The Big East Name Defects from the Big East: Catholic 7 Expansion and Branding

Posted: February 28, 2013 in Big East, College Basketball, College Football, DePaul Blue Demons, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: ,

It figures that a conference that has lost 5 all-sports members, 8 non-football schools and 3 schools that accept invites to join but then backed out before playing a down of football within the past 18 months would ultimately end up losing its own name.  Both Brett McMurphy of ESPN.com and Mark Blaudschun are reporting that the Big East presidents are expected to approve a plan to allow for the “Catholic 7″ defectors from the conference (Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and Marquette) to keep the Big East name and leave the league for the 2013-14 season.  Pete Thamel of SI.com notes that Fox is pushing for the early exit and is expected to announce a contract with the Catholic 7/Big East when it unveils its plans for its new pair of sports networks of Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.  He also reports that the Catholic 7′s keeping of the Big East name and early exit are effectively being paid for by leaving the exit fees and NCAA Tournament credits of the other Big East schools that have defected or will be defecting (West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers and Notre Dame).  Meanwhile, a consensus has formed that Xavier and Butler will be added immediately to the new league with the old name for next season with a chance that a 10th, such as Creighton, comes in at that time.  The Catholic 7/Big East would then likely move up to 12 with St. Louis and Dayton (or possibly Richmond) in 2014-15.

The fight over the Big East was interesting since it’s a brand name that has been dragged through the mud lately yet still had a lot of value to both the Catholic 7 and Conference Formerly Known as the Big East football schools for different reasons.  From my vantage point, the Big East name is more valuable with the Catholic 7, but was more valuable to the football schools.  That is, the Catholic 7 are more able to fully realize the value of the Big East name since it had the bulk of the remaining historical members that weren’t in other power conferences and there wouldn’t be a cognitive dissonance if they held their conference tournament at Madison Square Garden.  On the other hand, the football schools have little association with each other besides being new members of the league that was known as the Big East specifically.  The Catholic 7 could have more easily re-branded themselves under a different name since the average sports fan could already largely recognize that group as a cohesive unit, while the football members will need to sell a new untested name on top of educating the public about who is in their conference.  As a result, I’m a little surprised that the football schools didn’t pull out a rant like Marlo did on The Wire about how “My name is my name!”

Of course, the exit fees and NCAA Tournament credits of the other Big East defectors that the Catholic 7 are leaving behind aren’t small amounts.  Some back-of-the-napkin calculations would put that at least on the order of $20 million just for the NCAA credits.  (Edit: Jeremy Fowler of CBSSports.com reported earlier this month that the Big East actually has a “Realignment Reserve Fund” that is projected to be worth $68.8 million by 2020.)  Significantly, it’s likely that none of that is going to the incoming members of the league as part of their entrance agreements since it is standard operating procedure that new schools do not receive any of the revenue earned before they joined.  This means that UConn, Cincinnati and USF, which are currently the only all-sports members in the Big East with voting rights (Temple still isn’t a full member yet), are probably ending up with all of that money that the Catholic 7 are leaving behind, which would certainly make it more palatable for them to let go of the Big East name in return.  It’s at least some financial consideration for literally the only three schools in all of FBS that will end up earning less conference-level money outright in the new college football playoff system that starts in 2014 than they are in the current BCS regime.

Maybe it is all for the best for the football schools that thought that they were going to be in a conference called the Big East.  Andersen Consulting had to go through an acrimonious split with its parent Arthur Andersen back in the late-1990s, including losing an arbitration proceeding where it was forced to give up any reference to the then-extremely valuable Andersen name*.  The new name “Accenture” was chosen and literally hundreds of millions of dollars needed to be spent on re-branding efforts.  What seemed like a huge branding blow in 2000 ended up becoming one of the most fortuitous name changes in history just a year later when the Enron scandal hit and took Andersen down entirely as an accounting firm.  Sometimes, a fresh name with a new start can end up being better in the long run even if the benefits aren’t obvious today.

(* I was a finance major at the University of Illinois in the late-1990s and, without question, the most prestigious of the then-Big Five accounting firms was Arthur Andersen.  The sad irony of Andersen getting taken down in the Enron scandal partly for enabling poor audit decisions in order to preserve other types of tax services fees was that its main reputation, at least in Chicago, was that it was actually the least sales-oriented and most client-focused of the large accounting firms.)

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

(Image from Glide Hoyas)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Arch Stanton says:

    Creighton could be the key to unleashing a tsunami of movement in the lower conferences. If they stay in the MVC, things could stay pretty calm in the middle of the country. If the Big East invite comes in though, get ready…

    • @Arch Stanton – I think there’s going to be a tsunami even if Creighton doesn’t get an invite, as the Atlantic 10 is still going to have enough poaching power to largely raid anyone other than the Big East/Catholic 7. Of course, I’m about 99.99% certain that the question isn’t *if* Creighton joins the Big East, but *when*. From what I hear, the Catholic 7 are willing to cover the higher exit fees for Xavier and Butler (around $2 million each) to leave the Atlantic 10 immediately. The other A-10 targets (some combo of SLU, Dayton or Richmond) would get invited but wouldn’t join until 2014-15 so that their exit fees would be a de minimis amount. Creighton has a very small exit fee from the MVC whether they leave now or later, so that’s why there’s a fair amount of people that believe that they’ll be joining right away.

  2. vp19 says:

    Any ideas on what the group that includes Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida and Temple should ultimately call itself? The “Big America,” perhaps? And will the new “Big East” keep its silly tradition of referring to itself in ALL CAPS?

    • @vp19 – I’ve seen on some message boards suggest (in a non-joking manner) that the league ought to just bid the name out to a corporate sponsor to raise revenue.

      • bullet says:

        Saw someone suggesting Big Country. No reference to FtT in the article.

        • Nemo says:

          @bullet

          How about calling the conference “The Big Lebowski?” ;-o)

        • BruceMcF says:

          Big Country? One verse seems to fit:

          “So take that look out of here, it doesn’t fit you.
          Because it’s happened doesn’t mean you’ve been discarded.
          Pull up your head off the floor, come up screaming.
          Cry out for everything you ever might have wanted.
          I thought that pain and truth were things that really mattered
          But you can’t stay here with every single hope you had shattered.”

      • DR says:

        How about The Conference Formally Known as the Big East. There is some precedence for this but I am not aware as how the litigation ultimatly turned out.

    • BruceMcF says:

      Big America Conference, without a doubt. For instance, BAC To The Future. And #BACtion.

      • bullet says:

        You could have the BAC, the MAC and the MWC rebranding itself as the WAC (WAC members just keep the Great West name-they all came from there). Joint TV marketing for their Tuesday games.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Damn, too bad BMW doesn’t make more down market cars, otherwise there’d be your car company tie in.

    • SpaceTetra says:

      When a new name for the Catholic 7 was discussed on this board, the name “Classic East” seemed to be the most popular. I don’t know why that wouldn’t be a good name for the remaining football teams

      • BruceMcF says:

        Because they’ve got only two schools in “the East”? The notion for Big America is the lack of any established coherent boundary except (post Boise State debacle) “east of the Rockies”, and with a center of gravity is pretty much Middle American, but the MAC got the Mid-American name, back when the population center of gravity was in the middle of the Great Lakes states.

      • BruceMcF says:

        And they could be honest and call it “Unfamiliar Schools with Ambitions”, but Conference USA is taken.

    • Brian says:

      I still say “Metro Conference” is the best choice.

  3. frug says:

    From my vantage point, the Big East name is more valuable with the Catholic 7, but was more valuable to the football schools.

    I tend to disagree with this (at least the second half). There was a short discussion on the previous thread, and I just think it comes down to the fact that the Big East football brand has probably been so severely damaged (likely beyond repair) that the FB schools will realize more value by selling it than using it.

    This is especially true since UConn and Cincy are probably planning for a future in another conference (that may not happen, but it is clearly their goal)

    • @frug – I can see what you’re saying there, particularly if UConn and Cincinnati would rather take the cash since they think they’ll be elsewhere, anyway. That being said, I don’t think the incoming schools are very happy about the name issue at all. As damaged as the Big East brand is, it is still a clear step up from C-USA and the new schools wanted to sell that. A new name risks them just becoming even more looped into the Gang of Five schools and is perceived as a lateral move.

      • Bobestes says:

        I am cautiously optimistic that UC has assurances through Ohio politics that this isn’t over, so they can call it the Bert and Ernie Conference for all they care. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if UC and UConn voted 2-1 over USF to make this happen.

        Take the money and run.

      • bullet says:

        I’m inclined to agree with Frug on the name for football. Its become kind of a joke at the AQ level. Its just a reminder when they become part of the gang of 4. I think the new schools are unhappy about losing the C7, not the name.

        • bullet says:

          To use your Andersen analogy, while I don’t know how its working in practice, a lot of Andersen people were afraid their resume was tainted by having the AA name. New BE football could be tainted by the perception of the old BE.

          Part of the Accenture/Andersen fight was because they already were competing while they were part of the same firm (talk about dysfunctional). At the time Andersen went under, not that long after the official split with Accenture, Accenture and Andersen may have had the two largest consulting firms in the world. And it was those fees as well as their 7th largest audit billing that influenced the Auditors to look the other way. Accounting firms got very aggressive in the 90s selling non-audit, non-tax compliance services.

          As for prestige, it depended on what part of the country you were in. Each of the Big 5 had strengths. AA was huge in Chicago where they were headquartered. Also huge in Texas. Similarly, Big East is a bigger name in the north than in Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana and Texas.

    • metatron says:

      Old money is old money, even if they’re destitute and dissolute.

    • Jericho says:

      I would tend to agree. The Big East brand has built up a fair amount of goodwill over the years. And its lost some of it recently. But if the conference was fielding Tulane, East Carolina, and whatever else to the public, than it would eventually burn off most (if not all) of the goodwill. It would only take so long for the public to write off whatever brand name the Big East had (the WAC used to have something of a brand too). To the existing schools, the name was a depreciating asset that would lose value the more they hung on to it.

      By selling it now, they make the most off the name and not really harm themselves too much. People will still turn in for the schools, not the conference name.

  4. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

  5. Mack says:

    The new ESPN contract 2013 basketball payout of about $600K per school was too low compared to what Fox was offering for the C7 not to move immediately. UCONN, USF, and Cincy will get a windfall from the exit fees, but all should benefit from the NCAA credits. The new members can now help pick out a name for the conference.

    • Correct. Essentially, the Catholic 7 are trading the NCAA credits and exit fees for getting to start the much more lucrative Fox contract earlier plus taking the name, so it’s effectively a wash financially.

      • bullet says:

        Since they are leaving, it makes sense the remaining 3 get the $25 million in entrance fees. I always thought it was unreasonable that the C7 got an equal share of the football team exit fees since fb schools had to pay higher fees. It will be interesting to see how much of the $43 million in exit fees and $50 million in fb schools bb credits the C7 gets. I’ve seen speculation the name was worth $8-$10 million. Obviously they gave them a good deal to settle quickly. But they aren’t going to give them more than the $15-$20 million extra in TV money they will get for leaving a year early. According to Fowler’s article, there’s roughly $118 million to be split up.

  6. ZSchroeder says:

    I find the Notre Dame issue interesting. I posted yesterday that I would think ND would want out of the Big East if the Catholic 7 were leaving, it is interesting there is talk that they would consider playing with the Catholic 7 next year. It would, in a way, be a farewell/goodbye tour for the most well known Catholic School, and give an extra bit of buzz to the league, but it would be an odd thing to have a team in your league that you know will only be in it for 1 year. I’m sure it would be exciting for Creighton and Xavier to play ND for a year. I don’t know, I’m a bit conflicted about it.

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      OTOH, ND is still currently playing in the Big East which means playing against the Catholic 7 this year. So, they do that for another year and I don’t think that will feel odd at all.

      The changes, of course, are NOT playing UConn, Cincy and USF (and Pitt & Syr.) and playing (for a year) Butler, Xav and maybe Creighton. But that will just be like a home & home OOC all in one year.

      I know folks in the State of Indiana would look forward to Butler/ND in Indy and South Bend. Have ND and Butler played before?

      I think it’s a huge win-win for the newly constituted Big East AND for ND Bball. ND would definitely rather play the C-7, Butler, Xav and whomever else over the what remains in the Big America Conference.

      For me, the only real danger of “oddity” would be if ND were to win the conference title in its first year. That would sort of be weird, but then such would become one of those trivia questions for folks 20 years down the road.

      • bullet says:

        I don’t see why they would be interested. ND is very competitive, but they aren’t a big name outside of football. Why rent a competitive but no-name team for a year? And ND would probably win most of the non-rev conference titles.

        • zeek says:

          Maybe Fox Sports wants them to help launch FS1 and FS2 with ND conference basketball games?

        • BruceMcF says:

          For one thing, it would allow them to continue the Big East Lacrosse championship, which just recently started, and with six members in a multi-sports conference receive an AQ to the championship, in advance of adding either St. Louis or Richmond to give a sixth Lacrosse member from the 2015 Lacrosse season on.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Correction ~ Richmond will be moving up to NCAA Div1 Lacrosse next year, but St, Louis plays non-NCAA MLCA Lacrosse, which is one of those quasi-varsity club conferences for sports not sponsored by the NAIA.

    • greg says:

      The C7 are leaving the worst-run halfway-house of a league that ever was. Why would they want to start a new conference and immediately invite temporary members? They need stability.

      • zeek says:

        Agree 100%. That’s why I don’t see them having any real interest in UConn or Cincy or anything like that.

        • zeek says:

          Shuffle ND off to the ACC and then build the best basketball conference by far outside of the BCS Group of 5.

        • BruceMcF says:

          The UConn & UC rumor was an entirely different kettle of fish ~ it was inviting them as formally full members, with all the rights and privileges, but they would be de facto temporary members who would jump at the first invitation from the ACC. That specter of having Div1 football playing voting members with fundamental interests at odds with the non-football members is what they were escaping, which is what made it implausible that they would do that, whether or not the rumor was correct that their broadcast partner had proposed it.

          On the other hand, a Notre Dame farewell tour, against the eighth non-football member of the conference that is going its own way in 2014/2015, seems like a reasonable transition to the future, when as members of a conference made up largely of small private Catholic institutions, many of the schools would be happy to schedule Notre Dame OOC either with some regularity or as as the occasional special event.

          Why the new national Fox Sports Network would want it is obvious: a full season farewell tour for Notre Dame from Big East basketball AFTER the C7 have split away and AGAINST the C7 solidifies the public perception of the split as “Big East Basketball” leaving behind the shattered remnants of Big East Football. But that is not a SOLE interest of the FSN ~ it is ALSO in the interests of the new conference.

  7. Transic says:

    Assuming a 12-team Big East in 2014, if they were to look to expand sometime in the future, I think the following might be considered as the likelier candidates: Detroit Mercy, Duquesne, St. Joseph’s, Richmond, Holy Cross, Fordham, Saint Bonaventure, La Salle University. Notre Dame and Boston College would be candidates but they both have issues to work out on and, likely, not want to leave the ACC at this point.

    If they decided to go west of the Rockies, then schools like BYU, Pepperdine, St. Mary’s or Gonzaga would then be considered.

    I don’t think they’ll want to dabble with public schools again.

    • vp19 says:

      Fordham, St. Joseph’s or La Salle won’t be added, since St. John’s and Villanova want conference exclusivity in their markets. Look how vehemently Villanova tried to exclude Temple from the original Big East.

      Holy Cross would be an ironic choice. In 1979, the Crusaders were sought for the initial lineup of the Big East, but the school was downgrading big-time athletics then and turned down the offer.

    • Nathan says:

      Ironically Football is the reason ND won’t change their mind about leaving the NewBigEast for the ACC. They really need those 5 ACC football games for scheduling purposes. If they stay with the C7/nBE it makes it difficult to schedule a competitive set of games each year, especially now that the other major conferences are looking to lower the number of OOC available to their teams.

  8. Bobestes says:

    Once upon a time, I had a job at a company I hated. So, I went out and lined up a job at a company I liked. In the process of interviewing, I got laid off with severance from the company I hated. So, I basically got a bonus to do what I wanted to do anyway.

    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t totally nerve wracking when we dotted i’s and crossed t’s.

    This is my best analogy for the position of Cincinnati and UConn.

  9. TU_NY says:

    FYI, Temple became a full voting member of the Big East as of 7/1/12 and, as such, will also be entitled to its share if the exit fees.

    • danallen2 says:

      Exit fees paid since that time, but likely not Pitt, Cuse and WVs, which are considerable. WVs alone were very high since they got out ASAP.

      Also, the $17m number for NCAA credits earned from 2006-2011 is so far off the mark. I suspect that’s just one year. The NCAA doles out $450m in NCAA credits per year. $3.5m is less than 1% of the total payout, and yet 13-20% of the tourney participants each year come from the BE, and by and large, 1 or 2 of them advance to the late stages or Final 4s. There is no way the BE’s payout is just $3.5m. That $17m figure makes more sense as a one year payout.

      • @danallen2 – Yes, I’ve updated the post to incorporate a report from a few weeks ago stating that the Big East has $68.8 million in a “Realignment Reserve Fund” that include the various exit fees and NCAA credits of departing/departed members.

