especially on the road.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that the refs can’t review whether or not a player gets a 3-point shot off in time.
LikeLike
Huh? Wasn’t the stink about Az/Colo a few weeks ago because they reviewed exactly that…and incorrectly overturned the correct call? Whether or not they could review wasn’t ever questioned.
LikeLike
Expiration of the shot clock is not reviewable. You’d think it ought to be, as it’s one of those things that video can usually confirm or refute definitively, and it doesn’t take long to figure out. In contrast, they spent quite a while deciding if that foul near the end was flagrant, and no matter what they decided, it was going to be a judgment call.
LikeLike
Shot clock not reviewable, but expiration of game clock is?
I just love logical consistency…
LikeLike
Bottom line is that the refs totally lost control of that game in OT. I don’t really care who won, but it was a good game that went to crap.
LikeLike
@jj – It’s been nearly 12 hours since that game has ended and my retinas are still burning from those Michigan uniforms. They were like staring at the sun for 2 straight hours.
LikeLike
Honestly…I think I like it better than the current full Ohio State logo. I still prefer the simple block O or block O with the buckeye leaf, but I think that one beats the current full one.
LikeLike
“Rise and fire” to become “turn and shoot”?
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/05/gus-johnson-to-become-the-voice-of-american-soccer/
LikeLike
I would just love to be a fly in the wall deep inside Big Ten Headquarters just to hear whether Delany has one of those targeted ACC school presidents on Line 1. 😉
The conventional wisdom I’ve read is that UVa/GT is the power play to break open the dam, the assumption being that they won’t take Duke at least in the next round. Yes, we’ve read the arguments about FSU’s lack of academic pull. However, is the risk of taking a school in a city where it’s #2 behind an SEC flagship worth not taking a school arguably the #2 behind an SEC flagship in a state that is among the fastest growing and a fertile recruiting ground? I don’t pretend to know the answer to that one but if it is a game of chess, as some people allude, what would the chess analogy be? Who would be the queen piece?
LikeLike
Georgia Tech isn’t exactly bereft of tradition; I would say its post-SEC years (both as a football independent and in the ACC) have led it to become undervalued. The Big Ten has a substantially better football brand than the ACC, and while Tech may not be as ideal a partner for UVa as UNC would be, it’s nevertheless worth acquiring until the folks in Chapel Hill make up their minds about whether they want to lose millions just for the sake of being an alpha dog in a conference that doesn’t get alpha dog money because it doesn’t play alpha dog football.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is just Pittsburg except in a state the Big 10 isn’t already in. Is that what the Big 10 wants?
LikeLike
Depends on who you ask. The under-reported narrative is that the Big Ten has settled into factions opposing certain schools.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of nuances behind that opposition. I doubt that Rutgers would have attracted many votes as the 12th school, but as the 14th it was unanimous. There’s a difference between opposing a school entirely, and opposing it for the time being because you believe there are better options.
LikeLike
Marc
The vote was unanimous because these votes are unanimous for public appearances after the decision has been made.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t dissenters; this is more of a political thing to not create the divisions seen when Penn State was added to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@zeek: The vote to admit Penn State was 7-3, and the Indiana president publicly acknowledged voting no. (Michigan and Michigan State were the other reported no votes, and a number of athletic directors were quite outspoken in opposition, at the time.) I think that if anyone opposed Rutgers, it would eventually come out.
But anyhow, you’re overlooking the substance: Rutgers was #14, but it probably couldn’t have been #12.
LikeLike
There was a fair amount of opposition to Rutgers and Maryland, but it was already a fait accompli. Dave Brandon mentioned how he’s gotten outright screamed at by alumni, donors and fans.
This is why I worry about dallying with the ACC – alienating your own fans is a very bad thing to do.
LikeLike
I was referring only to support and/or opposition by the university presidents and athletic departments. We already know that the fans don’t get a vote, and no matter what the Big Ten does (including doing nothing), some fans will not like it.
LikeLike
You are aware that the University of Michigan and Michigan State University are both controlled by a publicly elected board of regents/trustees, right?
Not that I think it actually matters, Brandon talked about leadership and doing unpopular things.
LikeLike
You’re kidding!!! Never would have guessed!!!!
Seriously: in a general, metaphysical sense, the university is accountable to the public, but you’ve answered your own question: they don’t take a poll on every decision the school makes, even fairly consequential ones, like the composition of the conference they’re in.
LikeLike
True enough, but I’m thinking long term.
People have the “rain follows the plow” mentality and I am wary of wedding programs that are the heart and soul of a deadbeat conference, especially when we’ve seen how the lack of social cohesion has led to the destruction of the WAC, Big East, and the near dissolution of the Big XII.
LikeLike
If Pitt was in a state that the Big Ten was not already in, it would surely be an add with more incremental media value.
LikeLike
@ bullet
Just so the Pitt fans know there is a Nitt standing up for them, Pittsburg has an ‘h’ at the end of it-Pittsburgh. It just figures.
LikeLike
“Pittsburg” is a 1905-era spelling of the Pennsylvania city, as if you’re going to go watch Honus Wagner play for the Pirates. It also refers to Pittsburg State College of Kansas (home of the Gorillas).
LikeLike
I think we’d all like to be a fly on that same wall. There isn’t a lot of solid reporting on that UVA/GT rumor. Personally, I have trouble believing that UVA would leave the ACC unless they knew that UNC was coming with them at the same time, or not long thereafter.
LikeLike
A couple of things to keep in mind about Virginia is that UVa has the second highest revenue figure in the conference ($78M) with a football program that essentially breaks even. The Cavaliers also have the most profitable athletic department in the conference (a little over $6M in the 2010/11 year) as well.
Keep in mind that nearly half of Virginia’s athletic department revenue comes from private donors through basketball and football PSLs while another $13M is from student fees (about $940 per undergraduate). UVa supports 23 varsity teams (11 men/12 women).
If football really is breaking even, then there’s real potential there for Virginia if it looked at the B1G as a future partner. The article below talks about a decline in football ticket revenue for UVA’s home games–think about what it would look like with a better slate of teams on the schedule.
So yes, Virginia could make the leap along with Georgia Tech without strong assurances from North Carolina based on finances alone. If the B1G can tell them (like they did with Rutgers and Maryland) that over half their present budget will come from annual conference distributions in 2017, then you can bet the leadership in Charlottesville is listening very intently.
See http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=I-vnkrGoe8EPEM&tbnid=dGuJcVqhLg2ItM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F734553-2011-college-football-top-25-the-sexiest-coeds-of-the-top-teams&ei=uXsSUerjN43x0wHIqoCQBg&bvm=bv.41934586,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNFjTqynw8Z45XSuI0sWu9cMEyFRpg&ust=1360252202026524
LikeLike
If they’re running a “profit” of $6 million, but taking $13 million in “student fees,” then I would put it differently. They have a $7 million annual loss, which the students are subsidizing.
LikeLike
@cutter – A link to “Sexiest Coeds of Top Teams” contains that financial info?
LikeLike
@Mike
Too funny! Finally some in-depth reporting and analysis that we can enjoy, and you are questioning its validity? I know it’s not applicable to this blog, but the link to NFL Cheerleaders isn’t a bad read either.
LikeLike
It was bugs me when people talk about how profitable UVa’s AD is and don’t mention the fact that the Cavs have the second most subsidized athletic department of any AQ team in the country (USF is #1)
LikeLike
I have no idea where that link came from. Try this instead — http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-05-24/sports/dp-spt-teel-column-state-finances-20120524_1_student-fees-virginia-tech-hokies
But yes, when you see how much Virginia’s student body is subsidizing the athletic department and couple that with a football program that is basically breaking even (or so says the accounting), then you have to take UVa’s revenue structure into account when you consider them as a B1G candidate.
North Carolina is having its own financial difficulties. Here’s an article from a year ago–see http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2010/02/unc_athletic_department_struggles_to_make_profit
When the UNC Athletic Director says, “Sometimes when we’re putting the budget together, I’m wondering where’s that extra $25,000, $100,000 going to come from”, then you know that it’s tough sledding for North Carolina to keep its commitment to support 28 teams.
Florida State had a projected annual budget deficit that went away when ACC revenues were a bit higher than normal–see http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-08/sports/os-florida-state-athletic-budget-0608-20120608_1_athletics-budget-acc-conference-official
Georgia Tech’s 2013 athletic department budget doesn’t have much fat in it either–see http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/georgia-tech-notes-2013-budget-approved/nQWjK/
We’ll see what happens, but from a strictly financial standpoint for their respective athletic departments, the B1G and the SEC have to look pretty good. None of these programs appear to be in Maryland-like straits, but you get the impression they’re having a hard time making ends meet without cutting teams.
And FWIW, Duke is starting a major fund raising campaign for its athletic facilities–see http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205701312
The last figures I saw on Duke is that they had a profit of around $567K in 2010/11–see http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/3/20/2880533/financial-comparison-acc-athletic-department-budgets-10-11 The Blue Devils have perhaps the most profitable basketball program in the country (and I believe UNC is #3). If anything, that’s the cash cow which helps support the athletic department.
LikeLike
I have no idea where that link came from.
Ha ha. Sure you don’t. To paraphrase Austin Powers “Honestly, the link’s not mine!”
Seriously though – nice work on these links.
LikeLike
Thedailytarheel ,missed something. The Big, If you were going to talk about money why not talk about the conference who is the leader in understanding how to make money. The writer talks about rich conferences ,the big 12 and the SEC . I think he forgot one !
LikeLike
The only people saying it are unsubstantiated rumors and the echo chamber that is the blogosphere.
So many people have repeated it here that it’s become gospel truth.
LikeLike
Consider the ease of upgrading an insider saying “UVA would rather stay in today’s ACC, but if they go anywhere, its to the Big Ten” into a hit-catching post “an insider says the UVA is seriously considering going to the Big Ten” then after 20 people repeating the exact same whisper, add another twenty people blogging that the Big Ten wants contiguous AAU schools, which adds up to UVA and Kansas, and a conversion into “Everyone says that the UVA is heading to the Big Ten, its just a matter of time” is pretty much automatic.
LikeLike
The UVA bit is pretty much being repeated by all the mainstream media as they have heard it from ADs and other connected people, several of whom have publically said they expect the Big 10 to expand. Not clear if anyone has heard it from UVA people, but have definitely heard it from lots of other sources higher up the credibility ladder than anonymous internet insiders. And those mainstream rumors got heaviest right after the NCAA convention.
LikeLike
And maybe they are hearing it from Big 10 sources who believe, like Mike Slive mistakenly believed, that they could get 15 schools in 15 minutes. But movement is clearly being discussed and reliable sources believe as SI said, its not if but when.
Doesn’t mean they’re right that its inevitable. But its not just random internet rumors.
LikeLike
You don’t think Slive could have made his number just short of instantly? His point was that the number wasn’t as important as those that would make it. I’m sure he knows a number of schools that would instantly accept, but aren’t on his target list.
LikeLike
What mainstream media? Until it hits ESPN, it’s not real.
LikeLike
CNNSI, CBSSports, USA Today and yes, ESPN.