        • bullet says:

          That article says the $68.8 is just entrance and exit fees-$25 million entrance and $43 exit. It estimates an additional $50 million for NCAA credits left behind by the ACC/Big12/B1G refugeess. WVU paid $20 million in exit fees, Pitt and SU each settled for $7.5 million and TCU $5 million. UL and RU are logically $7.5 to $15 million (exit fee was increased to $10 million after Pitt and SU left). So that’s $55-$70 million. Pitt and SU are paying installments and some money may already have been distributed. Fowler’s $18.8 is what is “on deposit” with an estimated $25 million more coming (not clear how much is Pitt and SU installments and how much he is estimating for UL/RU).

          UC, UC and USF will be in pretty good shape financially if they are able to get into one of the Big 5 in the next 5 years. Obviously, if they don’t….

          UH/SMU/Memphis/UCF were counting on going from $1.5 million in TV revenue to $7.5, drawing big bb crowds with the C7 and getting substantially increased NCAA credits. Their financial projections have been gutted. U of H is the one I feel sorry for. They messed up in the closing years of the SWC. If the SWC broke up just 2 or 3 years earlier, they probably would have been in the Big 12 or in the SEC with Texas A&M.

          • jbcwv says:

            I could be wrong, but I thought tournament credits were part of the 20 million in consideration WVU paid to get out of the big East. Maybe it was just withheld TV revenue, but a large percentage of the settlement wasn’t in the form of cash, it was in the form of forfeited revenue. In fact, the Big East had to pay WVU back a relatively small portion of the cash it did pay because the forfeited revenue wound up being higher than anticipated.

          • bullet says:

            You’re mixing up cash with the exit fee.

            WVU “earned” their full share in the BE in their last year. But as you noted, the cash was withheld to cover the exit fee.

            I don’t remember for certain the exact numbers, but I believe WVU paid $10 million in cash and had their distributions withheld. Then at the end of the year, the BE calculated their “earned” distributions and gave them the difference between what they “earned” and the $10 million (or whatever the figure was) they still owed on exit fees. That difference was paid to them (and would have been paid by WVU if the “earned” figure was lower).

            Now WVU forfeited their rights in any NCAA credits earned by the conference that were not paid out in that year. The NCAA pays the credits over a rolling 5 year period.

  10. Frank, the new Illinois Business building was to be named after Anderson. Since their *slightly* embarrassing destruction, Illinois decided it was in their best interest not to name the building after them. Hence, we have the Business Instructional Facility (BIF). I enjoyed the first two years of that building while earning my MBA. I’m sure you could donate for the naming rights!

  11. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

  12. cutter says:

    It’s interesting to note that Fox Sports was so aggressive in getting the rights to the Catholic 7 basketball teams that it accelerated the timeline for their departure. I’ll be curious to see how the Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 channels develop in the near term because of the implications a few years down the line when the (currently) 14-team Big Ten is bidding out the rights to its Tier 1/2 football and men’s basketball games.

    • zeek says:

      I commented on Fox Sports role earlier.

      I think they’ve learned from the slow rollout of NBC Sports Network (in part due to NHL lockout and a relative lack of content) that you have to have good premium content when you go public with a new cable channel (or two).

      This way they get the Catholic 7 up and running as their own conference right after Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 go live. That isn’t a coincidence. They needed the Catholic 7 as badly as the Catholic 7 needed them.

  13. Arch Stanton says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2013/02/28/catholic-7-missouri-valley-atlantic-10-chain-reaction/1955419/

    The Missouri Valley Conference is at Def-Con 2. USA Today has a quote from an unnamed MVC AD:

    “Most people at my level would tell you, never have you felt so helpless. You just wait,” said one Missouri Valley athletic director, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of realignment issues. “We’re just sitting here wondering if Creighton goes, which of the 26 schools in our footprint that make some sense should we be pursuing. You just have no idea what tomorrow is like because you don’t have any control of it.”

    So somebody at the MVC already has a list of 26 possible schools in case Creighton moves to the Big East. Anyone care to take a guess on what 26 actual schools are on the MVC list??

    • ZSchroeder says:

      Well, Missouri Valley is in 6 States, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana.

      Here are potential candidates from each state, only 13 potential candidates in states they are already in.

      Nebraska
      Nebraska Omaha

      Kansas
      No One

      Iowa
      No One

      Missouri
      Missouri KC
      Southeast Missouri State
      St Louis (likely joining the Big East)

      Illinois
      Western Ill
      Northern Ill
      Loyola
      Ill Chicago
      Chicago St
      SIU Edwardsville

      Indiana
      IUPU Indianapolis
      IUPU Fort Wayne
      Valparaiso

      Here are the location of all the Div 1 basketball schools.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG

    • Arch Stanton says:

      Just from looking at a map and thinking they would only be considering Division I schools that do not have a FBS football team, the list might include:

      Oral Roberts
      Murray State
      UM-Kansas City
      St Louis Univ – under some weird scenario where the Big East doesn’t take them and the Altantic 10 is weakened enough that a Creighton-less MVC is attractive to them.
      Denver
      South Dakota State
      North Dakota
      North Dakota State
      South Dakota
      University of Nebraska-Omaha
      Valpraiso
      Loyola
      Eastern Illinois
      Western Illinois
      Univ of Ill- Chicago
      Chicago State
      IUPU-Fort Wayne
      IUPUI
      Wisconsin-Milwaukee
      Wisconsin-Green Bay
      Central Arkansas
      Univ of Arkansas-Little Rock
      Tenn-Martin
      Austin Peay
      Southeast Missouri State
      Detroit
      Oakland
      Wright State
      Northern Kentucky
      Morehead State
      Eastern Kentucky

      That’s 31 schools already, so some of the above must not be close enough or big enough programs to make the list. I’d like to see Murray State get a call up. New state for the MVC, recent success and they are pretty close to several MVC schools already. Oral Roberts would give Witchita State a neighbor.

      • ZSchroeder says:

        How many schools must you have in your conference to get an auto bid in basketball? Summit is already down to 8 with the departure of Missouri KC next year (I don’t understand their move to the WAC at all). Plenty of conferences do fine at 9, not sure they need to replace Creighton at all.

        • Mike says:

          Six, I believe.

        • bullet says:

          7 is the number in basketball. 6 is the number in other sports. 8 is the number to be considered an FBS conference.

          The “6″ is the issue. Its hard to get six schools sponsoring the same sports. Very few conferences are at 9 anymore. And only the Patriot and Ivy are at 8.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yes, Notre Dame playing in the New Big East for a year would give 6 for Lacrosse ~ and being a multi-sport conference, AQ right away, which is more important for the Big East schools, whoc just got their Lacrosse league going. Then if either St Louis or Richmond are added the following year (which AFAIU would be second year Richmond plays Div1 Lacrosse), they’ll have six+ going forward.

        • ZSchroeder says:

          Arch Stanton: Agreed! Murray State would be a nice addition.

        • Arch Stanton says:

          I could see the Atlantic 10 not replacing every school they lose. Maybe they will even end up with 10 schools! I’m sure they will pick up a couple schools though, you almost have to due to perception. And to re-establish yourself as higher on the hierarchy than the confernces you raid.

          If MVC loses Creighton, I’m sure they will want to add a school for these same reasons.

          To me, the short list would be:
          1. Murray State – they even have a FCS program for the MVFC.
          2. Oral Roberts

          I’m not high on the Dakota schools in the MVC.

          • ZSchroeder says:

            The one thing about North Dakota, South Dakota and Western Ill is that they already have a relationship with a good chuck on the MVC because of the Missouri Valley Football Conference. That relationship could have an impact.

          • Arch Stanton says:

            Yes, they definitely have a leg up in that regard. Though if they add Murray State they add a football program too. Not sure how that will all play out.

            I’d be interested to see who Witchita State wants, since they don’t have a football team and are becoming more removed from the rest of the conference with the loss of Creighton. I think they would vote for a team with quality basketball and baseball programs which was somewhat near to them. That would have to mean Oral Roberts, I would think. It would get the MVC back into Tulsa too. The Golden Hurricanes left the MVC in 1996.

            I think the MVC could risk alieniating the Shockers depending on if the add is clearly due to a school’s FCS team. I could see them looking to the Sun Belt if the MVC doesn’t look like a league they are comfortable with. That would be a huge boost to their baseball program.

      • Read The D says:

        With instability we’ve seen the need for conferences to grow larger in case they are raided again in the future. My vote is the MVC go to 12 with Oral Roberts, Arkansas-Little Rock and Texas-Arlington.

        • Arch Stanton says:

          I would like to see the MVC add:
          Oral Roberts
          Murray State
          UMKC

          I don’t think they will consider UMKC though. I think the MVC really has to wait to see what the Atlantic 10 does first anyway. A-10 could look to the east edge of the MVC for replacements, or it could rip open the Horizon League so the MVC could pick off somebody like Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
          I don’t think UW-M would leave the Horizon for the MVC. A MVC sans Creighton probably isn’t enough of a step up from their current home to leave such a tight, compact (low travel cost) league. But if A-10 pulls it apart, who knows?

          First move will be the Big East, obviously. Then A-10. Depending on what the A-10 does, the Horizon and MVC will act. That could affect the CAA, Summit League, Southland Conference, Ohio Valley, MEAC, even Sun Belt. Eventually, it will all flow downhill until the WAC is finally dead.

          Gotta follow the hierarchy though. If anybody moves too soon, they risk missing out on a better school that becomes available later, or getting stuck with a lot of new, unattractive schools out of desperation. Of course, if they wait too long, they risk being perceived as weak and unstable, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy and their own members will get nervous and bolt.

          • ZSchroeder says:

            Though the University of Nebraska Omaha is new to division 1, they may be an option. UNO is not as popular as Creighton in the city, but Omaha sports fans would probably show up in some numbers to see familiar MVC foes come to town.

          • Arch Stanton says:

            Yes, Nebraska-Omaha might be a better add than UMKC now that I think about it

    • Richard says:

      I think 1 of Oral Roberts, Denver, Valpo, or maybe UIC or Loyola for a Chicago presence.

      • Arch Stanton says:

        All reasonable, except we don’t know how the MVFC will come into play. Will they want to add a school with an FCS program?
        It would be a huge mistake, in my opinion, to let that drive the bus when in this round of expansion the leagues need to be positioning themselves as the best basketball conferences they can be.

        • Richard says:

          Considering that pretty much no FCS football program actually turns a profit, I don’t see why MVC expansion would be driven by football . . .

          • Arch Stanton says:

            I don’t think it should either, but it’s FOOTBALL!

            The issue is whether the members of the MVC that have FCS programs want the new add to also have a FCS team. Or if something like, North Dakota State says, if we don’t get an all-sports add, then we are leaving the Missouri Valley Football Conference to join the Big Sky in all sports (which North Dakota already did recently).
            NDSU is currently one of the top FCS teams and the FCS-playing members of the MVC probably don’t want to lose them to another conference.

          • bullet says:

            Not the case. North Dakota wanted to move with South Dakota from the Great West to the Summit and MVC, but wasn’t accepted because of the Indian name issue. So they are in the Big Sky. I don’t think there is any danger of NDSU leaving for the Big Sky. Travel is much better in the MVC.

          • Arch Stanton says:

            Yeah, I worded that poorly. I just meant that North Dakota State might be tempted to move to the Big Sky since North Dakota is currently there. Not that North Dakota moved to the Big Sky from the MVFC.
            Not saying NDSU would ever do that, but could be one of those things where somebody “leaks” that they have looked into it just to try to force the MVC’s hand.

            As I’ve said before, I think any Dakota school is a bad add for the MVC. I’m just wondering if the MVC might have a Big East-like hybrid problem going forward since some of the schools play FSC and some do not have football programs at all. Didn’t matter when the conference wasn’t looking to expand but could be interesting if the two groups within the conference have differing viewpoints on what is important in a Creighton replacement going forward.

  14. NAAC3PO says:

    Question for Frank and the forum unrelated to the post:

    Why do we see FSU as the more likely FL addition to the Big Ten? Why not Miami?

    Now, I’m extremely unfamiliar with the fanbase dynamics in the state of FL; perhaps that’s the source of my misunderstanding. FSU’s fanbase is assuredly much larger and covers more geography than does Miami’s, but if the notion of Miami as a “northern” city that happens to be located in a southern state holds any water at all, then it would seem the perfect territory for the Big Ten to annex; the conference covers its demographic concerns by moving south without sacrificing strength of brand in the process.

    Granted, it may be a legitimate concern what the difference in FL BTN carriage rates would look like, FSU vs. Miami. But as Frank and others have noted, advertising continues to grow its fraction of BTN revenue, and advertisers are known to pay a premium for big markets (beyond what they “would” pay per viewer).

    Lastly, and this may just be me, but I think “anti-fanbase” is a concept that deserves more play in these discussions. Duke and ND are significantly (not extremely, just significantly) more valuable properties than other programs of comparable fanbase size and historical strength precisely because they are so hated, totally irrespective of season-to-season performance. In football, only ND rivals Miami’s anti-fanbase size.

    • @NAAC3PO – If I were running the Big Ten, Miami would certainly be high on my list. I’ve made the same argument that Miami is a “northern city” in character many times even though it’s a private school. In terms of what the Big Ten is looking for financially, though, FSU is definitely stronger. They can legitimately deliver the entire state by itself (beyond Tallahassee, all of the Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami markets) while providing the equivalent national TV profile of Miami. The Canes are going to be strong in the Miami area and could get secondary interest in Orlando and Tampa, but they can’t deliver the entire state in the same way as FSU.

      • cfn_ms says:

        I’d think the better question might be why would the B1G be considering Georgia Tech over Miami? Atlanta is and presumably always will be an SEC town, while at least potentially they could flip Miami to B1G, which would be a big deal in terms of cutting into the SEC’s territory. It seems like FSU may be disqualified on academics, but it doesn’t seem like Miami would be. GT intuitively seemed like a really odd B1G fit to me, though maybe I’m just crazy.

        • greg says:

          “I’d think the better question might be why would the B1G be considering Georgia Tech over Miami?”

          The B1G is creating a collection of top tier research universities. Rutgers and Maryland are great institutional fits in this regards, and the UVA/UNC/GT rumors follow the same blueprint. While Tech is smallish at 21k students, they are a public university, CMUP group 1 research university and a very good institutional fit with the B1G. Miami has 15k, is private, CMUP group 3, and an extreme geographical outlier.

        • It’s not so much that Georgia Tech alone is going to “deliver” Atlanta…it’s that Georgia Tech PLUS alumni from Big Ten schools would give it a quorum to get some solid cable money.

          • mushroomgod says:

            I am not thrilled about the prospect of GT to the BIG….

            That said, I’m 1,000,000x more thrilled with that prospect than the idea of Miami to the Big Ten.

            That is the craziest idea Frank has ever put forth.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            GA Tech is like a private school in that to be a fan, you probably have some connection to the university. Is I’ve written many times, I don’t think GA Tech has much of a following in Atlanta and can’t deliver it for the BTN. How many people in Atlanta really care about GA Tech? Would 100,000 be high or low? How many B1G alums actually live in and around Atlanta? Does anybody really know? Would 100,000 be high or low? I’m guessing both of those numbers are high, but let’s assume they are accurate. Do approximately 150,000 B1G & GA Tech households deliver the Atlanta metro area, with about 2 million households, for the BTN? Mandatory extended basic – NO. Voluntary digital sports tier – probably.

            Also, how many Buckeye fans will tune in or go see a GA Tech/Minnesota game? We know Brian won’t.

            GA Tech, as a member of either the ACC or the B1G, will always be an afterthought in Atlanta.

          • Brian says:

            Alan from Baton Rouge,

            “GA Tech is like a private school in that to be a fan, you probably have some connection to the university.”

            That’s an exaggeration. GT has plenty of fans just because it’s the local school. They just can’t compete with UGA for total n umber of fans.

            “Is I’ve written many times, I don’t think GA Tech has much of a following in Atlanta and can’t deliver it for the BTN. How many people in Atlanta really care about GA Tech?”

            Enough that they have a radio deal to broadcast all their football and hoops games live, plus coaches shows. In a major media market like Atlanta that has to count for something. Sports talk radio in Atlanta is probably 2:1 UGA to GT, maybe 3:1. Obviously the Falcons, Braves and Hawks also get a lot of coverage.

            I don’t disagree about your larger point. The BTN would probably have to go on an upper tier in Atlanta and wouldn’t approach the footprint price for other states. ESPNU is on an upper tier and it covers more SEC stuff.

            “Also, how many Buckeye fans will tune in or go see a GA Tech/Minnesota game? We know Brian won’t.”

            If the B10 wasn’t driving me away I’d tune in for that for sure. I watch almost any B10 game I can. I might go to it if I had access to cheap tickets, and I certainly would try to see OSU in town. What I won’t do is buy GT season tickets to see a game or two.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Brian – what is “plenty”? You live in Atlanta. How many people do you know that are GA Tech fans that aren’t alums and don’t have kids that are students?

          • Brian says:

            Alan from Baton Rouge,

            “Brian – what is “plenty”?”

            A large but vague number. I don’t know of any reliable source of stats on this.

            “You live in Atlanta. How many people do you know that are GA Tech fans that aren’t alums and don’t have kids that are students?”