LikeLike
@bullet ~ that’s my point about information being “promoted” in status ~ its quite easy for insider discussion that UVA is at or near the top of the short list to be converted into a UVA entry being in one or another stages of being finalized … without UVA actually giving a clear indication that they are leaning toward moving, or with the “insiders” in question not being party to reservations that UVA have raised with the real insiders.
In particular, UVA working out the details of a Big Ten contingency plan in case something else unexpected happens could easily generate precisely the same “smoke” as UVA already leaning toward being the next one out of the door … but they would be quite different “fires”.
LikeLike
I have family that just moved away from northern Virginia (DC basically) and lived there for ~12 years. He’s told me UVA was every bit as popular as VT when he first moved there (I’d guess about ’00, ’01) and is their only true rival left in the ACC. Maryland & NC are their others and both of those are losing popularity as actual rivals. NC’s many other rivals in NC hurt UVA feeling like a rival.
Felt Beamer vs Groh helped greatly tilt that rivalry in VT’s favor, he feels with the right coaching hire UVA should be back to where they were under Welsh in the 80’s, 90’s as a strong but not dominant program (say Iowa).
LikeLike
Beamer’s VT Hokies have been the state’s dominant football program for over two decades. It’s awfully hard to break a cycle like that, because it’s self-perpetuating: the best players want to win conference championshps and go to bowl games. That’s more likely to occur at VT than at UVA. So VT gets the better athletes, continues its bowl streak, and its reputation is further reinforced.
A few stats: VT has been to 20 consecutive bowls, eight of them BCS bowls. UVA has been to 18 bowls all-time, only one of them a BCS bowl. VT has won 8 all-time conference championships and 5 ACC Coastal Division championships. UVA has just 3 all-time conference championships (one of those was in 1908), and has never won its division.
So there’s a pretty big gap between them at the moment. It’s worth noting that if UVA joins the Big Ten, there’s a pretty good chance that VT will get an SEC invite at some point, which can only help their recruiting profile.
None of this is to suggest that the Big Ten should, or should not, invite UVA. I just think its path back to Iowa-level performance might be a longer haul than you suggest.
LikeLike
What I wrote above is paraphrased what my uncle tells me about VT/UVA, that about 12 years ago UVA was thought a lot more highly of…
The balance of power between those two will be tough to change but if and when Beamer retires and if UVA makes a terrifc hire, they have the resources to change the tide.
LikeLike
Marc,
It was the Michael Vick era (and title-game run) that really elevated the Hokies above UVa. Before then, the 2 VA schools seemed very evenly matched to me; more like a UF-FSU or Clemson-SC rivalry than a Michigan-MSU or Iowa-ISU rivalry. The numbers bear that out. In fact, the first 12 years of Beamer’s stint at VTech (pre-Vick), VTech averaged 6.4 wins per year while UVa was better, averaging 8 wins a season over that time span.
LikeLike
Head-to-head results also show that UVA was, in the pre-Vick era, if anything, the better team, being decisively better with an 8-4 record vs. VTech.
LikeLike
Richard,
UVA vs VT records:
0-1990 (pre-BE) – 26-36-5 (0.425)
1946-1990 (pre-BE) – 17-23-2 (0.429)
1991-2003 (BE) – 6-7 (0.462)
2004-2012 (ACC) – 0-9 (0.000)
The two were viewed as fairly even until VT’s rise in the BE VT won more often but UVA got more respect due to playing in the ACC. Once VT got in the BE, they rapidly improved. Beamer was hired in 1987, so he’d been in place for a few years before the move to the BE.
VT’s overall record:
0-1990 (pre-BE) – #45, 0.575
1946-1990 (pre-BE) – #58, 0.518
1991-2003 (BE) – #11, 0.691
2004-2012 – #10, 0.752
Record in the BE start:
1990 – 6-5
1991 – 5-6
1992 – 2-8-1
1993 – 9-3
1994 – 8-4
1995 – 10-2
From 1995-2012, VT won 10+ games in 13 of 18 seasons including 8 years in a row before 2012.
Michael Vick joined them in 1999 and brought them to national prominence, but they passed UVA as a football school before that.
LikeLike
Folks, this is why I prefaced the comments by saying “conventional wisdom.” I didn’t say that I think it’s going to happen but that that’s the strongest rumor on expansion so far. Then I presented a question about whether it would be the best strategy for the conference.
LikeLike
Just a comment on replays of sporting events. I have seen the SEC championship game listed on cable at least a half dozen days since the game, including this past weekend. One day it was on two different channels and replayed immediately afterwards on one of them. I believe its been 3 different channels carrying it. And I don’t have the sports tier. They clearly think there’s value in these replays.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt there is value, but it pales in comparison to live events. What would you pay to have an ad aired next week on a Super Bowl replay?
LikeLike
Exactly ~ take a game watched by millions, divide by a hundred or a thousand, and an audience in the thousands is good for some cable networks at some times of day. Take a game watched by thousands, divide by a thousand, and its not the same impact.
And the argument is not that there is zero value in non-revenue sport Big Ten replays, but that there is relatively more value in making the games live exclusives on the Big Ten Digital online subscription service, and having video on demand replay of those online exclusives as a value-added feature for the online subscription.
LikeLike
I did not see this linked. Chicago Tribune running a poll on how many conference games.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/poll/ct-spt-0206-big-ten-poll-,0,3740455,post.poll
as of 4 o’clock or so on February 6, 39% are favoring 9 games and 39% are favoring 10 games with 8 games trailing at 22%.
Very interesting.
LikeLike
Perhaps the proletariat is coming around to the idea of more conference games?
LikeLike
I think the fans were always in favor of it. It’s the coaches and ADs that have stopped it.
LikeLike
Yeah, I thought the results were interesting. Way back when the idea of 10 conference games was first floated, it was said that the 10th game was “a game nobody wants” and that the “number of fans advocating for a restricted schedule is a tiny minority.” Maybe folks are warming to the idea of 10 conference games.
Personally, I love the idea of more conference games. Looks like 9 games is a lock, which is great. I hope they go all the way to 10.
But, honestly, I would love to see a more detailed survey. For example, is there a significant difference between Minny fans on the 9 vs. 10 conference game question? At least for now, Minny depends more on the OOC schedule to become bowl eligible. Thus, would a poll limited to Minny fans be significantly different than results from the survey the being run by the Chicago Tribune?
Likewise, there are some teams (Purdue, Iowa, MSU and MI (sometimes)) that have a “locked” OOC game. It was said that those fans would oppose a 10 game schedule because those “fans want more variety than only 1 new team per year on the schedule.” I would love to see polling data specific to those fans.
On a more general note, I hope the B1G does at least some minimal polling as part of their due diligence on conference decisions. Sadly, i have my doubts. Leaders/Legends would suggest no polling has ever been done in advance.
LikeLike
I personally know fans who want 9 or 10 conference games, but who also want 7-8 home games a year, and who also hate wasting games on MACrifice and/or FCS opponents. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that those goals are contradictory, but there isn’t any law requiring fans to be intelligent.
Besides the usual flaws of Internet polls, you just can’t tell whether the voters in this survey realize what they’d be getting: fewer home games, less interesting OOC opponents, and lost bowl bids.
LikeLike
oh, completely agreed. internet polls are far from “scientific.”
if you are going to do this right, you hire a polling firm and you do it right with a series of questions including questions that ask about preferences.
example: “If if meant that Minny had one less home game per year, would you favor 10 conference games?”
or: “…. meant that Minny would go to less bowl games, would you favor ….”
those are actually not great poll questions, but you get my drift.
LikeLike
If you were actually conducting a poll, you’d want it multiple choice, with specific examples:
Which do you prefer?:
1) An 8 game conference schedule with 1 AQ-quality OOC game + 3 Buy games.
Alternate between 7 and 8 home games each year
2) An 8 game conference schedule with 2 AQ-quality OOC games +2 Buy games
7 home games every year
3) A 9 game conference schedule with 1 AQ-quality OOC game + 2 Buy games
7 home games every year
4) A 10 game conference schedule with 2 Buy games
7 home games every year.
For each fanbase, you’d list examples of the ‘quality’ OOC games they’ve scheduled recently (for Nebraska: OU and Colorado, for Illinois: Missouri and Washington, etc.
LikeLike
Buckeye, I’m an Iowa fan who would love to see 9 or even 10 games. Our random BCS opponents over the past decade include Pitt (which we have yet another HaH starting next year), Arizona, and Arizona State. None of those teams are as interesting to me as a random B1G game, so I’d rather just see more conference games. I’d even be willing to go to a 10 game schedule even if it means 6 home games half the time due to the Iowa State game. The Iowa athletic department probably doesn’t agree with me. Which is fine, more games in Kinnick also makes me happy.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Personally, I love the idea of more conference games. Looks like 9 games is a lock, which is great. I hope they go all the way to 10.”
I’d like 10 games if it didn’t come with the OOC consequences that are likely. I prefer to keep the big OOC series over a 10th game. Now if the TV money should grow so large that OSU can afford both, then great. But if I have to choose, I’ll take the major OOC game.
“On a more general note, I hope the B1G does at least some minimal polling as part of their due diligence on conference decisions. Sadly, i have my doubts. Leaders/Legends would suggest no polling has ever been done in advance.”
BTN.com did those 2 polls not long ago.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8919668/ncaa-approved-payment-25000-maria-elena-perez-nevin-shapiro-attorney-according-source
NCAA enforcement director Julie Roe Lach approved the disbursement of up to $25,000 to attorney Maria Elena Perez in 2011 for information in its Miami infractions investigation, a source told ESPN’s Joe Schad.
CBSSports.com and USA Today initially reported the sum as between $20,000 and $25,000. It is not clear how much of that approved sum Perez received.
Perez, the attorney of Miami booster Nevin Shapiro, has denied any wrongdoing and has said she did not work in collusion with NCAA investigators.
Personally, I still don’t have a problem with anything that has been reported thus far, but details about the NCAA investigation into the Shapiro mess keep coming up.
LikeLike
Yeah, I still don’t see the problem. They paid a lawyer to do legal work. That’s a problem? The lawyer asked questions relevant to the bankruptcy settlement (who got what gifts, so they can be reclaimed) and also relevant to the NCAA. That’s a bad thing?
What was the apology for?
LikeLike
Well, according to the NCAA’s flimsy and ever-changing rules, this is something they weren’t permitted to do. If the agency charged with investigating rule-breakers does not, itself, follow the rules, then what good is it?
As far as the substance goes, it is still clear what, exactly, Perez did for the NCAA. If a lawyer is taking a deposition in a bankruptcy case, she is not permitted to ask questions on an unrelated topic, on behalf of a different client that isn’t even a party to that case. That could get her disbarred, even if the NCAA rules allowed it (which they don’t).
So the NCAA didn’t merely pay a lawyer to do legal work; they paid her to do illegal legal work.
LikeLike
@ Marc Sherherd: agree that Perez has some possible legal ethics issues. I have not delved deep enough to have details, but disbarment i think will depend on whether there was a “conflict of interest” and/or what was disclosed to whom. Was Perez the court-appointed Trustee or was she working for the Trustee (or other)? What did she tell her various clients? Was there, in fact, any conflict of interest? Was she paid by the hour? That could be a giant ethical issue if she billed two clients for the same time.