            For small values of know, a decent number. GT merchandise is widely available and sells pretty well based on shelf space allocation. I’m not a great source since I know more ex-pats than locals, and many of the locals I do know are GT or UGA (or both) alumni. I think a decent analogy is the Mets to the Yankees. A clear #2 but still well supported. Over 30 radio stations across GA carry GT games (FB and hoops) and coaches shows. They wouldn’t all do that if there weren’t fans out there, would they?

            Here’s CLC’s merchandise sales rank from 2011-2 (not everyone uses CLC, obviously):
            http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Annual2012.aspx

            (1.) The University of Texas at Austin
            (2.) The University of Alabama
            (3.) University of Kentucky
            (4.) University of Florida
            (5.) The University of Michigan
            (6.) Louisiana State University
            (7.) University of North Carolina
            (8.) University of Georgia
            (9.) University of Notre Dame
            (10.) The University of Oklahoma

            (43.) University of Maryland
            (44.) The University of Virginia
            (45.) University of Mississippi
            (46.) Georgia Institute of Technology
            (47.) Texas Christian University
            (48.) University of Connecticut
            (49.) University of Pittsburgh
            (50.) University of Colorado

            (68.) Northwestern University

            I’m not claiming GT is a powerhouse fan base, but it does exist. It would also grow if GT started to win more or brought bigger names to town. It was a big deal when ND came to town. not so much for WF and Duke.

          • bullet says:

            I don’t know anyone who fits that. And one thing to keep in mind is that GT was a pretty small school until recently. They only had about 12k in the 80s.

          • Brian says:

            http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

            I realize Nate Silver’s fan base numbers are inaccurate, but let’s use them as a start.

            1. OSU 3.2M
            2. MI 2.9M
            3. PSU 2.6M
            4. ND 2.3M
            5. UT 2.3M
            6. TAMU 2.0M
            7. Auburn 1.9M
            8. AL 1.9M
            11. GT 1.7M
            22. UGA 1.1M

            Let’s say UGA should actually be 2.0M. That would drop GT to 0.8M and again put them around #40 in the country.

          • bullet says:

            There’s lots of reasons to believe GT fans are a little more internet savvy than the norm and Silver’s numbers are obviously ridiculous with regard to Georgia.

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            I think all younger fans are internet savvy and the older ones from GT are not more savvy than anyone else’s fans. Based on Silver’s totals for other teams, I think my adjustment was reasonable. Make it 2.1M to 0.7M if you want (3 to 1 as I suggested earlier), that would still leave GT at about #44 (vs #39 at 0.8M). It doesn’t change my point, which is that GT is a below average sized fan base for an AQ school but not tiny.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Why would Miami be an easy fit on academics? What are their top 25 grad schools?

          • Brian says:

            http://www.miami.edu/index.php/about_us/achievements_and_traditions/

            NATIONALLY RANKED

            For the fourth year in a row the University of Miami has ranked in the top 50 in U.S. News & World Report’s annual Best Colleges issue. In the 2012 report, UM is ranked No. 44 out of 281 institutions nationwide and is the No. 1 school in Florida.

            U.S.News & World Report listed several UM graduate programs in its 2012 America’s Best Graduate Schools edition, including: the Miller School of Medicine, No. 45 in research; the School of Law’s graduate program in tax law, No. 5; and several health-related graduate programs, including physical therapy (No. 7) and clinical psychology (No. 25).

            The Miller School of Medicine’s Bascom Palmer Eye Institute was rated the nation’s No. 1 ophthalmology program for the ninth consecutive year in U.S. News’s annual Best Hospitals rankings.

            Princeton Review ranked UM No. 8 for Race/Class interaction and named UM a Best Southeastern College in 2012.

            The School of Business Administration received high marks in 2012 from multiple sources, including HispanicBusiness magazine, which ranked the school No. 8 in the country, and Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which placed four undergraduate programs on its top 10 in the country—business law, marketing, international business, and quantitative methods. U.S.News ranked the school’s undergraduate international business program No. 25 in the country.

            The University of Miami is ranked No. 193 of 400 top world universities by the Times Higher Education, which bases its World University Rankings on teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and international outlook.

            DesignIntelligence ranked the School of Architecture among the top 20 undergraduate architecture programs in the country.

            The University is ranked No. 18 on the Top 100 Social Media Colleges list from StudentAdvisor.com, which tracks how schools engage audiences through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, and other social media.

            On Hispanic Outlook’s Top 100 Colleges for Hispanics list, the University placed No. 6 for doctoral degrees, No. 30 for master’s degrees, and No. 46 for bachelor’s degrees awarded.

            A strong commitment to sustainability earned the University a spot in the third annual edition of “The Princeton Review’s Guide to 322 Green Colleges: 2012 Edition,” produced in partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council.

            Make of it what you will.

          • BruceMcF says:

            So, in other words, as evidenced by cherry picking individual areas of emphasis rankings, none. From the USNWR grad school rankings for Miami, MBA #70, Law #69, Medical School #53 Research, #48 Primary Care, Engineering #121, Public Affairs #87, best Science is Earth Sciences at #39, best SS & Humanity is Psychology at #60.

            FSU has a better: Law School #51, Engineering #102, Public Affairs #16, better Physics, Math and Chemistry departments, and five Social Science and Humanities departments at or better than #60, with Criminology #7, Economics #59, Poli Sci #39 and Psychology #50.

            Miami has better Business School and Medical School, and as above a better Earth Sciences department in the Sciences.

            In terms of academic STATUS, and trying hard to be cricket about it, its very much a line ball between the two. Sure Miami has more selective undergraduate standards (which it is straining against in Football, hence all the violations), but undergraduate standards are not what academic status is about.

          • Brian says:

            I believe their marine biology department is their elite program.

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      There’s a cluster of issues around FSU vs. Miami.

      FSU, a large land-grant school, is far more similar to the rest of the Big Ten, whereas Miami is a medium-sized private school akin to (but not as good, academically, as) Northwestern.

      As you noted, Florida State has the larger fanbase, and their fans are more loyal. Miami’s fan support tends to drop off when they’re not winning. They play in a stadium 20+ miles from campus that they share with a pro team, which is not to their advantage.

      Miami has been beset with NCAA violations, and at this point it’s unclear how the current case against them will be resolved.

      As far as on-field results go, neither school is at its peak, although FSU seems closer to a return to glory than Miami. Since the ACC split into divisions, FSU has won its division 3 out of 8 years, but Miami never has. On the other hand, Miami probably has a better shot at AAU membership, although neither is a now a member.

      Overall, it would seem that if the Big Ten were going to take a flyer on a non-AAU school, FSU is the safer bet.

      • drwillini says:

        UF is the land grant school in Florida.

      • mushroomgod says:

        Miami’s best days are in the mirror, in terms of major college sports. USF and the other rising programs in central and southern Florida are going to impact Miami far more than UF and FSU……..

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Miami has a pretty good shot at returning to prominence in football. As it is, even with the big NCAA cloud hanging over their heads, they won their division in the ACC this year, and then voluntarily elected not to play in the conference championship game or a bowl. A school like that will always be able to attract talent.

          I do think FSU is a far better bet for the Big Ten, but I wouldn’t write off Miami as a future power in football.

      • NAAC3PO says:

        @Marc Shepherd

        >FSU, a large land-grant school, is far more similar to the rest of the Big Ten, whereas Miami is a medium-sized private school akin to (but not as good, academically, as) Northwestern.

        I realize this is against the grain, but personally I don’t think institutional similarity matters in and of itself. Yes, most of the Big Ten is very similar; is that because the conference fetishizes land-grant status or is it just happenstance? I say happenstance.

        Sure, larger student bodies are preferable to smaller, though.

        >Miami has been beset with NCAA violations, and at this point it’s unclear how the current case against them will be resolved.

        As is UNC, yet we’ve seen no shortage of discussion about the Tarheels.

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          @NAAC3PO: I think that these issues are cumulative. The NCAA cloud over Miami’s head is not in itself disqualifying; but along with the other factors mentioned, it weighs against them. In contrast, the NCAA issues at UNC are really the only footnote to what is otherwise a compelling case.

          Institutional similarity clearly matters to them, and I am pretty sure they’ve said so explicitly. They’d make an exception for Notre Dame and probably a couple of others (such as Johns Hopkins and Duke); it doesn’t mean they don’t care about it.

          I certainly don’t think it’s an accident that all of their members except Northwestern are large public institutions (not necessarily land-grant).

          • bullet says:

            North Carolina is not a huge public institution like the B1G schools. UNC, UVA and Georgia Tech are much smaller than almost all of the B1G schools. Maryland and Rutgers are very similar.

    • metatron says:

      Because Miami’s about to be broken and crucified by the NCAA.

    • I think you would want both. Florida state gives you north and west Florida while Miami Ives you south and east Florida which are two very different paces. Plus you could put one school I. Each division guaranteeing each school in the conference at least one game in recruit rich Florida every other year. Plus FSU could give you a presence in South Georgia and Alabama while Miami could at least potentially get some interest in Latin America. Plus FSU and Miami are huge national names for tv in all sports.

  15. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The conference soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-THE-BIG-EAST will be composed of UConn, Cincy, Temple, South Florida, Central Florida, SMU, Houston, Memphis, East Carolina, Navy, and Tulane. They should move the office to New Orleans and name the conference THE BIG EASY.

    • bullet says:

      Its notable that their conference meeting today is in Atlanta.
      Its a whole lot more central than NY or Philly or Providence.

      • bullet says:

        I doubt any local media will be there. This is not Big East territory.

        • BruceMcF says:

          If no local media will be there, that is an additional advantage of the location.

        • zeek says:

          NBE is in a weird place now because the old Big East media will all follow the Catholic 7 or ND/Syracuse/Pitt to the ACC.

          NBE’s media coverage is pretty much relegated to just being local media beats now similar to the MWC.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yes, but even if there was a town they could hold a meeting and draw lots of coverage … this isn’t that meeting. The less press the better for this part of it.

    • Todd says:

      Do any of these schools consider going independent?

      • zeek says:

        Scheduling is becoming too difficult for an independent now. ND essentially locking in 5 games with the ACC over the October/November months is an effective declaration of that fact.

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Scheduling is a solvable headeache. It has actually gotten easier, because there are more FBS independents now than at any time in the recent past. Also, if the Big Ten moves some league games into September (as they’ve discussed), it will open up slots for OOC games later in the season.

          The larger problems are TV deals and bowl access, which are far easier for a whole conference to negotiate than for individual schools to arrange on their own. Notre Dame, BYU, Army, and Navy all have unusual characteristics that allow them to exist more easily as independents. (It remains unclear if Navy will still join the Big East castoffs, as they had planned.)

          The other FBS independents, New Mexico State and Idaho, will probably join a league as soon as they can. But they both assembled independent schedules in reasonably short order, which shows it can be done.

          • frug says:

            Keep in mind though, Idaho has already said that independence (at least for them) is unsustainable beyond two years, and Navy is scheduled to join the whatever we are suppose to call the BE FB conference in 2015.

            Also, in order to maintain independence, BYU has had to accept playing only 1 or 2 home games in the entire second half the season every year.

          • frug says:

            I guess my point is independence would be an option for the FB schools, but not a long term one, and it would require major sacrifices.

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Seriously, the old Metro name really works for the football conference-soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-THE-BIG-EAST. In know there’s currently a Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference which is commonly referred to as the MAAC, but the old conference was officially the Metro Collegiate Athletic Conference, and was called the Metro, Metro 6 or Metro 7.

      I vote for the Metro American League and call it either the Metro or the Metro-12, assuming they pick up one more school and don’t lose Cincy or UConn.

      Tulane, Cincy, USF, and Memphis were all members of the original Metro at one time or another.

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I agree. “Metro” describes the conference fairly well. ECU and UConn will be the only schools not in fairly big cities, and even UConn is within a short commute from Hartford. Using a name that has been dormant but not starting from scratch, should also help. Some pretty decent programs were in the Metro over the years: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati. That company isn’t too bad…

        Going with “Big America” would be a painful reminder that this is NOT the “Big East” of the glory years in basketball, nor is it the league of quality football from Miami, Va. Tech, WVU, Louisville, it other defectors. It also just sounds weak. “Big America” makes me think “Big Mistake.” I also think National Athletic Conference or something similar just sounds like they’re trying too hard. The message is, “We have no identity, so we’ll just slap on something about ‘Merica and we’ll make evr’ybidy think we’re Uncle Sam’s conference.” It’s too Conference USA-ish, which, as others have said, has always struggled over identity. (Contrast that with a conference which is only a few years younger, the Mountain West. The teams in that league are easy to identify because the description is straightforward. Older leagues like the Big Ten don’t have to worry about accuracy with their names because the identity is so well established.)

  16. Phil says:

    The Louisville and Rutgers exit fees have yet to be decided. Based on the precedent of Pitt/Syr paying a 50% premium on the exit fee to leave a year early, they would each owe $15mm.

    However, RU at least has filed suit because:

    -They weren’t allowed to vote on the increase in exit fee from $5 to $10 million (because the vote happened at a President’s meeting and their new Pres hadn’t officially started yet).

    -They should have collected a share of the exit fees from TCU/WVU/Pitt/Syr which were incurred while RU was a member, but the Big East made no attempt to collect any fees from those schools. Since RU was one of the teams that lost a 2012 football home game because WVU left at the last minute, their claim on a share of at least that $20mm sounds reasonable.

    This won’t end up going to court, but odds are there will be a settlement for something less than $15mm.

    • BruceMcF says:

      In the bylaws when WV left, the exit fees were reduced to $5m if the conference was notified that it would be losing its AQ status (or equivalent in successor system). Now it may be that due to the timing of formal notifications, Rutgers was exiting a conference that had pro forma not received formal notification, but it was clearly a conference that had de facto lost its status. Since $5m was the exit fee prior, $7.5m to leave early wouldn’t be a surprising outcome.

  17. Blapples says:

    Add

  18. nickp91 says:

    The Catholic 7′s exit from the Big East is being expedited by Rupert Murdoch

  19. mushroomgod says:

    OT question for the board—-the other night Dan Jockitch was talking about Minnesota not having a seperate basketball practice facility–which BT schools have them??

    I know IU, OSU, MSU, Purdue, Neb (in the works), Mich do…..I assume WIS, ILL, and MD do, but I’m not sure…..and NW, Minnesota, Rutgers don’t (I think)….what about Iowa, PSU?

  20. Milton Hershey says:

    Did Johns Hopkins join the BiG or not? Anyone know the status of that deal?

    • zeek says:

      No they haven’t. They can think about it for a while though because a Big Ten lacrosse conference wouldn’t start until Spring 2015 (Maryland/Rutgers join in Summer 2014 right after the 2014 lacrosse season ends).

      JHU is an independent in men’s lacrosse and will be an independent in women’s lacrosse as well after leaving ALC. That means they could wait until 2015 to decide if they want to join (or join someone else before that of course).

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        They’d probably have to join well before 2015, as otherwise the other five Big Ten schools that play men’s lacrosse would be committed to schedules in other leagues. Sometime about the middle of next year is probably the latest it could be announced for a 2015 start date.

        But as far as the question goes, no one knows the status of that deal, or even that any deal is under discussion at all.

        • BruceMcF says:

          The closest thing we got to a status report was the coach of JHU in the middle of the Lacrosse pre-season training saying he didn’t have time to think about that kind of stuff right now ~ which is the kind of non-answer answer we expect, but on the other hand the basic point is still valid. There’s no particular reason to expect anything will happen, but surely if anything is going to be announced, it would be odd for it to be announced mid-season when there’s no particular reason it can’t wait until summer at least.

  21. mushroomgod says:

    Maryland’s Open Meetings Compliance Board has concluded that the MD Board of Regents violated the state’s open meetings law “in multiple respects” when it met twice in private last fall to discuss plans for MD to move to the BT conference.

    There is no penalty associated with violation of the law.

    You can’t beat government work……….

  22. Marc Shepherd says:

    A recent article in The Oklahoman quoted Big XII commissioner Bob Bowlsby on the conference’s position on conference championship games. Bowlsby said that the league has no plans to stage a CCG, noting that, outside of the SEC, many of these games have been poorly attended.

    Nevertheless, the Big XII still intends to ask the NCAA to change the rule, which currently limits CCGs to leagues with at least 12 teams, separated into two divisions, etc.

    “We don’t have any aspiration to bring back the conference championship game,” Bowlsby said last week while speaking at the OSU Spears School of Business’ Executive Management Briefings at the Cox Center. “That is not the essence of why we forwarded our plan to forward the legislation to deregulate that.”

    Some have championed a conference title game – Kansas State coach Bill Snyder among them – even with a 10-team league. But the Big 12 is just positioning itself in case circumstances require a conference title game – the new playoff format, for example. I don’t think such a stipulation will occur, but you never know what will come out of negotiations.

    The Big 12 would prefer at least keeping the option of a 10-team league, even if it is required to play a title game.

    “At a time there are deregulation movements going on in a wide variety of areas, this is one where conferences ought to be able to identify their own ways of selecting a conference champion,” Bowlsby said. “If that includes a playoff between two high-ranked teams, that’s fine. If it requires a playoff between the winners of two divisions, that’s fine. But it shouldn’t have to be two six-team divisions. Could be two five-team divisions. Just seems like an obvious place where deregulation makes a lot of sense.

    “We aren’t aspirationally planning to do that. We just think it ought to be deregulated, and it obviously gives us flexibility if we ever change our mind.”