Anyway, Perez may or may not have breached her legal ethics.
In any event, IMO, in this case based on what I have read, behaving unethically is not behaving illegally. In other words, based on what i’ve read, Perez committed no crime here.
As for the NCAA and their “rules,” IMO, Emmert is a Clown Tyrant making up the “rules” at his whim. Apparently, his whim-d’jour is that Miami should escape any sort of severe sanction. But there are all those inconvenient “facts” dug up by YahooSports. So Emmert The Tuurrrrible has made up a new “rule” that has been “violated” allowing him to throw out all that silly evidence. Now Madman Emmert can give Miami “time-served” and let them go on their way.
Now, carefully donning my tin-foil hat:
I point out that USC, PSU and tOSU are all “inventory” “owned” by Fox: UNC and Miami are “inventory” “owned” by ESpin.
Now, carefully removing my tin-foil hat and placing it in its case.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau: Perez may escape without professional sanction, which is not the same as saying she is innocent. Just as in criminal law, there are proof requirements for a disbarrment, and some unethical lawyers go free because the crime can’t be proved.
But surely you agree that the NCAA shouldn’t be a party to unethical legal behavior, merely because the lawyer may, in the end, get away with it? That’s not a rule Emmert invented.
LikeLike
@ Marc Shepherd.
In reference to Perez, you said: “But surely you agree that the NCAA shouldn’t be a party to unethical legal behavior …?”
My response:
For the following discussion, we’ll assume Perez behaved unethically. There is not proof that she did and, at this point, I do not think she behaved unethically (based on what I have read). For the following, I also assume she violated no Big Law. That is, she didn’t murder to get the information.
Okay, so assuming arguendo.Perez violated her legal ethics, I do not agree with you.
This will take some explaining.
The NCAA is not a Court of Law. Courts are bound by the Constitution, laws that are properly enacted and the common law of this Nation.
The NCAA is a voluntary association of member universities whose purpose seems to be to express the collective will of those universities concerning student athletics. The NCAA passes and enforces it’s own “legislation” related to those student athletes and, therefore, the NCAA is bound by it’s own Rules.
Now, obviously, in the larger picture, the NCAA is also bound by the Laws of this Nation. But we are assuming arguendo that no laws were broken by Perez or the NCAA.
Okay, so, as said, the NCAA is bound by its own Rules.
In my view, I see no reason why the NCAA should bind itself to a rule that limits its ability to obtain and use evidence that might have come to the NCAA through the unethical behavior of some third party. In the Tressel case, for example, two crucial pieces of evidence used by the NCAA were two emails sent to Tressel by a Columbus attorney (Cicero) who, in sending said emails, clearly violated his legal ethics. Cicero has since been censured/punished by the Ohio State Bar.
However, the NCAA did not have any problem using that evidence even though it was obtained via a lawyer breaching his legal ethics.
As you know, I am an Ohio State fan. I am also a Tressel fan.
Despite that, I have no problem with the NCAA using the Cicero emails.
I see no reason for the NCAA to voluntarily restrict itself from certain types of evidence and certain types of evidence gathering.
So, I therefore do not agree that “NCAA shouldn’t be a party to unethical legal behavior…”
Now supposedly the NCAA has self-imposed some “rule” that prevents it from gathering evidence in the way the evidence was supposedly gathered here in the Miami/Perez case. Btw, does anyone have a link to the rule that was supposed broken by the NCAA when they paid her $25,000? I have never seen the rule that was allegedly broken.
As an aside, if I had had a vote, I would have voted “no.” I think the NCAA was stupid to self-impose such a rule against itself.
But assuming such a rule, my concern now is how the NCAA will “punish” itself for violating its own (stupid-in-my-opinion) rule.
If they take a judicial approach, the NCAA will bar the improperly gathered evidence and all the “poisoned fruits” and throw out vast amounts of the evidence against Miami. (However, as an aside, no evidence or “poisoned fruits” were thrown out in the case against Tressel.)
If the Perez evidence and all of the “poisoned fruits” are deemed unusable, this likely means that Miami largely “skates” because of some stupid rule the NCAA imposed upon itself.
Maybe the NCAA will “punish” itself in some other way.
But, in the meantime, I do not agree that “NCAA shouldn’t be a party to unethical legal behavior…” because I think this will lead to Miami getting off with “time served.”
Finally, to me, the NCAA “rules” are completely arbitrary and change minute-by-minute at the whim of Clown Tyrant Emmert. If Emmert can make up “rules” concerning Penn State, why can’t he make up “rules” concerning Miami? If Emmert can bully the Sheep President of Penn State into a “consent decree,” then why can’t he use the same tactics to bully Lamb Shalala into one? If Emmert can just make up “rules,” then why is he worried about this “rule?”
I am beyond curious why Emmert is “enforcing” this “rule” and how it will impact the sanctions imposed on Miami. I will leave my tin-foil hat safely locked in its protective case until we see how this all shakes out.
I need to say that I think the NCAA should have been, all these years, consistent, evenhanded and predictable in its application and enforcement of its own Rules. I have decried for years how the NCAA has arbitrarily punished schools and athletes. Weirdly enough, I am still wanting the NCAA to be consistent. If Vigilante Emmert is going to go all “cowboy” on Penn State, then he better be going “cowboy” on all the schools. But apparently Emmert is going to be inconsistent with his inconsistency.
okay… i have to get real work done and this comment took long enough. I reserve the right to retract, edit, modify, embellish and/or embalm anything I said above. 🙂
LikeLike
You may retain the right to “edit”, but please share with the rest of us when you discover the method on this site 🙂 .
LikeLike
In my view, I see no reason why the NCAA should bind itself to a rule that limits its ability to obtain and use evidence that might have come to the NCAA through the unethical behavior of some third party. In the Tressel case, for example, two crucial pieces of evidence used by the NCAA were two emails sent to Tressel by a Columbus attorney (Cicero) who, in sending said emails, clearly violated his legal ethics. Cicero has since been censured/punished by the Ohio State Bar.
The difference, is that the NCAA didn’t ask Cicero to behave illegally (or, for that matter, unethically). It simply used the evidence after the illegal (or unethical) behavior had already occurred, without anyone’s knowledge except Cicero and Tressel.
I do not think the NCAA should solicit anyone (be they doctors, lawyers, accountants, or the guys who mow the lawn), to commit an illegal act. There might be some borderline cases as to what exactly constitutes illegality. An act that, if discovered, could get a lawyer disbarred, is not borderline.
LikeLike
If a lawyer is taking a deposition in a bankruptcy case, she is not permitted to ask questions on an unrelated topic, on behalf of a different client that isn’t even a party to that case. That could get her disbarred, even if the NCAA rules allowed it (which they don’t).
The thing is any question dealing with where Shapiro’s money went would be relevant for a bankruptcy case. I mean even a question about whether Shapiro took a recruit out for lunch would still be fair game.
LikeLike
In a deposition, there is pretty wide latitude, but it is not unlimited. We haven’t seen the deposition transcript, and we don’t know what was asked.
Still, a lawyer taking testimony in a bankruptcy case would be expected (legally and ethically) to ask questions that he considers relevant in that case. The lawyer cannot ask questions on behalf of another client, on an unrelated matter, not disclosed or approved by the court. Obviously, Perez (if she indeed did that) is in hot water. But the NCAA can’t be hiring lawyers do do what it knows lawyers, legally, are not allowed to do.
And of course, if the NCAA showed up in court, and said, “We’d like to use the court’s compulsory process to extract testimony that people would otherwise not give us voluntarily,” the court would say no. That’s why they had to resort to this back-door process, to get what was otherwise legally not available to them.
LikeLike
Well it certainly happens. I got stuck on a jury for 3 weeks one time that the judge expected to be a 3 day trial. It was partly because the two plaintiffs were suing each other in a different case and they were trying to get stuff that would help them in that case. It was obvious and very frustrating.
LikeLike
Correction-the two defendants were suing each other related to the same incident. There were two plaintiffs also, only one of which was suing both the defendants.
LikeLike
@MS.
You said: “But the NCAA can’t be hiring lawyers do do what it knows lawyers, legally, are not allowed to do.”
You are conflating “ethical” and “legal.” Of course the NCAA cannot be a party to ILLEGAL behavior. I think it can be debated whether the NCAA can be a party to UNETHICAL behavior.
LikeLike
Still, a lawyer taking testimony in a bankruptcy case would be expected (legally and ethically) to ask questions that he considers relevant in that case. The lawyer cannot ask questions on behalf of another client, on an unrelated matter, not disclosed or approved by the court.
Unless she was asking them on behalf of Shapiro, which is what she will claim. And good luck proving otherwise.
That said, unless we actually see a transcript it is impossible to know whether or not all the questions dealt with issues of where Shapiro’s money went.
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau: I believe the confusion is yours, not mine. Perez didn’t commit a crime, but that doesn’t make it legal. Not every requirement of the law is criminal.
But even assuming your interpretation, do you really consider it tenable to suggest that unethical behavior by the NCAA is — or ought to be — permitted?
LikeLike
agree with Brian. I see no issue here.
LikeLike
to be clear, “no issue here” for the NCAA. I agree with MS that Perez herself might have some ethical issues to deal with.
LikeLike
My guess is that there is something else going on here and the NCAA is using this issue as a smokescreen.
LikeLike
BTN on a roll….
January 2013 marked the Big Ten Network’s highest-rated month ever in primetime, according to Nielsen metered market data, fueled by high-quality men’s basketball matchups and strong performance of The Journey, which also set new ratings records. BTN’s average primetime men’s conference basketball rating was 0.87 in the network’s eight metered markets*. Among all national sports networks for the month, BTN trailed only ESPN in its eight metered markets.
“Our ratings growth is a testament to the high level of competition in the Big Ten, improved quality of our content, and continued increased distribution of the network,” BTN President Mark Silverman.
_____
BTN confession. I’ve probably watched more women’s sports (softball/volleyball/Basketball) in the last year, than in my entire lifetime.
It may take a while, but I think BTN is on its way to becoming a big time entity.
LikeLike
(small print)
*Contingent upon a twenty team B1G that stretches down to Florida and includes Notre Dame.
LikeLike
How many teams now ? As ratings were taken now .
LikeLike
Huh. People want to see good sports. Go figure.
LikeLike
Apologies, that wasn’t directed at you GLS.
LikeLike
Forbes had an article about the Big Ten Network back in September–see http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/09/27/the-big-ten-networks-winning-game-plan/
It includes a video interview with BTN President Mark Silverman and it outlines the network’s strategy five years after its creation.
I didn’t realize BTN2Go was only one of two nationally distributed mobile sports services in over 30M homes. I have Verizon Fios and that gives me access to ESPN3 (which I assume is the other one) and BTN2Go via my tablet and my home computer.
Just imagine what those January network ratings would be if Duke and North Carolina were part of the B1G and the BTN. I’m sure Jim Delany is thinking about it. I imagine he’s also thinking about what the football ratings would be if Florida State was in the conference as well.