    Bowlsby’s opinion closely tracks my own, as I have expressed before. My feeling is that once you concede (as the NCAA has already done) that a CCG is permitted under some circumstances, it is hard to defend the NCAA’s interest in further defining what those circumstances will be. Should the Big XII decide to do it some other way, it’s a decision that affects no one else besides the Big XII itself.

    I tend to think that, even in leagues having no plans to exploit a liberalized CCG rule, the presidents are likely to say: A) We might as well allow this, since someday we might want to use it ourselves; B) Even if we never use it ourselves, it does us no harm; C) Saying no just gives the larger schools another reason to break away from the NCAA, which they are already openly talking about.

    • metatron says:

      “If it requires a playoff between the winners of two divisions, that’s fine. But it shouldn’t have to be two six-team divisions. Could be two five-team divisions. Just seems like an obvious place where deregulation makes a lot of sense.”

      Except in this case, the Big XII has more to lose by “deregulation” than they have to gain – opening this pandora’s box will give the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC voices on how their leagues should schedule championship games and make larger conferences more viable.

      • boscatar says:

        I hope we see a 20+ team Big Ten that has 4 divisions and a semi-final round on the way to the conference championship.

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        …the Big XII has more to lose by “deregulation” than they have to gain…

        I could argue the other way; but in any case, I don’t think it is (or ought to be) the NCAA’s function to prevent leagues from making bad economic decisions. Otherwise, the entire existence of the Big East would have been against NCAA rules, as that league made one dumb move after another.

    • bullet says:

      Its VERY easy to defend. The only reason it is allowed is that the conference is too big to determine it without a ccg.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Marc knows that very well. He’d just like an extra invitational, probably decent TV money involved.

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Marc knows that very well. He’d just like an extra invitational, probably decent TV money involved.

          Actually, that is incorrect. I have no preference at all for such a game. I simply believe that, in general, people ought to be free to do as they please, unless there is a particular harm that needs to be prevented.

          Since the NCAA has no objection to a CCG after a 12-game regular season, its interests in further regulating the qualification rules for that game are not especially persuasive, as it is entirely an internal matter within each league.

          As to whether or not it’s a good idea, I am satisfied to let the free market decide.

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I simply believe that, in general, people ought to be free to do as they please, unless there is a particular harm that needs to be prevented.”

            As there is in this case.

            “Since the NCAA has no objection to a CCG after a 12-game regular season,”

            Oh, but they do. That’s why they made a rule that prohibits playing 13 games. They made exemptions where they felt a greater good overrode the harm (so HI could get home games, so large conferences could determine champs).

          • ccrider55 says:

            “…in general, people ought to be free to do as they please, unless there is a particular harm…”

            And so they are, constrained only by the rules formulated and followed by all theist peers.

          • frug says:

            Since the NCAA has no objection to a CCG after a 12-game regular season

            Actually, they do. The NCAA fought like hell to stop the SEC from staging the first one, but the SEC found a loophole allowing it. If the NCAA had it’s way CCG’s wouldn’t even exist at the FBS level.

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The world keeps changing. At one point, 9-game regular seasons were the norm, followed by 10, then 11, then 12. At one point, no FBS league played a CCG; now, most do. At one point, there was no FBS playoff; starting next year, there is one. Rules for bowl eligibility have been altered repeatedly, as the number of such games grew.

            Every change was, at some point, opposed by someone; yet, they happened. It would be ignoring history to suggest that we’ve finally arrived at the endpoint, and no further changes of this sort are going to occur. Those opposing change need to argue persuasively that the change is bad now, not merely that it was opposed at some point in the past. Lots of things now commonplace were opposed in the past.

            I’ve asked before, “Who is harmed if the Big Ten just eliminates its divisions and stages a CCG among its two highest-ranked teams, determined however it wants?” It’s a game that’s going to be played no matter what; the only difference is how the two participants are identified, a point that no one outside the league itself ought to care about.

          • bullet says:

            Weird argument. Those who oppose a change must make the case? That’s like a defendent needing to prove they are innocent. I realize that is the case in some countries, but is not the case here.

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @bullet: You misunderstood me. I was making a pragmatic assertion about the way legislative debate typically occurs. A change is proposed. Either it has opposition, or it doesn’t. Those who disagree need to give reasons, or they risk not being listened to. To state merely that the rule was thought necessary 20 years ago [or however long ago it was] is not typically considered a very good reason.

            Two leagues have proposed changing this particular rule. I haven’t seen any opposition from other leagues. Perhaps they’re biding their time, but if the Big XII proposed something radical, e.g., paying the players, I don’t think the opponents would wait to speak up. Maybe this change is just not controversial.

            In my view, it’s uncontroversial because it merely gives leagues more freedom to run their business as they see fit, without doing any harm to those leagues who prefer to keep doing it the old way. Now that more than half the FBS leagues are playing CCGs, the former “exemption” is really now the norm.

          • frug says:

            Well, I’ll give you this; if the Big XII wants to at least have the right to stage a CCG with 10 teams their best bet isn’t to eliminate the 12 team minimum (which doesn’t help the other conferences at all), it is is to argue for complete elimination of the divisional requirement (which would benefit everyone)

          • ccrider55 says:

            So allowing a league (or two) to not abide by the rules that four power conferences and the FCS conferences that held CCG’s have, inspite of several inquiries as to whether they might use alternative formats is not a harm, and not controversial? I guess we disagree as to what would be required. To me, it would be undoubtably controversial, and the costs/benefit analysis of every conference that has gone to twelve(+) will have been altered after the fact. Not that anyone having gone there did so solely for the CCG, but it is/was a factor in the selection of schools.

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @frug: …their best bet isn’t to eliminate the 12 team minimum (which doesn’t help the other conferences at all), it is is to argue for complete elimination of the divisional requirement (which would benefit everyone).

            I entirely agree. I haven’t seen the exact wording of the proposal, but that’s what I’d do: simply state that a league may stage a CCG between its top two teams, determined however it wishes.

            @ccrider55: So allowing a league (or two) to not abide by the rules . . . is not a harm, and not controversial?

            No one is suggesting “to not abide by the rules.” The proposal is to change it, which is not controversial in itself: such proposals are made all the time. The only controversy arises if there is an argument over the harms. (If there is no harm, then there is much less reason for the rule to stand, even if the benefits are slight or of use to only a few.)

            To me, it would be undoubtably controversial, and the costs/benefit analysis of every conference that has gone to twelve(+) will have been altered after the fact. Not that anyone having gone there did so solely for the CCG, but it is/was a factor in the selection of schools.

            By that argument, nothing would ever change. All the leagues abided by the rule as it then stood — as, of course, they should. I doubt that the Big Ten will say: “We never would have taken Nebraska if it wasn’t for that rule.” It seems to me that leagues like the Big Ten would vote for this, as it does them no harm to have the flexibility to schedule without divisions. The might be glad to have that option at some point in the future.

            As we’ve noted on these FTT threads, if you aren’t required to have divisions, many more scheduling options become possible. Put yourself in their shoes. If you’re a university president or AD, why wouldn’t you want to have those options available to you?

          • ccrider55 says:

            I give up. You win. Rules only apply until your own ox is being gored.

            We’ll see if it even gets more than a cursory hearing, when and if it actually becomes a formal proposal.

  23. Nathan Lee says:

    LIMBO Bball kings to C7 (otherwise known as general ramblings of a mad man)

    Over the last several years I’ve been surprised by the names of Basketball Kings that could be left in the cold by conference realignment which is largely football driven.

    First there was the prospect that Kansas could be left behind after a potential Texas-cartel-to-the-PAC move.

    Second, UCONN is currently stuck in LIMBO begging for a invite.

    Third: Though I have not seen it said often, there is a possibility that Duke could be stuck in LIMBO.

    The nuclear scenario is such: Delany gets his SuperDeathStar B1G to 20 or more teams and it includes UNC, but the B1G leaves Duke behind as they don’t bring added value after UNC is in the fold. The ACC markets get split between B1G and SEC. The Texas cartel ultimately decide they need to go SuperPAC to match. Kansas gets left without a dance partner.

    When the dust settles we are not left with a 4 x 16 conference alignment, but rather a 3 x 20 alignment. This SuperSixty leaves behind some combination of Kansas, Duke, and UCONN. Also, ND could be looking for a non-FB conference if they are able to avoid SuperSixty bondage.

    I find this C7 Big East to be an attractive option for some homeless BBall king in the near future.

  24. m (Ag) says:

    I want to commend the Catholic 7 on waiting for a papal vacancy to start grabbing schools for their new conference!

    People have commented that the Catholic 7 fills a temporal void in the new Fox sports channels (basketball content in the winter), but it also fills a geographic void. The Pac 12 and Big 12 content will lead to some demand for the channels West of the Mississippi. The Catholic 7 will lead to some demand in the Northeast and Midwest. With the SEC and ACC lost to them, I suppose they’ll try to grab some cheap college content from Conference USA or the Sunbelt whenever they come up (not that they’ll get great ratings), to go along with their non-collegiate programming.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Whoa, I did not see your post, m(ag). I was thinking exactly along these lines yesterday evening but did not post until just now. Wasn’t trying to copycat your ideas.

      But great observations regarding the idea that Fox is being motivated by geography. Great minds do think alike! :-)

  25. How about instead of writing out dumb posts like “Go Blue” and “RTR” for the email updates you just use the Ctl+F feature that has been on every computer in the history of mankind? Or you could just check every day(s) to see if there are updates.

    But by all means, flood the board with two-word posts if the idea of using Ctl+F is too hard. Waiting shouldn’t be hard to do, but I know how critical it is to hear the thoughts of random people who have zero say in anything related to college football.

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Somebody needs to switch to decaf.

    • ccrider55 says:

      Pffffttt.

    • Andy says:

      Go Blue!

    • BruceMcF says:

      Go Bucks! !! !!! Go Redhawks!! Sucks that one of the two has to lose.

      Tough loss for my alma mater on Friday, going for their fourth CCHA regular season title. But good win for the Bucks, fighting for home ice in their last CCHA tournament.

      (BTW, Complaining about an accepted practice at a site is bad form, so how about accepting that not everybody has the same setup and routine that you do and chill? For instance, some people have a very email oriented routine, and seeing the number of emails routed to their frankthetank folder since they last checked the site is how they keep track of how active discussions are.)

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      @ Chip Brown, etc.

      but, you don’t understand. we all ~~~ each of us ~~ have a personal goal of getting each and every FtT article to 1000 comments as quickly as possible. What’s the record in number of hours?

      The last article was at 965 and I seriously considered just writing 35 various wordy or not-wordy, OT and OffTopic, relevant and useless comments just to get to 1000. (I did not.)

      This, of course, requires FtT to write something new. but he’s busy with work and twins and real life and all. But still: “FtT, get to work !! We’re already at 1000 !!!”

      C’mon, Chip Brown Dude. There is method to the madness.

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Go Owls! (not those pretenders from FAU or Temple, I mean the REAL Owls)

    • bamatab says:

      You’ll have to explain to me how using Ctl+F will help me keep up with the on going discussions. And how am I supposed to search for new discussions using Ctl+F, if they weren’t being discussed the last time I was on the board? Using email updates not only allows me to keep up with the discussions that I want to follow, but it also allows me to see any new discussions that I might be interested in. And you would have to log onto this site multiple times in a day to keep up with all of the discussions (especially on busy days). So how about instead of writing dumb posts about how others choose to keep up with the discussions on this board, you just mind your own business and keep up however you see fit.

      And btw…RTR!

  26. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Clearly the new, no-football Big East exists thanks in no small part to the upcoming Fox Sports Network. Just echoing what FTT has said previously, Fox has not had a shortage of fall sports programming because of Big 12 and Pac- 12 football as well as Major League Baseball, but there was a huge need to fill for winter months.

    Could Fox also have been motivated to add the new Big East by the league’s geography? Fox Sports is headquartered in Los Angeles and seems to have a stronger presence out west than any other part of the country. Its has a cable and over-the-air television presence with the westernmost major college conference, the Pac-12. It also has had a relationship with the Big 12, in the central US, for many years now, a relationship which has grown with that league’s latest television contract.

    But the easternmost part of the country has been dominated by ESPN. The ACC, which is entirely in the eastern time zone, is exclusively an ESPN league. The SEC is ESPN-only except for 13-14 football games. Fox has a very important relationship with the Big Ten through the BTN, of course, but other than the Big Ten football championship game, there’s very little that Fox can use from the B1G to enhance the new Fox Sports One. Even the now mid-major “Big America” conference (BE football schools) are not available to Fox.

    With the new Big East, though, Fox gets a foothold for college sports in by far the nation’s most populated time zone. I just wonder how much of a factor a desire for an eastern presence played in Fox’s willingness to overpay for this new league.

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, these are definitely some good points. It’s also worth noting that Fox has done everything in their power to get the Catholic 7 ready to go for the opening of the ’13-14 season in November, which will be in time to fill up content on FS1/FS2 after they launch.

      It’s definitely no coincidence that Fox has been so aggressive in buying up content over the past couple of months and past year really given their ambitions of challenging ESPN’s hold over the market.

    • BruceMcF says:

      If they offered an amount large enough to make sure the breakaway happened, because in their view the rights to the breakaway were worth more to them than the amount they offered …
      … then they didn’t overpay.

      Of course, they MIGHT have overpaid, if the current unusually high share of media revenues going to live sports ends up being a bubble. For instance, they bought MySpace at a very high price and then sold it at a much reduced price, for instance, and that isn’t their only example of buying at the top.

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        Speculation: would FOX pay some extra $$$ if ND was to join the (new) Big East as the 10th team just for a year? ND is a good brand that gets ratings. That’s a lot of ND games on FOX Sports 1 & 2.

        • BruceMcF says:

          There’ve been claims that they’ve talked about paying more for 12 teams than for 10 … so I don’t see any particular reason they wouldn’t put a little extra in for ND to do its farewell Big East lap in the New Big East rather than in the Once Was Big East. It would solidify the broader public perception of the New Big East.

    • spaz says:

      Just a thought, but one brand new Big Ten property that isn’t covered by current media deals is hitting the market now — men’s ice hockey. Could it be conceivable that Fox might pick up some of those games for FS1/FS2? The BTN can’t carry them all, especially when multiple games are on at once and it would provide some additional winter programming for Fox.

      Even if college ice hockey doesn’t bring much viewers, it might be worth it for Fox just to strengthen the relationship with the Big Ten.

      Fox does carry some college ice hockey on their regional nets as well as on the FCS channels, so it’s not brand new territory for them.

      • BruceMcF says:

        Well, just for simplicity suppose its 36 games, either home or away (setting side mid-season tournaments at neutral sites), with 18 home games per school that is an inventory of roughly 108 games. The BTN has promised to show 30 games.

        So it seems like if Fox Sports Two wanted to put in a bid for a Big Ten Hockey game of the week, the Big Ten could readily accommodate that, without cutting back on the BTN’s live hockey. It wouldn’t even bite into the urge of a serious Big Ten hockey fan to get BTN Digital for the rest of the games.

  27. [...] are leaving the Big East are going to be taking the name–The Big East–with them.  As Frank the Tank points out, the Big East name still has value to those schools.  Indeed, Georgetown, Villanova, [...]

  28. tomdauwwg says:

    Spartans > Wolverines (Again!)

  29. Brian says:

    http://www.971thefan.com/content/blogs/bishop-rothman/2013/02/Dave-Biddle-onBandR.html

    A radio interview with an OSU blogger discussing expansion in general and where thing stand. No breaking news, but a reasonable discussion of all the issues. FWIW, he thinks UNC will opt to stay in the ACC.

  30. Brian says:

    I just listened to a radio interview of Brett McMurphy and he said his ACC sources claim the ACC will not settle with MD in the lawsuit. They are apparently willing to fight this to the bitter end.

    • ccrider55 says:

      Interesting, but you’d hardly expect an announcement of intent to settle.

      • Brian says:

        It’s still unusual to have sources say they won’t settle. They may be worried that any settlement will just open the floodgates.

    • frug says:

      Yeah, it doesn’t really surprise me they would say that. After all, once you admit an intention to settle you lose most of your leverage.

      The Big East said they had all intention of forcing WVU, ‘Cuse, Pitt and ND to wait the full 27 months to leave, and the Big XII said it would hold CU, NU, Mizzou and A&M to their full exit fee agreement. Both ended up caving.

      Plus, Maryland has said they won’t pay any exit fee, arguing that even the $20 million they agreed to was illegal.

      • Brian says:

        Saying it publicly would be weird, but behind the scenes? I think it depends on who his sources are.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Isn’t saying it to a media source basically saying it to a public “accidentally” open microphone? But I do get that perhaps it was a source divulging their intent. Just not sure I’ve ever heard a source divulge the reverse.

          • Brian says:

            Making an official statement is different from talking to a reporter off the record. But yeah, it’s nothing earth-shaking.

  31. BuckeyeBeau says:

    Did not see this posted. ND would be interested in joining the (new) Big East if only for a year.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/notre-dame-wants-talk-catholic-031120555–ncaab.html

    • metatron says:

      Sure, who wouldn’t like a free handout?

    • zeek says:

      I think it makes sense from the perspectives of all sides.

      While ND isn’t the name in basketball that it is in football, it’s still a good name have in hoops contests, especially for Fox that is going to be launching FS1 and FS2 and trying to draw ratings throughout the Northeast and Midwest via Catholic 7 games. Having ND there will surely help FS1 and FS2 while they’re in their infancy.

      As far as the Catholic 7 goes, it won’t hurt them, and if it helps them get a bump in ratings that first year, I don’t see how it’s bad for them either. Given that they’ll be branded as the Big East, it won’t hurt them to just have ND for a year; it will be a clear cut situation that ND is only there for one season and then off.

      Obviously, it’s good for ND to have a place to be for a year before going to the ACC.

      • BruceMcF says:

        It will underline that they are the “real” heirs to Big East Basketball, and not that conference that Once Was The Big East , for Notre Dame, the eighth BBall-only school, to do their farewell lap with the New Big East rather than with the shattered remnants of the Once Was Big East.

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, I can agree with that. I can it making sense for ND to spend a year with the Catholic 7, and you’re right that it would help the branding of the Big East as they go off on their own.

          • vp19 says:

            One of the biggest losers out of all this is Geno Auriemma, coach of the evil empire of women’s basketball (yes, I mean Connecticut). They are losing big conference rivals all over the place over the next few years — Rutgers to the Big Ten, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville to the ACC, and now Notre Dame, Villanova, St. John’s and Georgetown to Big East 2.0. Both of the Huskies’ basketball programs are going to be left with substantially less appealing conference competition as of 2014-15.

    • frug says:

      One problem with hosting the Irish is that the league (at least according to the Washington Post) is going to require a GOR.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/georgetown-takes-lead-in-preserving-basketball-tradition-of-catholic-7/2013/02/21/40193304-7c2d-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story_3.html

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        Um… no, I do not see this as a problem for a one-year stint of ND in the (new) Big East. It is easy enough to exempt ND from the GOR or agree that the GOR will only be for a year of Bball game or some such other compromise. There are actually a number of problems to be resolved. For example, what if ND gets to the NCAA tournament? Where goest or stayest their tournament units?

        All of these issues are resolvable and will be discussed/resolved in advance.

        There is too much synergy and “Catholic goodness” to not have ND “in” the league for a year. FOX will pay if necessary. The ratings will be too good to pass up.

        • zeek says:

          It’s a good way to build the new Big East brand, FS1/FS2, and to provide ND a comfortable halfway house to the ACC.

          There are no losers here; this is a win-win-win if it does manage to come together.

          And yeah, I don’t see why they couldn’t exempt ND for a one year stint regardless of a GOR.

        • frug says:

          A. I agree it is resolvable, but only if they are willing to wait a year to institute it. You can’t really exempt any schools from a GOR because they require unanimous approval with no abstentions to institute. It really depends on how cautious the Big East schools want to be and how important branding is (which brings us to the next point)

          B. There isn’t that much synergy. None really. ND is a football school that happens to sponsor other sports. They actually have the only power conference MBB team in the country that loses money every year. This creates a major issue for branding purposes which would be exacerbated after ND bolted (it doesn’t look good for a conference when of its founders leaves one year after the conference starts.) Let Notre Dame play by different rules than everyone else is not a good PR for a conference that is saying it wants to take control of its own destiny.

          I agree that Fox could pay enough to persuade the Big East to bring the Irish along, but the Big East schools may too concerned with branding to issues to take any amount of money that Fox is willing to pay.

          • Personally, I wouldn’t really care for ND parking their sports in the new Big East for 1 year. However, rest assured, if ND wants to do it, the Catholic 7 will bring them with no questions asked. What Fox would want is even irrelevant because the C7 wouldn’t care if they got paid extra or not when it comes to ND. As someone that has talked to people in leadership positions at DePaul before, I can’t emphasize enough that all of these Catholic universities kill for any type of association with ND (even if it’s temporary). I’m not saying that’s the right attitude, but there’s no question in my mind that the C7 leaders will take in ND for a 1-year basis without any prodding or convincing at all.

          • @frug – That’s an interesting perspective, but trust me – the Catholic 7 absolutely looks at the branding of even 1 year of having ND as a *good* thing. Everyone knows that ND is heading to the ACC, so it’s not as if though this is some type of no confidence vote in the league when they leave (unlike the constant Big East defections). To the contrary, it’s essentially a stamp of approval from one of the most valuable athletic departments in the country that it’s a big-time sports league (where ND would rather park their sports there instead of a league that still has UConn, Cincinnati and Memphis). That’s how the leaders in the C7 would look at it, anyway.

          • vp19 says:

            I could see some sort of agreement where, in return for playing one year in Big East 2.0, Notre Dame agrees to play a number of men’s and women’s basketball games against BE members each year for the following decade. (ND is acquainted with that sort of setup, after all.) Also, the conference’s GOR could be delayed until 2014-15, reflecting the current volatility.

          • bullet says:

            Jersey guy doesn’t agree, thinking most of the C7 has no interest in letting ND park for a year.
            http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5408

          • frug says:

            @Frank

            I know you have talked about the importance to DePaul, but I’m not sure DePaul can really speak for the rest of the conference. Remember DePaul sits in Chicago which is ND’s biggest market which skews their view a bit, and as a new(ish) power conference team, they may feel they need to ND, but I seriously doubt Georgetown feels they need the Irish’s stamp of approval for anything.

          • Richard says:

            I agree with Vincent. If I were the C7, I’d get basketball HaH’s with ND scheduled with all 10-12 members of the BE over the next 6 years or so (or possibly something like 4 HaH’s with BE schools annually in perpetuity). ND doesn’t draw much attendance in bball, but they still have enough subway alums tuning in to be worthwhile to schedule for TV purposes.

            I’d also have ND allot a few slots in their non-revenue sports over the next few years for BE schools who may want to schedule ND in those sports.

          • frug says:

            I will add that all that everything I have previously said not withstanding, I’m not saying that the Big East would never add ND, I just don’t think it is a the no brainer that some people are making it out to be.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Yes, exempting the Irish for their farewell lap around the Big East is functionally quite simple: tie the GOR to voting rights membership on a range of structural things (including new members), and the Irish simply agrees to not have a vote on those things.

          If the Jersey Guy has sources in the C7, I’d expect they would be inside the athletic departments. If there is a difference of opinion between AD and President on playing Notre Dame, I expect that the President wins that one.

  32. Quiet Storm says:

    I don’t think ND will go with the Catholic 7. That would force them to find temporary homes for some of their Olympic sports programs. The only sports outside of basketball that all 7 currently support are: men’s soccer, women’s soccer and women’s cross country.

    • frug says:

      And it’s not just the lack of sports the other schools offer; it is also the lack of quality. Outside of BB the Big East 4.0 is going to be really weak in pretty much every sport ND sponsors. Without FBS football to provide financial backing the Catholic schools just don’t have the money to build deep athletic departments.

      It would only be for a year, but not sure ND would be willing to let their non-revs. play in a conference as weak the Big East.

      • vp19 says:

        Could ND enter the ACC a year early, even though the football scheduling agreement wouldn’t be in effect for 2013? I suppose the ACC could go to its 15-member format a year early, with Maryland in place of Louisville.

        • frug says:

          That’s the million dollar question.

          That would certainly be ND’s first choice, but there is no way to know whether the ACC would agree to it. The ACC has nothing to gain by adding ND a year early, and honestly a lot to lose since ND would want a share of the non-FB revenue even though the media deal won’t have kicked in. Maybe the ACC would do it as a favor to the Irish but doing favors for schools has never been the ACC’s modus operandi. Then there also the issue of ND having to pay a much higher exit fee to the Big East in order to leave on short notice.

      • Arch Stanton says:

        The Big East will be pretty good in Men’s soccer, no? Maybe not until they add Creighton and SLU?

        • BruceMcF says:

          Looking at conference results (though it may be that division strength is unbalanced, since more C7 schools are in the Red division and more FB schools in the Blue division), without Notre Dame, its a 6-school AQ conference. With Notre Dame, its just about as top heavy as either of the current Big East divisions, without, it seems likely to be a bit more top heavy (these are, of course, only one season’s results):

          Georgetown 6-2-1 (19-4-1)
          Notre Dame 5-2-1 (17-4-1)
          Marquette 5-2-1 (16-4-1)
          Villanova 3-3-2 (12-6-2)
          Seton Hall 2-6-0 (6-12-0)
          Providence 2-6-0 (4-10-2)
          DePaul 1-6-1 (4-10-3)

          No more top heavy than the surviving members of the FB Big East, though there are the new schools to be slotted in:

          Louisville 7-1-0 (14-6-1)
          UConn 6-2-0 (14-6-1)
          Notre Dame 5-2-1 (17-4-1)
          UC 3-3-2 (6-9-4)
          Rutgers 3-4-1 (7-7-1)
          USF 2-3-3 (8-6-5)

          Losing Syracuse (5-3-0) is losing a contender from last season, losing Pitt (0-8-0) looks to be more like losing a punching bag.

      • Richard says:

        Frug:

        “Outside of BB the Big East 4.0 is going to be really weak in pretty much every sport ND sponsors.”

        You’re assuming anyone cares about the strength of competition in non-revenue sports over a single season.

        Plus, ND as an independent almost certainly would only be able to put together weaker schedules in their non-revenue sports if they go independent in them for a year. Nobody’s going to go out of their way to send a team to South Bend to compete in a sport that maybe 100 people care about

        • frug says:

          You’re assuming anyone cares about the strength of competition in non-revenue sports over a single season.

          That’s why I said this, “It would only be for a year, but not sure ND would be willing to let their non-revs. play in a conference as weak the Big East.”

          Plus, ND as an independent almost certainly would only be able to put together weaker schedules in their non-revenue sports if they go independent in them for a year. Nobody’s going to go out of their way to send a team to South Bend to compete in a sport that maybe 100 people care about

          I absolutely agree. The thing is ND has another option besides the Big East 4.0 and independence; they could just stick with the FB schools.

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            There is yet another option: the FB Big America for the non-revenue sports and the BBall Big East for their basketball. Yes, that would take a lot of negotiating, but right now, ND is part of the Big America (or whatever they are going to call themselves). All ND needs is a waiver or agreement to let the Bball team play with the C7.

          • frug says:

            The Irish would probably go for that, but not sure why the FB schools would agree to it.

          • BruceMcF says:

            @frug ~ to keep some sports together as AQ championships as their new members develop additional sports with their flood of new rev…

            … oh, wait, yeah, you’re right, no clear reason why the “Big American” would do that.

      • BruceMcF says:

        Lets run through the Big East standings and the sports that Notre Dame sponsors. Already did soccer, looks like a wash either way, so this doesn’t apply to men’s soccer.

        NB. Yes of course one year standings are not long term strength of program, but OTOH we are only talking about next year anyway, so last season is the best proxy). I’ll just do the average standing of the surviving members of the Big East / Big American for 2013. I’m not going to look at track, swimming & diving.

        For track & field & swimming, is it an issue? I don’t know that it is, so I am setting aside track and field, cross country, swimming and diving. Also setting aside these four:
        Lacrosse: Big American only has one Lacrosse school
        Fencing: Current Big East does not sponsor fencing
        Hockey: Current Big East does not sponsor hockey
        Men’s Soccer: already looked at, its basically a wash.

        Which leaves actually not so many current Big East team sports left to look at:

        Baseball ~ Notre Dame = #7
        BEC avg(4)=#6: St. Johns #2; Seton Hall #4; Nova #8, Georgetown #10
        BAC avg(5)=#5.4 : Louisville #1; USF #3; Rutgers #5; Uconn #6; UC #12
        BAC Baseball marginally better, a 6-team conference w/Notre Dame or incoming members. BEC will be adding two baseball schools, so they’ll have 6.

        Softball ~ Notre Dame = #2
        BEC avg(6) = #9.5: DePaul #5; St. John’s #6; Providence #10; Nova #11; Georgetown #12; Seton Hall #13
        BAC avg(4) = #4.75: Louisville #1; USF #3; Rutgers #7; UConn #8

        BAC Softball substantially better, but not a 6-team conference even w/ND, so they are depending on new members there. BEC a 6-team conference even w/out ND, but ND head and shoulders above if next season is like last season

        Field Hockey: ND does not play
        BEC avg (3) = #5.67/7: Providence #4; Nova #6; Georgetown #7
        BAC avg (3) = #3.33/7: UConn #2; Louisville #3; Rutgers #5
        Big American has it all over New Big East in a sport it is possible neither will sponsor.

        Men’s Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#1
        BEC avg(6) = #6.17/12: Nova #3; St. Johns #4; Georgetown #5; Seton Hall #7; Marquette #8; Depaul #10
        BAC avg(5) = #8/12: Louisville #2; UConn #6; USF #9; Rutgers #11; UC #12

        Womens Golf: (2012 Champ 3rd round), ND=#2
        BEC avg(3) = #6/8: Seton Hall #4; St. Johns #6; Georgetown #8
        BAC avg(4) = #4/8: USF #1; Louisville #3; Rutgers #5; US #7

        The Big East has better men’s golf, the Big American better women’s golf.

        Rowing: ND = #1.5 (2012 championships; GF placings, then Petit Final placings, average of +4 and +8):
        BEC avg (3) = #5.17/8: Louisville #3.5; UConn #6; Rutgers #6;
        BAC avg (2) = #5.75/8: Georgetown #3.5; Nova #8

        With WV gone and Syracuse going, neither the incumbant BAC members nor the C7 BEC members have a full six teams. Neither Butler nor X row.

        M Tennis: ND #1 (tournament seedings as standings ~ Louisville was champion)
        BEC avg (5) = #5.8/9: St. John’s #3; Depaul #5; Marquette #6; Georgetown #7; Nov #8
        BAC avg (3) = #5/9: Louisville #2; USF #4; UConn #9

        W Tennis: ND #1
        BEC avg (5) = #7.6/12: Depaul #4; Georgetown #5; Marquette #7; St. Johns #10; Seton Hall #12
        BAC avg (4) = #6.25/12: USF #2; Louisville #6; Rutgers #8; UC #9

        BAC has one M&W tennis rival for ND in USF, and a M’s rival in UC, BEC has more numbers but fewer top seeds.

        Volleyball: ND = #3 (regular season)
        BEC avg (6)= #8.67/14: Marquette #2; St. John’s #6; Seton Hall #9; Nova #10; Depaul #11; Georgetown #14
        BAC avg (5)= #6/14: Louisville #1; UConn #4; UC #5; USF #8; Rutgers #12

        Big American conference appreciably stronger in women’s volleyball.

        So the BAC does indeed edge out the BEC, even before looking at what all the new schools bring to the table.

        As far as making up the numbers, the expected two additional New Big East members play:

        Butler: Men’s baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field
        Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis, track and field, volleyball

        Xavier: Mens baseball, basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field
        Women’s basketball, cross country, golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor & outdoor track and field, volleyball.

        So, not a complete list, but: BEC+Butler+X:
        9: BBall, M&W Soccer
        8: M Golf, Volleyball
        7: M&W Tennis
        6: Baseball, Softball
        5: W Golf,
        3: W Rowing, W Field Hockey

        W Golf would need an associate member, w/out ND ~ , W Rowing & W Field Hockey would likely need to find a rowing conference (though Creighton rows crew and SLU plays Field Hockey).

  33. gfunk says:

    IF 18 TEAM IS THE END GAME: MY THOUGHTS

    Admittedly, I’ve been all over the map with this Risk Fantasy Conference Expansion (pardon the Delany paraphrase). But a good dose of scanning message boards, esp potential ACC teams gives me an uneasy feeling that poaching the ACC will create incompatible cultural fits. The BIG, in the words of those savvy, nerdy GT types would come across as “imperialist”. To each their own, I guess.

    So here’s my present fantasy: UConn, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Virginia possibly in place of UConn.

    My reasons, many to follow here : ):

    UConn and Kansas to the BIG makes the BIG the premier men’s basketball conference. Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt and ND simply can’t trump a Kansas-UConn combo, though it’s close.

    Women’s basketball certainly improves with UConn.

    UConn also adds men’s soccer prestige (2 NC’s) thus bolstering the conference to include 4 programs with multiple NC’s (IU, Md, UConn and Michigan State).

    UConn is also a field hockey power, a sport valued by the BIG, esp with Maryland in the fold.

    UConn, combined with Rutgers helps at the negotiation table of the NYC market.

    UConn is a flagship that has pretty decent US News Undergraduate Rankings.

    UConn has D1 hockey.

    UConn, and this is very important, would love to join the BIG. Some of the ACC candidates, their everyday fans, are fiercely resistant to BIG membership. Take your pick, esp UNC.

    Kansas, OU, and Texas combine with Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota to create the Interstate 35 corridor – albeit Lincoln and Iowa City are slightly off the path, but not much.

    Kansas and Texas are AAU.

    Oklahoma and Texas give the BIG an even number of blue bloods at 6: OU, UT, Neb, Mi, OSU, and PSU. Therefore two 9 team divisions are evenly split with 3 blue bloods in each.

    The cultural fit will exceed any 4 team combo from the ACC. Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Oklahoma have previous or current conference history.

    The BIG adds one of college football’s 5 best rivalries: Red River Shootout. Therefore owning the prestige of two top 5 rivalries.

    Texas recruits.

    Improved baseball and softball, the latter being decent in the BIG.

    Even better swimming programs.

    Even better wrestling (OU).