LikeLike
Remember that the next time a Big 12 fan argues that À la cart cable & the internet will kill the B1G/BTN model in the future. Remember that Wallace Loh also made specific mention of how impressive the future plans of the B1G/BTN were when it came to digital media.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/07/2661108/unc-board-of-governors-panel-examining.html
UNC board of governors says its bad. But they are still trying to cover up the significance to athletics. They are questioning the previous whitewash report that said some people raised concerns in 2002 and 2006. Now everyone is conveniently saying, “I don’t recall” as if the previous report made it up out of thin air. There’s “no evidence” despite the interview with the athletic counselor on the ESPN website where she raised concerns and told of the new basketball counselor (circa 2009) refusing to allow basketball players to continue to take those courses.
LikeLike
I find it pretty hard to believe that two people could do this on their own for at least 14 years without anyone else in authority knowing. Professors get ratings (so how does someone do a class in your name without you knowing about it?). Schools know about the average grades in each class. I don’t know about the scheduling process in schools, but in such bureaucracies, its hard to imagine classes suddenly appearing on the schedule at the last minute to be filled with athletes and one or two of their friends based on two people doing it.
LikeLike
UNCs entire academic standing is now open to question .
LikeLike
No it’s not. Like many a dirty athletic program, they had one standard for athletes, and one standard for everyone else. The “standard for everyone else” is not being questioned, as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
Only 1/2 were in athletic program .I would guess other 1/2 were friends after an easy grade.
LikeLike
off topic for this Board, but still a great fun read. I honor of yesterday’s National LOI Day, here is Pat Forde’s story on the Vandy war-room yesterday.
damn, sounds like they had fun. makes me want to go back to high school so I can be a Vandy recruit.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–from-morning-to-night–vanderbilt-stages-a-signing-day-worth-celebrating-083401512.html
LikeLike
Shout out to James Franklin for the assist on Vonn Bell! lol
LikeLike
Nebraska to play Colorado in 2018-2019 and 2023-2024. Apparently the Big Ten hasn’t declared a moratorium on scheduling past 2020.
http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/nu-to-renew-rivalry-with-colorado/article_ee3199e8-715d-11e2-a7e1-001a4bcf887a.html
LikeLike
I imagine they’ve told AD’s to not schedule more than 2 OOC opponents in case of a 10-game schedule.
LikeLike
That’s basically confirmation of the 16-20 team scenarios being talked about…
18-20 is really where you have to go to 10 game scheduling.
LikeLike
Unless you have 20 with no divisions.
LikeLike
Actual realignment.
Several sources say UMKC to the WAC
LikeLike
Oliver Luck, the West Virginia athletic director, said this yesterday about conference re-alignment (link here):
LikeLike
Sounds like something to be expressed behind closed doors. Doesn’t exactly reek of strength and confidence.
LikeLike
Luck has been saying this same thing since before WVU even officially joined the Big XII, so this isn’t major news.
LikeLike
I know he has advocated for expansion. Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but has he been warning of a BE like future as a consequence of standing pat?
LikeLike
Yeah. He said the Big XII needed to expand so it would contingencies in the event schools departed. He specifically mentioned the Big East after Syracuse and Pitt.
LikeLike
Despite all the idiocy of WV’s Senators, the word is that WVU supported Louisville joining the Big 12 with them. Fox and ESPN weren’t interested.
LikeLike
Illinois in a stunner over Indiana at the buzzer.
Indiana imploded spectacularly down the stretch. This year’s tournament could be absolute madness.
LikeLike
Crap. That blows OSU’s shot at the upset, probably. Now IN will come in with something to prove.
That’s 5 straight weeks of #1 losing. Clearly there is no dominant team this year.
LikeLike
OSU has a better shot beating IN than TCU (0-8 in B12) did beating KS. KS had not lost 2 in a row in 7 years.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-notre-dame-basketball-big-east-20130207,0,397781.story
Chicago Tribune story saying that ND will not leave the Big East for the ACC until 2014.
I did find one quote from Mike Brey to be particularly interesting…
“And I’m OK with that. I’ve had a little buyer’s remorse on the ACC and going through the league and playing in these different buildings and wondering if it’s going to be the last (visit).”
LikeLike
Looks like Meyer isn’t very impressed with the recruiting efforts of his fellow B1G coaches. Apparently he is going to address them about it in the next B1G coaches meeting.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/07/urban-meyer-big-ten-coaches-weak-recruiting/1899715/#
LikeLike
Dantonio is likely to have a stroke & collapse. Of course after lying unconscious on the floor for 15 minutes MSU medical staff will declare he was just ‘winded’.
LikeLike
Dude!
LikeLike
Well, I can see where he’s coming from I guess.
But right now the SEC is in some sort of crazy peak cycle that we haven’t really ever seen. 7 straight BCS Championships and the shine that comes with it have elevated teams like Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, etc. recruiting to unforeseen heights.
It’s more of the tide lifting all SEC boats than anything else.
There’s only really 3 teams in the Big Ten that can recruit top 10 classes with consistency, and 1 of them is going to take a half-decade to get to that level again.
Nebraska has top 20 classes potential consistently but they don’t have a demographic territory to mine enough to get to top 10 classes consistently.
Nobody else in the Big Ten really has consistency to reach top 20 classes outside of those 4 schools; everyone else will go through cycles and generally do a better job of developing players.
LikeLike
He’s also really against the new recruiting rules. He plans to write all I-A coaches to try to organize some resistance. When the top recruiters start telling you that your new rules are stupid and will have bad consequences for the players, you might want to listen. Several other major head coaches have agreed with him about these new rules.