    BIG Women’s Volleyball suddenly becomes arguably better than the Pac12. Texas brings 2 NC’s to Nebraska’s 3, Penn State’s 5.

    Oklahoma is a flagship state school.

    The BIG is nearly contiguous – UConn being the slight break, and it is slight – perhaps 30 miles.

    Interestingly, such an expansion makes it much easier for the SEC, Pac12 and ACC to get to 16 or 18 teams.

    Imagine if the above happens and the SEC lands Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor. The BIG and SEC could potentially have 4 annual OOC intrastate rivalries: OU/OSU, KU/KSU, Iowa/Iowa State, and either Tx/aTm or Tx/Baylor.

    Texas Tech and TCU could head to the Pac12 and travel as a pair to alleviate outrageous travel costs. The Pac12 may bite in the name of Tx high school football. Regardless, the Pac 12 gets to at least 14 and begins to think long and hard about UNLV & Boise State (already an associate member) and perhaps two more to get 18. Too bad New Mexico doesn’t have a solid football program.

    Cincy, WVa, and USF could join the ACC, and finally ND joins a conference, all sports, to give the ACC 18 teams.

    Other thoughts:

    I could easily substitute UVa with UConn, so long as the ACC picks up UConn and the SEC sticks with a combination of Iowa State, KSU, OSU, and Baylor.

    Anyways, the above scenario rose in part because BIG expansion towards the ACC is too problematic for me when I begin to think of cultural compatibility. Tx, OU, Kansas, and UConn would be considerably more positive about joining the BIG than an ACC combo. Yes, even Tx. If you can get OU and Kansas aboard, esp with Nebraska’s leadership (Big 8 ties). Tx will fold – they can’t give up the Red River Rivalry in the name of the Pac12 or SEC. They would also be foolish to turn down the money of such a B1G conference. But, this leads me to my next point. Would Tx give up the king status? And I don’t know how the BIG could unravel the

    GOR, GOR, GOR

    As Frank said, the BIG 12 is bound more by money, not cultural fit. But Kansas, OU, Tx reunited with Nebraska and the rest of the BIG would be more profitable and cultural compatible than the present Big 12.

    • gfunk says:

      PS I wrote a lot above, thus pardon any grammatical injustice.

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      “Imagine if the above happens and the SEC lands Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor.”

      —Why in the world would the SEC be interested in the detritus of a destroyed Big XII?

      • zeek says:

        Good question.

        It’s the same thought that goes through my mind any time people suggest expansion scenarios for the Pac-12 that don’t include Texas.

        SEC already has 14 schools; they can stay at 14 and be right with the Big Ten as the richest two leagues in the country regardless of whether the Big Ten expands or not.

    • B1GRED says:

      Will never happen. Nothing changes in the Big 12 unless Texas says it does. The Horns like their current arrangement.

    • Brian says:

      gfunk,

      “So here’s my present fantasy: UConn, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Virginia possibly in place of UConn.”

      No, no, no and no. You comment on incompatible cultures for the ACC schools, but think UConn, OU and UT seamlessly fit in with the B10?

      “UConn and Kansas to the BIG makes the BIG the premier men’s basketball conference.”

      So would UNC and Duke.

      “Women’s basketball certainly improves with UConn.”

      RU and MD already boost WBB. So would UNC and Duke, again.

      “UConn also adds men’s soccer prestige (2 NC’s) thus bolstering the conference to include 4 programs with multiple NC’s (IU, Md, UConn and Michigan State).”

      UNC also has 2, and is the queen of women’s soccer.

      “UConn is also a field hockey power, a sport valued by the BIG, esp with Maryland in the fold.”

      UNC is a bigger power.

      “UConn, combined with Rutgers helps at the negotiation table of the NYC market.”

      How much does UConn really help in NYC? Duke and UNC have a bunch of fans in NYC, too.

      “UConn is a flagship that has pretty decent US News Undergraduate Rankings.”

      UNC and UVA are much better.

      “UConn has D1 hockey.”

      UNC, UVA and Duke play lacrosse. The B10 already has 6 hockey teams.

      “UConn, and this is very important, would love to join the BIG.”

      They’d probably prefer the ACC except for money.

      “Some of the ACC candidates, their everyday fans, are fiercely resistant to BIG membership. Take your pick, esp UNC.”

      That’s true. On the other hand, many MD fans changed their tune as the move got explained to them and they learned of the benefits of the B10. Many of the ACC fans are comparing the current ACC and the current B10, but those aren’t the conferences they would be choosing between. In this case you said the B10 is going to 18, so that would mean 4 ACC teams coming to join MD. Would those ACC schools rather be in the B10 with UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT or in the ACC with BC, Syracuse, Pitt and WF? That’s the actual choice they need to consider. Add in the millions of dollars in extra money and the potential for 2 or more schools to also leave for the B12 and/or SEC, and it’s a very different scenario from what they are considering.

      “Kansas, OU, and Texas combine with Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota to create the Interstate 35 corridor – albeit Lincoln and Iowa City are slightly off the path, but not much.”

      UT doesn’t want to join the B10 and I don’t think OU really does either.

      “Kansas and Texas are AAU.”

      As are UNC, UVA, Duke and GT. OU definitely isn’t, just like UConn isn’t. KU is down near NE so might be at risk for getting voted out soon.

      “Oklahoma and Texas give the BIG an even number of blue bloods at 6: OU, UT, Neb, Mi, OSU, and PSU. Therefore two 9 team divisions are evenly split with 3 blue bloods in each.”

      True. Nobody has ever claimed the ACC 4 boost football much unless you add FSU as one of them.

      “The cultural fit will exceed any 4 team combo from the ACC. Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Oklahoma have previous or current conference history.”

      In what way are OK and TX a cultural fit? Are there a lot of cowboys running around WI and MI? TX is its own country essentially and is at least as different from the B10 as NC.

      “The BIG adds one of college football’s 5 best rivalries: Red River Shootout. Therefore owning the prestige of two top 5 rivalries.”

      UNC-Duke hoops.

      “Texas recruits.”

      VA, NC and GA recruits.

      “Improved baseball and softball, the latter being decent in the BIG.”

      UVA, UNC and GT are all strong in baseball.

      “Even better swimming programs.”

      Yep, no competing with UT there. OU and KU don’t do much, though.

      “Even better wrestling (OU).”

      OkSU would be the get for wrestling. OU hasn’t been a wrestling power in years. The B10 already dominates wrestling anyway. MD and RU will add more depth to B10 wrestling as is. We don’t need more good teams.

      “BIG Women’s Volleyball suddenly becomes arguably better than the Pac12. Texas brings 2 NC’s to Nebraska’s 3, Penn State’s 5.”

      Who cares? The B10 had 7 top 25 teams last year to the P12′s 5 (both had 4 in the top 10).

      “Oklahoma is a flagship state school.”

      As are UVA and UNC.

      “The BIG is nearly contiguous – UConn being the slight break, and it is slight – perhaps 30 miles.”

      UVA, UNC, GT and FSU would be contiguous.

      “Interestingly, such an expansion makes it much easier for the SEC, Pac12 and ACC to get to 16 or 18 teams.”

      Is that supposed to be a plus?

      “Imagine if the above happens and the SEC lands Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor.”

      Why on earth would the SEC add those schools? They have negative value.

      “Texas Tech and TCU could head to the Pac12 and travel as a pair to alleviate outrageous travel costs.”

      Why would the P12 add those schools? There is no benefit.

      “The Pac12 may bite in the name of Tx high school football.”

      No. Just no. They aren’t going to lose money and add a bad school like TT just for recruiting. They have CA.

      “Regardless, the Pac 12 gets to at least 14 and begins to think long and hard about UNLV & Boise State (already an associate member) and perhaps two more to get 18. Too bad New Mexico doesn’t have a solid football program.”

      You’re crazy. The P12 wouldn’t add any of those schools.

      • gfunk says:

        Hence the phrase “Risk Fantasy Conference Expansion”, I mean so many of you are on here dreaming up an ACC break up – a bit over the top, you think. My Pac12 thoughts are merely space fill with above post because I can’t think of any realistic options for the Pac12 to get to 16 unless they take a risk.

        And to the brain child on here claiming the Pac 12 has California for hs football, thus no need for Tx – foolish. Tx has more per capita talent than Ca, and the gap is only growing. Look at historical recruiting, esp the past decade. Tx is also built to become even stronger in hs football due to amateur investement. The same can’t be said for Ca. Cali can only supply so much talent for the Pac12 – esp with four in-state schools in the same conference. Oregon and Washington truly depend on Ca recruits as well.

        I also think some of you have demonstrated, via previous posts, a host of delusional expansion scenarios of your own, esp scenarios that include UNC, which I can’t see happening, or the break up of the ACC in general which is pretty insensitive. Frankly, it makes a lot of BIG fans, their aliases, look like greedy pigs via message boards. To suggest taking down the ACC, a conference that has 3x as many NC’s in men’s college basketball as the BIG in the modern era, is pretty ruthless & childish – it sort of seems envious at times as well. Also, our beloved BIG is only slightly better than the ACC in football. We keep dumping on ourselves in bowl season after bowl season.

        Ultimately I think what is best for a college football playoff (8 teams) is:

        4 conferences at 16 to 18 teams, not a snug Pac12, BIG @ 14 teams, SEC @ 14 teams, dysfunctional Big East, an ACC with a ND partial football membership, and a Big 12 @ 10.

        Some conference outside the Big East needs to go – to me it’s the Big 12. They have the least tradition at this point, they’ve already lost 4 charter members & technically the Big 12 is much younger than the ACC, BIG, SEC, Pac12 and even the original Big East. The conferences need to even out and become four if a much needed playoff is to come. I think the Big12 is actually more vulnerable than the ACC because culture and tradition (ACC) may just outweigh profitability (Big 12).

        Also, to whoever called Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and Ok State “detritus” – that’s a pretty absurd statement. Kansas State and Ok State have both been top 20 football programs the past decade, better than much of the BIG. Baylor has risen as well, and not just in football but both men’s and women’s basketball. Ok State is an especially well rounded athletic program that holds more NC’s than any school minus USC, UCLA and Stanford. Think about further, Ok St has more NC’s than any schools in the BIG, SEC, ACC and Big East. Iowa State is a respectable school that at least has AAU status. So the guestion is: Why not have intra-state OOC annual games between the BIG and SEC? Those match ups could be very marketable in terms of OOC games – a sort of unofficial SEC-BIG football challenge.

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “Also, to whoever called Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and Ok State “detritus” – that’s a pretty absurd statement.”
          —It’s far less absurd than any of what you’ve just posted.

          “Kansas State and Ok State have both been top 20 football programs the past decade, better than much of the BIG. Baylor has risen as well, and not just in football but both men’s and women’s basketball.”
          —-KSU is historically among the worst FB programs in Div1A. They were fortunate to find a savior coach who knew how to game the system to make them competitive. As soon as he left they immediately dropped back into irrelevance. If Bill Snyder discovers the fountain of youth KSU may have a shot. BTW going by actual performance they come just inside the top 50 over the past decade.

          “Ok State is an especially well rounded athletic program that holds more NC’s than any school minus USC, UCLA and Stanford. Think about further, Ok St has more NC’s than any schools in the BIG, SEC, ACC and Big East.”
          —The B1G, SEC & Pac all turned down Oklahoma (an honest to goodness FB king) if it came packaged with Oklahoma St. Yet now you’re arguing that the SEC would take Oklahoma State alone? And I’m the one being absurd?

          “Iowa State is a respectable school that at least has AAU status.”
          —Good for ISU. That doesn’t mean that any conference is willing to lose money by adding them.

          “So the guestion is: Why not have intra-state OOC annual games between the BIG and SEC? Those match ups could be very marketable in terms of OOC games – a sort of unofficial SEC-BIG football challenge.”
          —No the question is…’How would adding multiple #2 programs in small population states be of any benefit to the SEC?’

          If any of those schools had any value whatsoever then the BXII would already be dead. The reason they’re all still there is because nobody else wanted them.

          • gfunk says:

            Scarlet,

            I’ve read so much bs fantasy expansion on your end as well. I mean, I’m entitled to my fun here, yet you’re taking me too literally, which suddenly takes the fun out of this. Also, I don’t care about the C7, by far Frank’s least interesting blog in some time.

            Cut all your economic determinism talk.

            At the end of the day, I’m perfectly content with the BIG sticking with 14 from this point forward – work with what you have, it’s all about context at this point – not more numbers for numbers sake.

            But no doubt, I’d prefer an actual football playoff – 8 teams – you know in order to crown an actual, true NC in football for a change. However, such can’t come with and odd number of power conferences (ACC, BIG, Pac12, Big12 and SEC). As the dust settles from the Md addition, further breaking up the ACC over the Big 12 would simply be stupid. I think the BIG has more in common with the four I suggested than an ACC combo. If you think otherwise, man you need to travel to the Southeast and Southern Atlantic more often.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “I’ve read so much bs fantasy expansion on your end as well.”
            —Oh do tell.

            “I mean, I’m entitled to my fun here, yet you’re taking me too literally, which suddenly takes the fun out of this. Also, I don’t care about the C7, by far Frank’s least interesting blog in some time.”
            —Ahh you’re just trolling. Got it.

            “If you think otherwise, man you need to travel to the Southeast and Southern Atlantic more often.”
            —Cool strawman you’ve assembled there as I haven’t said a single word regarding commonality & either group. Speaking of which, how exactly do you fit ISU & KSU to the SEC into your cultural narrative?

            PS I’ll be sure to tell my supervisor that half my working hours around Fayetteville NC isn’t sufficient.

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “But no doubt, I’d prefer an actual football playoff – 8 teams – you know in order to crown an actual, true NC in football for a change. However, such can’t come with and odd number of power conferences (ACC, BIG, Pac12, Big12 and SEC).”

            That’s a whole bunch of wrong in such few sentences.

            1. There either is a playoff or there isn’t. Going to 8 doesn’t give it magical properties. Or do all those Super Bowls and World Series before the playoffs reached 8 not count?

            2. We’ve had a playoff in CFB since 1998.

            3. Only a fool would claim we’ve never had a true national champ in CFB. UT over USC comes to mind as an easy example.

            4. How does having 5 power conferences prevent an 8 team playoff? 5 champs and 3 wildcards equals 8. A committee choosing the top 8 also equals 8.

            “As the dust settles from the Md addition, further breaking up the ACC over the Big 12 would simply be stupid.”

            To ACC fans, yes. Not to most of the nation, though. The B12 survived it’s time of weakness. The ACC may well survive its own, too. But the refusal to sign a GOR doesn’t bode well, nor does the bad TV deal.

            “I think the BIG has more in common with the four I suggested than an ACC combo. If you think otherwise, man you need to travel to the Southeast and Southern Atlantic more often.”

            You need to go to TX and OK more often.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Sure its possible to have an eight team playoff with an off number of Major conferences: five conference champions, 3 at-large teams = 8.

        • frug says:

          To suggest taking down the ACC, a conference that has 3x as many NC’s in men’s college basketball as the BIG in the modern era, is pretty ruthless & childish

          Actually, having the ability to identify your own weaknesses and finding ways to alleviate them (even if it means making painful decisions) is anything but childish. It’s actually quite mature.

          What is childish is living in a fantasy land where the SEC takes a bunch of B schools in small states just so you can see your own dream of 4 major conferences that includes the ACC.

          • frug says:

            Oh, and for the record, the next time any school or conference makes a realignment decision based on the value of field hockey, soccer, wrestling, volleyball or even WBB it will be the first. (And probably last since by that point it will be clear there aren’t any more moves to make)

          • gfunk says:

            Oh lord, you got me here. Let’s call this a total misunderstanding at this point. I can’t argue with a “frug” in cyberspace.

            Let’s just dream big with Frug and wipe out the ACC in the name of college football because it will always be about football. Screw 60 plus years of history between charter members.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Just how drunk are you?

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “Let’s just dream big with Frug and wipe out the ACC in the name of college football because it will always be about football. Screw 60 plus years of history between charter members.”

            Or UVA, UNC, Duke and GT could join UMD and still have the core of the ACC together. There’s plenty of room for OOC games against NCSU and WF. Remind me about all the ACC history of BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UL, Miami and ND.

            You’re presenting a false choice. The new ACC is not your father’s ACC. By 2014, 7 of the 15 members will have been added this century and 8 of 15 will be from outside of the original ACC footprint.

            The ACC started with 7 members in 1953, adding #8 UVA later that same year. Of those, SC left long ago and now UMD is leaving. If 3 more of them joined UMD in the B10 along with GT (1979), that would be at least as good a fit for them as the new ACC. Especially if other ACC teams left for the B12 and/or SEC.

        • Brian says:

          gfunk,

          “Hence the phrase “Risk Fantasy Conference Expansion”, I mean so many of you are on here dreaming up an ACC break up – a bit over the top, you think.”

          One can at least support an ACC raid with some logic. Your fantasy makes no sense for the SEC, P12 or B12.

          “My Pac12 thoughts are merely space fill with above post because I can’t think of any realistic options for the Pac12 to get to 16 unless they take a risk.”

          Why would the P12 take your “risk” rather than stand pat? None of those schools add anything of value. Were you assuming some outside force requiring them to get to 16?

          “And to the brain child on here claiming the Pac 12 has California for hs football, thus no need for Tx – foolish. Tx has more per capita talent than Ca, and the gap is only growing.”