LikeLike
Saban has been pretty outspoken against them as well. I’m wondering if the NCAA actually realizes what flood gates they have potentially opened.
LikeLike
Yep. Hoke agrees, too. That’s 3 kings and all were in the top 6 classes or so, and they think it’s a bad idea. If the people most likely to benefit don’t like the new rules, some needs to rethink them.
LikeLike
You could also look at it as they succeeded under the old rules. They don’t want change.
Alabama’s recruiting was interesting this year. They had only 6 from Alabama and 3 from Georgia. 2 or 3 from Florida. And they recruited nationally for everyone else. 3 out of 4 allows you to recruit nationally.
But the SEC schools actually did less in Texas than usual. Other than Alabama getting 2 high profile recruits, they pretty much struck out. I believe Missouri only got 3 and relied mostly on Missouri. Even A&M did its over-recruiting outside of Texas. They got a good haul of Texans, but last I checked 11 of their 34 were outside of Texas, which is unusual for them. Usually they are overwhelmingly Texas with a few from Louisiana.
LikeLike
Saban has used that basic mixture since he has been there. He usually pulls 6 to 10 of the top kids out of AL, 3 to 4 out of GA, 2 to 4 out of FL, and cherry picks the rest nationally. Last year was a little out of the norm because he pulled 8 out of GA. Historically at Bama coaches have been able to get enough good players out of the AL to have a good core group, and then they go to FL, GA, LA, MS, & TN to fill in the gaps while also grabbing a couple nationally. But Saban has been able to get by on less of a AL core than most of his predecessors since he can pull more nationally.
As far as aTm goes, they still got the vast majority of their kids out of TX (23 in all). They also got 3 out of LA, and 6 nationally. If they did do little more national recruiting this past year than usual, it was probably due to the publicity that the school got from Johnney Football’s year, and the publicity that they got with the move to the SEC. If they can keep their momentum up, I think they will be able to do a little more national recruiting than they even did this year.
LikeLike
Given that the Aggies’ average recruiting class ranking was 8.5 while the ‘horns was 18.5, what’s the reaction in the Lone Star State?
LikeLike
Aggies are giddy. Longhorns tending to continue the normal bash the coaches that’s been going on the last 3 years. A&M has had years in the past where they recruited better in a given year. Its hard to find a Longhorn worried about the long term. Texas got more of the top 15-20 players in the state (Texas and Texas A&M dominated that group). Average stars Texas was ahead. A&M signed 32-34 players so they were higher ranked (perhaps the highest number in the nation-UGA was also high-not sure anyone else was above 27). Texas only signed 15. Texas only had 16-18 scholarships this year. The only real negative IMO is that they didn’t find players worth giving those last few scholarships to. But then it seemed to be a down year for Texas HS players.
Last I checked Scout, Texas was 23rd, but 8th in average stars. Until the late loss of a top recruit Texas was 3rd in average stars behind only USC and Ohio St. A&M was 6th overall and 11th in average stars.
From my point of view, the good news is that the SEC invasion didn’t happen. Out of state SEC schools actually took less from Texas than usual. Alabama got 2 top players, but winning 3 out of 4 MNCs will do that for you. Last time I looked at the Houston Chronicle Texas top 100, only Alabama and Missouri were getting anyone on the list and that was a total of 4 players. For now, the Big 12 + Texas A&M are keeping their lock on Texas.
Georgia was interesting. UGA only got 3 of the top 12 in Georgia.
LikeLike
Ohio St. got 2 of the top 12 in Georgia along with Alabama and Auburn. Ole Miss got one, Florida one and S. Carolina one. GT was shut out.
LikeLike
http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/signing-day-2013-where-the-secs-talent-came-from/
According to Mr.SEC’s roundup, SEC schools recruiting from Texas-
Bama got 2
Ark. got 3
UK got 1
MSU got 2
Mizzou got 3
Ole Miss got 3
A&M got 22
Some of those are likely Jr. College players
I also read it has been a weak class in Texas. LSU didn’t get a recruit from Texas, but I think they decided to go national when they lost out on their biggest targets in the State. Had the class been deeper, I’m sure they would have pursued more players and gotten at least a few to sign.
Bielema took 4 recruits from Florida, 3 from California, and 3 from Texas. I know he has recruiting connections in Florida, but I’m sure he realizes he should get to work on getting bigger numbers from Texas next year.
LikeLike
Since FSU is among the rumors connected to the Big Ten, I thought I’d post an article about President Barron’s giving an update on plans to raise $1 billion:
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20130206/POLITICSPOLICY/302060052/Barron-pushes-toward-1B-fundraising-goal?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7Cfrontpage
Florida State University President Eric Barron pledged to lead a $1 billion campaign when he was hired in February 2010.
It represented by far the most ambitious fundraising effort ever undertaken at FSU, where Barron earned his bachelor of science degree in 1973. A previous campaign had established a $600 million goal, which was met. But $1 billion is uncharted territory for FSU.
The university has yet to go public with its effort, but Barron is hopeful that by fall a gala kickoff event will be held, which will signal that FSU is halfway toward its goal. To date, a little more than $400 million has been raised since the July 1, 2010 start date, according to FSU officials.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8926274/loucheiz-purifoy-becomes-latest-florida-gator-arrested-marijuana
Everyone liked to blame Urban, but maybe it’s a UF problem. 7 Gators have been arrested for pot in the past 25 months, and some/most are not Urban’s recruits. If lack of oversight was the issue, this shouldn’t happen now. If it was the character of the recruits, the younger ones shouldn’t be getting caught.
LikeLike