          So what? CA still produces hundreds of recruits every year, and they are playing closer to home in the P12. The top TX recruits aren’t going to the P12 because TT and TCU go west anyway. You talk about other schools all recruiting from CA, as if the same doesn’t apply to TX and FL.

          “I also think some of you have demonstrated, via previous posts, a host of delusional expansion scenarios of your own, esp scenarios that include UNC, which I can’t see happening,”

          Hypothesizing UNC to the B10 is not on the same level as ISU, KSU, OkSU and Baylor to the SEC or TT, TCU, UNLV and Boise to the P12. There’s an order of magnitude difference in the fantasy involved. There are at least legitimate rumors of UNC having an offer and being considered. None of your ideas even have a hint of smoke behind them.

          ” or the break up of the ACC in general which is pretty insensitive.”

          Insensitive? We’re supposed to be worried about the ACC’s feelings? We’re supposed to think feelings would stop business decisions?

          “Frankly, it makes a lot of BIG fans, their aliases, look like greedy pigs via message boards.”

          So? Why would anyone care what message board posters think about other fans?

          “To suggest taking down the ACC, a conference that has 3x as many NC’s in men’s college basketball as the BIG in the modern era, is pretty ruthless & childish”

          Childish? That makes no sense. How is a business decision childish?

          ” – it sort of seems envious at times as well.”

          Um, no.

          “Also, our beloved BIG is only slightly better than the ACC in football. We keep dumping on ourselves in bowl season after bowl season.”

          No, the B10 is quite a bit better in FB.

          “Ultimately I think what is best for a college football playoff (8 teams) is:”

          Not an 8 team playoff.

          “4 conferences at 16 to 18 teams, not a snug Pac12, BIG @ 14 teams, SEC @ 14 teams, dysfunctional Big East, an ACC with a ND partial football membership, and a Big 12 @ 10.”

          That’s nice. You thinking it’s best doesn’t mean it makes sense for them. Life isn’t always neat and tidy. You need to provide a plausible justification for why these conferences and schools would make these decisions.

          “Some conference outside the Big East needs to go – to me it’s the Big 12.”

          Says the guy in NC (IIRC). I’m guessing random fans in TX would choose the ACC.

          “They have the least tradition at this point, they’ve already lost 4 charter members & technically the Big 12 is much younger than the ACC, BIG, SEC, Pac12 and even the original Big East.”

          Sure the B12 is young. But the Big 8 ties aren’t, and neither are the SWC ties. The ACC has lost 2 of 7 founding members already. That’s almost the same percentage as the B12 has lost (33% to 29%). In addition, the ACC has added 9 other schools to dilute their founding members even further. The B12 is 80% founders, not 36% like the ACC.

          “The conferences need to even out and become four if a much needed playoff is to come.”

          1. We have a playoff.
          2. A playoff is never needed.
          3. Why do they need to “even out” to have a playoff?
          4. Why would their need to be 4? Aren’t wildcards a good thing to playoff people?

          “I think the Big12 is actually more vulnerable than the ACC because culture and tradition (ACC) may just outweigh profitability (Big 12).”

          What is recent history would make you think that? Besides, the GOR in the B12 is more stable than a huge exit fee under legal challenge. I think both conferences will survive, but there’s no reason to bet against the B12 right now.

          “Ok State is an especially well rounded athletic program that holds more NC’s than any school minus USC, UCLA and Stanford.”

          That’s nonsense. They have 52 total titles and 34 came in wrestling – that’s not well rounded. Besides, 13 of those were pre-WWII and another 14 are more than 40 years old. Nobody is adding a school for being an old wrestling power.

          “Iowa State is a respectable school that at least has AAU status.”

          And no market and is a complete non-fit for the SEC. Oh, that’s right, fit only applies to protecting your precious ACC.

          “So the guestion is: Why not have intra-state OOC annual games between the BIG and SEC?”

          Because the SEC would lose a ton of money by adding those schools and Slive isn’t dumb.

          “Those match ups could be very marketable in terms of OOC games – a sort of unofficial SEC-BIG football challenge.”

          Nobody watches IA/ISU now outside of the state. That won’t change.

        • BruceMcF says:

          gfunk: “Ultimately I think what is best for a college football playoff (8 teams) is:

          4 conferences at 16 to 18 teams, not a snug Pac12, BIG @ 14 teams, SEC @ 14 teams, dysfunctional Big East, an ACC with a ND partial football membership, and a Big 12 @ 10. ”

          Oh, god, another playoff supporter who wants to kill off the importance of bowl games, some of them with half a century to a century tradition behind them. Some traditions, it seems are “worthy” traditions, and others are trash to be kicked to the curb.

          An 8 team college playoff would work fine with five Major conference champions, one “Group of Five” rep and two at-large bids, with a home field advantage quarterfinal, winners slotted into “Access Bowls” by affiliation as presently planned, and then the two winners in a NCG, as presently planned. It needs the same extra week somehow that a two round conference championship playoff needs, so that’s a wash. On the one hand, it would be MESSY compared to your nice neat system, but the nice neat system could easily see two of the top four teams in the country eliminated at the conference championship phase, which having two at-large bids addresses.

    • BruceMcF says:

      “UConn and Kansas to the BIG makes the BIG the premier men’s basketball conference”
      So would UNC and Duke, without any academic slumming.

      “soccer prestige” “a field hockey power”
      ~ non-revenue sports, which don’t justify adding an uninteresting football program ~ its one thing to take advantage of the non-revenue sports you have or, as with the JHU rumor, add an associate members in a non-revenue sport that doesn’t affect the revenue championships and includes a top shelf research program ~ but watering down football in pursuit of “soccer prestige” or a “field hockey power” makes no sense. If expansion is not chasing revenue, then don’t expand.

      “UConn, combined with Rutgers helps at the negotiation table of the NYC market.”
      The more extreme the claim, the more evidence needed to substantiate it. This would be an example of a claim needing a lot of substantiation.

      I do agree that the Big Ten adding teams that do not contribute to its average revenue per school might make it easier for other conferences to expand … but by leaving more valuable schools still available, while making them think that the Big Ten has definitely decided AGAINST them, if it added UCONN, of all schools, in their place.

      Still, expansion for its own sake makes no sense:
      “Imagine if the above happens and the SEC lands Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor.”
      That’s an interesting use of the phrase “land”. A bit like fishing for trout and “landing” a tadpole. I “imagine” that when assessing that expansion versus not expanding at all, not expanding at all wins hand down.

      • wmwolverine says:

        Well said…

        UConn and Kansas make little sense as B10 additions unless many, many other options decline: Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Missouri, Duke, Virginia Tech, etc.

        Even then, I don’t think either add more than they take.

      • gfunk says:

        Thanks for the laughs. This is all really about laughs. All of us. Unless some of you are BIG administrators doing research : ).

        But, too many of you are purely looking at the financial numbers. I get a sense that the BIG is some academic, money making juggernaut that can’t be refused via many of these posts the past few months. Thinking like this may have come from sentiments expressed by Rutgers, Nebraska or Penn State fans at the time each team was added, but damn, most Maryland fans were quite upset about joining the BIG & that’s putting it lightly.

        It’s also pretty ridiculous to say Duke and UNC to the BIG. Think about what you are saying in the face of a tradition that goes back to what 1954, the birth of the ACC. Come on now, quite off target. It would be a hostile BIG expansion to get Duke and UNC aboard. This is not Wall Street.

        • gfunk says:

          @ Bruce again,

          “UConn, combined with Rutgers helps at the negotiation table of the NYC market.”

          The more extreme the claim, the more evidence needed to substantiate it. This would be an example of a claim needing a lot of substantiation.

          Yet many BIG fans, as well as the folks at Park Ridge claim that Rutgers helps open the NYC market. Wow dude, wow. Where are you going? UConn paired with Rutgers doesn’t help more than Rutgers alone? I don’t have numbers, but I’m willing to believe, until proven otherwise, that UConn has more alum in NYC than most BIG schools. Isn’t it Frank who’s semi-lobbying for Miami or FSU to the BIG? Why? Because Fl apparently has a ton of Midwestern transplants, esp Miami – the more “Northern City” of Fl. Man, Miami is more Latino than anything else, culturally speaking. Many of the Midwesterners in Fl are now second generation and beyond. In other words, they are Floridians.

          I think the mistake you’re making with my OP is that a caveat truly exists in my opening statement: “Risk Fantasy Conference Expansion”. Yet here you go with Duke and UNC as possible BIG candidates, & Rutgers, alone, not paired with UConn is better for capturing the NYC market. Jesus is weeping.

          • BruceMcF says:

            The difference in plausibility between UNC on the one hand and UConn on the other is that UNC would both add revenue and add academic prestige, while UConn would neither add revenue nor add academic prestige.

            But working out which adds the Big Ten might want should not be confused with predicting which moves are going to happen (as The Dude of WV sometimes seems guilty of doing) … its a necessary but not sufficient conditions. While UConn would surely accept an invitation that the Big Ten has no clear reason to offer, UNC is unlikely to accept an offer so long as the ACC that it is a member of is sufficiently close to the ACC that it is in today. As I’ve noted multiple times, there’s every reason to believe that UNC’s first preference is to stay in the ACC as it is today, so UNC moving involves something happening to destabilize the ACC, and its not obvious what move causes that instability.

            “Yet many BIG fans, as well as the folks at Park Ridge claim that Rutgers helps open the NYC market.” That’s a different, though: northern New Jersey is a core part of the NYC media market. The difficulty of leveraging that foothold into cable carriage and greater cable subscription rates OUTSIDE OF New Jersey itself was been discussed a great deal at this blog, certainly from shortly after the move was announced. While Rutgers is a revenue positive add purely from the perspective of New Jersey and of reinforcing Philadelphia as a Big Ten city (the weakest large city lying within the Big Ten footprint), it seems relatively clear that substantial revenue games from the NYC media market outside of the New Jersey portion is a more speculative play ~ a potential upside to the move, but no sure thing. But by the same token, even a small increase in subscription rates in the rest of the NYC media market is found money.

            And unlike UConn, adding Rutgers was not engaging in any academic slumming ~ its not just the lead larger state university of its state, but a fine research university in its own right.

          • Cliff says:

            gfunk,

            UCONN is redundant and unnecessary to getting NYC. Here’s some data:

            http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

            Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State combine for about 34.5% of the NYC college football fan market. Rutgers is about 20% of the NYC market. The rest of the Big Ten appears to carry another 15-20% of the market. UCONN is 5.2% of the NYC college football fan market. Therefore…

            Adding Rutgers increased the NYC market penetration by somewhere between 100-133%.
            Now that Rutgers has been added, the addition of UCONN would increase the market penetration by only 12-15%.

        • frug says:

          Maryland fans were quite upset about joining the BIG & that’s putting it lightly.

          Yes they were. WERE.

          They got over it.

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          This is true.

          Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill–they ARE the ACC just as much as they are the home of RTP, old tobacco factories, and state government. The RDU Airport has an ACC Restaurant. The tagline for the very popular “David Glenn Show” on the local ESPN Radio affiliate is “He knows more about the ACC Than You Do.” Bookstores’ sports sections are filled not just with UNC/Duke/NCSU books, but with books about the ACC.

          Frank hit the nail on the head, especially in regards to the old guard ACC schools in the Carolinas and Virginia: ACC schools like their conference. They just don’t like their TV contract.

          I dare say, at least during the winter months, that the ACC is a bigger deal to people around here than the Big Ten is in much of the Midwest. Pro sports are still somewhat new here, and even in a state soon to surpass the 10 million mark, there is zero MLB presence. Washington and Atlanta are the closest teams geographically, while the Yankees seem to garner the most attention, perhaps because of the influx of former NY/NJ residents. Wit the Bobcats being a horrible replacement for the Hornets and the Panthers never able to get it together, college sports remain the most appealing option in the state.

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            And yes, it would be viewed as a hostile takeover by the fans around here if the B1G were to take Virginia, Duke, and UNC. They don’t want THEIR conference being bought out by some league in Chicago.

            This is also NOT quite the same as what the ACC did with the Big East. Virginia Tech had wanted to be in the ACC for 50 years. The ACC didn’t need to flash money at them. They just needed to ask. Miami had submitted a letter of complaint to Mike Tranghese in 1999. They had wandering eyes. They were thrilled to join the ACC. Boston College may not have fit in as well as hoped, but their leaders expressed unhappiness with the Big East at the time of the change and were very happy about joining the league.

          • gfunk says:

            Michael in Raleigh,

            I’ve noticed your posts on here. I’ve come around to many of your thoughts, sentiments because you actually live in the Triangle & get the cultural, historical realities. I’ve also lived in NC. UNC, Duke, WF and NC State ditching the ACC would be tragic – Va as well. No matter which way you slice it, ACC fans are disappointed to see Md go, even Duke fans.

            As a BIG fan, I’ve become increasingly offended by many BIG fans on boards pulling the BIG academic or money card while pushing an agenda of dismantling the ACC. At times I must admit the idea of Va, UNC, GT or FSU to the BIG seemed cool. But tradition and history are more important to me. I’d hate the idea of Minnesota leaving the BIG. I’m extremely pissed that Minny and Wisky are leaving the WCHA. Next year, the WCHA will be a shell of it’s former self. A conference that at the end of the day completely eclipses any other hockey conference’s accomplishments – though some overly proud Hockey East fans may argue otherwise. That debate ends as soon as I throw an official record’s book at them.

            But, going after the ACC is just a big money grab, shrouded in pretentious academic claims. I mean look at Frug’s post above. Ridiculous!

            Md’s resistance is a sign of what could happen if ACC expansion went further. After all, they have been the most displeased ACC member, next to FSU over the years, yet the majority of fans would still prefer the ACC.

            What simply astounds me on here are that BIG fans want expansion in the name of money, ultimately, the shamelessness is perplexing. But hey now, Internet aliases provide comfort and safety. Secondly, they want newer teams that may open recruiting flood gates. How many times have I seen the phrase “fertile recruiting grounds” the past month? Too often. Then BIG fans play this AAU – academic prestige angle, which is elitist & the administrators as well.

            Folks, the BIG should extend invitations to those who want to join the conference, foremost. Cultural fit should come next. Money is clearly important, but it can’t be overly stated, or the greed argument becomes a dirty factor. Academics are somewhat relative and the overabundance of academic rankings, via citations, suggest elitism. No thanks. There’s never a need to sell the academic angle of the BIG – be humble.

          • frug says:

            But hey now, Internet aliases provide comfort and safety

            Well “gfunk” let me introduce you to my friends pot and kettle.

          • gfunk says:

            @ Frug,

            I don’t even know where to begin with some of your past posts on this expansion stuff. Loosen up because cutting and pasting some of your past, absurd thoughts would just be too easy.

            Rest assured, I have no say in this matter at the end of the day. I’m sure that makes you happy.

          • BruceMcF says:

            “What simply astounds me on here are that BIG fans want expansion in the name of money, ultimately, the shamelessness is perplexing”

            If what you are looking for is a blog where there is a consensus on the blog that the Big Ten OUGHT TO expand in the pursuit of more money, you may have to keep moving, since you haven’t found it here. I reckon you would have to add in analyses of what the revenue impact of some moves would be as if they are automatically advocating those moves in order to get the impression its a majority view, since one of the things that makes the discussion interesting is that there ISN’T a single majority view on whether expansion should be pursued and, if it should, in pursuit of what goals.

            But while expanding for the sake of more money is bad enough, your Fantasy Risk Expansion post was WORSE, not better: it was expansion for its own sake, starting with an add and then scratching around for as many reasons, plausible or otherwise, as could be found.

            Its bad enough that we are likely to be subjected to expansions in pursuit of higher revenues per term, but thank goodness we are not going to be subjected to expansions in pursuit of having the strongest soccer, field hockey, or volleyball championships in the country.

          • cfn_ms says:

            ” UNC, Duke, WF and NC State ditching the ACC would be tragic ” translation: we have a Wake fan here! Since no one else thinks Wake has any sort of landing spot anywhere in the case of an ACC breakup.

        • Brian says:

          gfunk,

          “But, too many of you are purely looking at the financial numbers. I get a sense that the BIG is some academic, money making juggernaut that can’t be refused via many of these posts the past few months.”

          Of course it can be refused (see ND). That doesn’t mean it will be refused (MD, RU, NE).

          “most Maryland fans were quite upset about joining the BIG & that’s putting it lightly.”

          Some UMD fans were asking for it to happen years ago (vp19). Many others came around after having the move explained and learning the benefits to UMD. Gut reactions of Wal-Mart fans are not the way to judge these moves.

          “It’s also pretty ridiculous to say Duke and UNC to the BIG.”

          Not nearly on the level of what you suggested. UNC legitimately has an offer and could come. Is that true for any of your suggestions?

          “Think about what you are saying in the face of a tradition that goes back to what 1954, the birth of the ACC.”

          You mean like UMD leaving the ACC, all the independents joining conferences (PSU, FSU, etc), the end of the SWC, and KU/MO and UT/TAMU not being played? Yeah, it’s crazy to think traditions like that could end. What are we thinking?

          “Come on now, quite off target. It would be a hostile BIG expansion to get Duke and UNC aboard.”

          No, it wouldn’t. They would have to agree to it. Many of us have said UNC is more likely to stay put, but there is some chance they choose the B10. By your logic the SEC is also a ridiculous option and we know the SEC has offered them, too. Why do you presume you know more than Delany and Slive about what UNC might do?

        • Ms. B1G says:

          Not sure why you find it ridiculous to say NC and Duke to the Big 10 when many reports indicate a consideration otherwise. Things change. Traditions change. The Big party of 7 became a party of 6 and then a party of 5. Now it looks like they want to become a party of four. The major conferences are consolidating, at least that’s what I see. The Big East is basically gone. The SWC disappeared. Texas left with 3 friends. Maybe NC will stay in the ACC. Maybe they will go to the SEC. Maybe they will go to the Big 10 with 3 friends. But one thing is for certain, the stewards of the University will very seriously consider any Big 10 offer on the table especially if it has a chance make the athletic department self-sufficient and improve research opportunities. Traditions will not be at the top of the list. Kansas/Missouri – Texas/Texas A&M – Nebraska/Oklahoma

      • C. Toda says:

        UConn is a no ,as is Kansas.The SEC lands and the Big grabs. How about joins instead of loaded words .

    • vp19 says:

      You don’t want Connecticut and its cheating men’s basketball program, nor do you want the evil empire of women’s basketball. And until Storrs gains AAU status — which isn’t happening for several years if it ever happens at all — any talk of Big Ten membership is moot to begin with. Even then, the Big Ten is an “old-money” conference, and UConn and its nouveau riche fan base would be a dreadful fit. B1G presidents simply would not be interested in the Huskies.

      You can make a good argument for Texas and Kansas if both can shake off the Big 12 GOR and the latter resolve the K-State situation, but Oklahoma isn’t AAU (nor is it Notre Dame).

    • bamatab says:

      As already said numerous times in this thread, the SEC would never take Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor. The only one that would even come close to being even considered is Oklahoma State, and I could only see them getting considered is as a package with Oklahoma (and I doubt even being hitched to OU would get them an invite to the SEC). They don’t offer the SEC anything, and would ultimately be a fiscal drain on the conference.

    • boscatar says:

      Grant of rights is a huge obstacle. HOWEVER, the GOR only lasts 12 years and there are always business means to get out of contracts. I think you will see the PAC 12 and/or the Big Ten pick apart the Big 12 in the next 7-12 years.

      But, the PAC 12 will not easily settle for Texas Tech and TCU. No, they will go after Oklahoma and Texas, and may be even Kansas and Iowa State. Big Ten might also go after Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas (as pointed out), but only if it doesn’t get too heavy with ACC teams. My bet is the Big Ten raids the ACC, leaving the cream of the crop from the Big 12 for the PAC.

  34. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9007522/butler-xavier-yet-notify-atlantic-10-departure-big-east-commissioner-says

    A-10 commish says no one’s notifed them of leaving ($2 million to leave in under a year if a team wants to be there for the 2013-2014 basketball season debut of the new Big East).

    They probably need 9 or 10 teams to start this off though, and they can probably help cover the cost.

    • BruceMcF says:

      It’d be a BIT risky to make your formal notice of departure when you haven’t yet received a formal invitation from a conference that does not yet formally exist. If its the same exit fee at the end of February and the end of March, may as well wait until there’s an actual invitation made from an actually formed conference.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Of course no one has notified him. The C7 schools have to reach an agreement with the football schools that they are, indeed, leaving in July. There are still details they have to work out before they invite schools.

      Side note: maybe it’s somewhat if a trivial detail, but I’m curious where the new Big East headquarters will be. My guess is that it will be on the east coast, even though a 12-team conference without Richmond or VCU would mean Midwestern schools would outnumber Eastern schools 7 to 5. My guess is that it could be based in Washington because of Georgetown’s status as somewhat of a ring leader in this conference exodus. It would fit with the pattern where the old Big East headquarters were in Providence because of PC’s role in spearheading the conference, although in this case, there doesn’t seem to be a parallel to Dave Gavitt who’s organizing the whole thing. If the HQ’s aren’t in Washington, I suspect they’ll be in NYC or at least within commuting distance. This league, the new Big East, wants to be synonymous with the Big Apple, and with Madison Square Garden in mid-March, as much as possible.

      • frug says:

        My guess is they just keep the Providence offices, it’s not like the FB schools are going to stick around Rhode Island.

    • @zeek – My guess is that he’ll get notice about a couple of hours before Fox announces its new TV deal with the Big East/Catholic 7.

      The $2 million early exit fee is largely why the league is looking at a 2-phase expansion: up to 9 or 10 members in 2013 and then up to 12 in 2014. They’ll cover the early exits of Xavier and Butler so that they can play immediately next season. Creighton is mentioned most often as team #10 because their exit fee from the MVC is immaterial. The last 2 additions from the A-10 can be announced immediately but then pay the lower exit fee with a longer 2 year notice period to join in 2014.

      • zeek says:

        Yeah that scenario makes the most sense given that getting Butler and Xavier in there early is probably a part of how they negotiated that TV deal.

        Definitely makes sense for Creighton to be #10 if they’re going to 10 this year given their low buyout.

  35. What if Missouri is the next team taken by the Big Ten? Then take Missouri’s rival Kansas as well, while the UMD vs. ACC suit clears up.
    SEC would probably respond with VaTech (simultaneous move as UVA to Big Ten).
    UNC and Duke would be next “battleground” which the Big Ten would win hands down (academic money). Big Ten at 19…Notre Dame finally realizes that the Big Ten is in its best interest.

    Pod a
    Kansas (Missouri)
    Nebraska
    Iowa
    Minnesota
    Wisconsin

    Pod b
    Notre Dame
    Missouri (Kansas)
    Michigan State (Michigan)
    Purdue (Indiana)
    Illinois (Northwestern)

    Pod C
    UMD (Duke)
    UVA (UNC)
    Ohio State (Penn State)
    Michigan (Michigan State)
    Indiana (Purdue)

    Pod d
    Rutgers
    UNC (UVA)
    Duke (UMD)
    PSU (Ohio State)
    Northwestern (Illinois)

    Teams play everyone in their pod and then a protected rival (if necessary) each year. Everyone else rotates evenly through. 9-game schedule so protected rival teams play 4 other games against the other 14 Big Ten teams, non-protected teams play 5 other games agains 15 other Big Ten teams.

    Hold a semifinal round where seed 1 plays seed 4, 2 vs. 3. Use head to head first if a tie. Pod records second. If three-way tie, use overall Big Ten records. If tie still persists, use AP poll/BCS poll/whatever.

    Killer basketball conference. Strong football. Geographically diverse…St.Louis/KCity to midwester cities to NJ/NYC to North Carolina. Academically pristine. No non-AAU teams added (except ND). The inventory would be enormous for the Big Ten Network, both in fall (football) and winter (basketball).

    • vp19 says:

      Don’t see Missouri junking the SEC for the Big Ten, especially this soon, nor would I envision the B1G pursuing Mizzou now after spurning it years ago. The conference might be a better cultural fit, but that ship has sailed. Kansas has the oft-mentioned GOR and KSU problems, not to mention a possible dismissal from the AAU. And Notre Dame in the Big Ten…as much a dream as your semifinal football round.

      I also notice you don’t include Georgia Tech in your 20, and of the current realistic “contenders” for Big Ten membership, it’s arguably the most eager to join, given its athletic department’s financial problems (albeit nowhere as bad as Maryland’s) and the significant recruiting disadvantage it has with the ACC football brand. Its primary problem is finding a partner to make the B1G a 16-team league once the Maryland-ACC lawsuit is resolved, and Tech is probably trying to convince Virginia the Big Ten makes more long-term sense for UVa than does the ACC.

      • C. Toda says:

        Missouri is out.Kansas was never considered. GT poss if can talk UVA into big ten . Might not be necessary, UVA might want to be part of big on their own !

        • BruceMcF says:

          But if UVA is willing to move on its own, there would still need to be a 16th, and the revenue impact of the add is stronger if the 16th brings SOME incremental revenue of its own. Presuming UNC is not available and UVA moving is not big enough to shake Duke loose (and I do presume that nothing but UNC moving would be big enough to shake Duke loose), GTech is the remaining AAU school in the ACC that would add a substantial amount to gross revenues (whether or not it would increase the average media revenue on its own).

          • cutter says:

            If there’s anything we learned from expansion three years ago, it’s that the Big Ten can act as a catalyst for a lot of the changes that transpired in the wake of the addition of a single school–Nebraska.

            That’s not to say the B1G was the sole agent of change. The Pac10 twice made moves to become a sixteen-team conference, only to see it fall short of that goal with the additions of Colorado and Utah. The internal problems in the Big XII were major reasons why Missouri and Texas A&M left the conference along with CU and UN-L, while ESPN’s money and Texas’ plans for the LHN were what helped keep the Big XII together and bring in TCU and WVU.

            The Big East’s demise had been predicted before, but as it turned out, the ACC turned out to be the biggest “poacher” of BE schools (Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College in 2003, then Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Louisville roughly ten years later) then the Big Ten (Rutgers) or the Big XII (West Virginia, TCU).

            The question now becomes what happens if the Big Ten does become a 16-team conference. Would the additions of Virginia and Georgia Tech be the catalyst for the conference to then go to an 18- or 20-team entity? Or would the ACC be able to recoup those losses by adding UConn and Cincinnati (or some other school)? Or does the ACC just stick at 12 programs in order to keep Tobacco Road happy?

            What would happen if UVa and North Carolina were #15 and #16 in the Big Ten? Does the B1G then stay at 16? Or would the addition of those two program open the doors for more ACC programs with financial problems and academic/rivalry ties to join them (Ga Tech, Duke, FSU)? What do the SEC and Big XII do in the wake of those moves?

          • BruceMcF says:

            On the what would happen if the Big Ten went to 16 with UVA/GTech … I think the Iron Law of Maybe applies there. It depends on whether that is enough instability to shake loose a combination that inspires the SEC to climb to 16, and then whether that move destabilizes the conference so much that there are a set of schools willing to move to the Big12 that are attractive enough that the Big12 want to invite them. I could imagine a pair of two school Big Ten AND SEC expansions at the expense of the ACC that did not, in fact, shake loose the schools that a seemingly finicky Big 12 needs to make a move, leaving the ACC bloodied but unbowed, reloading with UConn and UC to hold at 12.

            If the Big Ten went to 16 with UVA+UNC, I think all hell would likely break loose. I think that’s less than a 50:50 chance, but then I don’t have any inside information and I’d rather all hell not break loose, so maybe I’m seeing what I want to see.

          • cutter says:

            For BruceMcF:

            While “all hell may break loose” if North Carolina and Virginia were to join the Big Ten to make it the first 16-team conference in Division 1-A (actually, the second if you include the short-lived WAC), the question to ask is how long would that happen.

            If the B1G going to sixteen or more teams is the next step in the consolidation of major athletics into four or five large conferences with 16 to 20 teams operating outside the current structure of the NCAA, then I submit to you that this is actually a welcome step. While people might complain that we’d then have a collegiate version of the NFL, it would also go a long way towards making athletic departments more financially sound while injecting a major measure of common sense into the post-season and the national championship.

            I do like that term–the Iron Law of Maybe. That’s a keeper.

            It would be interesting to see what would happen in either scenario. I listened to that entire interview from the Ohio radio station and was intrigued to hear a confirmation that UNC received an invite from the B1G. I was even more intrigued by the assessment that the powers that be in Chapel Hill are wrestling with the decision. In many ways, that makes sense. On one hand, you have UNC’s long-standing identify with the ACC and with the other schools in the state of North Carolina. That’s an essential part of the brand.

            OTOH, the fiscal realities are such that UNC is supporting 28 sports with essentially no margin to spare unless they get more support from the university or the state. Given the financial situation in North Carolina, the latter doesn’t seem likely. In addition, you have the academic/CIC component that has to have some level of attraction to them as well.

            The other interesting thing from that interview was the perspective that Duke would not go to the Big Ten–period. Part of me thinks the reason why is that it would mean Coach K would have to eat his words about Maryland going to the B1G :) Now although Duke is a private school (and I suspect it has a big endowment), they also have a tight athletic department budget as well (with men’s basketball being the big money maker). I got the impression that Duke would be more welded to the ACC than North Carolina (or they may be willing to go independent?).

            Does this open up the possibility of the next four being UVa, UNC, GaTech and Florida State? If Duke isn’t willing to go and North Carolina can be persuaded to make the leap, then who does become #17 and #18? I agree with the assessment that while FSU (like Notre Dame) is not an AAU school, it’s value on the athletic finances/television revenue side makes its a worthwhile possibility to consider in combination with the others.

            We’ll see what happens. One of the Florida newspapers had an interview with Penn State’s football coach and even he feels that the conference is going beyond 14. The when, how and who seem to be the questions (although when is probably after the ACC/Maryland lawsuit is finished, unless the Big Ten and the interested parties feel the timing is best served otherwise).

          • greg says:

            “it would also go a long way towards making athletic departments more financially sound”

            Well, no. BCS athletic departments have plenty of revenue now, they simply choose to spend 103% of it. Raising revenue is not going to balance the books.

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            But if UVA is willing to move on its own, there would still need to be a 16th, and the revenue impact of the add is stronger if the 16th brings SOME incremental revenue of its own.

            If UVA leaves the ACC, it’s a pretty safe bet that it won’t be their last defection. If Delany can’t immediately get the #16 he wants, it wouldn’t be a crazy strategy to just hang out a while at 15 and watch the fireworks among the remaining ACC schools.

            The other interesting thing from that interview was the perspective that Duke would not go to the Big Ten–period.

            I realize that someone said that, but I find it difficult to believe that Duke would be absolutely, categorically opposed to considering the same conference that UNC joins.

          • C. Toda says:

            Pitt will be 16

          • cutter says:

            @greg-

            Can you give me an assessment of how the BCS schools would balance the books? I think there are 21 BCS programs that make a profit within their athletic departments (based on their accounting) which means there are 40-plus who are in the negative.

            Where would you find the cost savings to offset the revenues? Facilities and maintenance? Salaries and benefits? Overhead? Would you go the route Maryland did and actively advocate reducing the number of sports at these schools?

            Would you expect that with more revenue via conference distributions that schools would continue to ramp up expenses so they operate in the red? For example, would you expect Maryland to continue to overspend its athletic department budget after it joined the Big Ten and post the new television negotiations? If yes, why would they do that seeing that they joined the B1G due to their financial distress? Do you think universities will be happy with their athletic departments continuing to lose money in times of budget duress? Or do you feel that the school leadership thinks it’s okay to lose money in the AD because sports provide other, greater benefits to the universities in terms of free advertising, fund raising opportunities, etc.?

          • greg says:

            “Would you expect that with more revenue via conference distributions that schools would continue to ramp up expenses so they operate in the red? ”

            That has been occurring in the recent past, so I don’t see why that would change in the future. Why does any B1G or SEC team operate in the red? Because they “need” to spend millions and millions of dollars on facilities, coaches, etc.

            I think its a little naive to think that we’ll suddenly have athletic departments start balancing their budgets.

          • cutter says:

            @Mark Shepherd-

            Yes, I agree with you that we’re only going to see expansion in even numbers from here on out, which means pairs of teams coming into the conference.

            Based on the discussions I had with people at UVa starting about 14 months ago and continuing through today, I’m highly confident that they would ask for an invitation to the Big Ten and be accepted in short order. While there were problems within the leadership over the summer, the group is also pragmatic enough to realize that Virginia athletics would be in better financial shape in the B1G.

            North Carolina was always going to be difficult to bring into the Big Ten. If UNC isn’t ready to go or opts for the SEC or can’t make a decision within the B1G’s timeline, then maybe Georgia Tech is the backup at #16 simply because there are fewer barriers to entry for GaTech. That may not be the ideal strategy for the B1G, but it could also be the one they go with at this time.

            I was also surprised by that Duke as an independent discussion. I’m hard pressed to think they would essentially sever themselves from UNC, but I could also see a lot of people there swallowing hard at the thought of being in the Big Ten as well. Perhaps they would rather be the Big Kahuna in a downsized and reconfigured ACC (like Texas is now in the Big XII) than in a 18- or 20-team B1G.

            I don’t know what that ACC would look like after the B1G, SEC and Big XII were done with it. From the northern end, I could see Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville staying in it. UConn and Cincinnati could make up members #6 and #7 (when you include Duke). Wake Forest would make up #8, but after that, there are no guarantees regarding where Virginia Tech, NC State, Clemson, Florida State or Miami end up. I suppose Notre Dame would be #9 for all sports other than football and you’d then have what a smaller ACC (what it looked like prior to Florida State’s entry). But is that a viable entity when there are a couple of conferences nearly twice that large in the Big Ten and the SEC?

            I suppose that’d be a possibility. Assuming the Pac 12 stays where they are and the Big XII goes to 12 members, then it’d be theoretically possible for a 10- or 12-program ACC to keep its chair at the table (with teams like Memphis, UCF/USF in the mix along with UConn and Cincinnati). The Big Ten and SEC might be at 16- or 18-teams when they’re done, in which case those five conferences could have a maximum of 72 members.

          • BruceMcF says:

            cutter: “Facilities and maintenance? Salaries and benefits? Overhead?”

            Yes. If they were surplus-seeking institutions, they’d run leaner on the same revenues and generate surpluses. However, the incentive where athletic departments turn over all of their surplus to the University is to invest revenues in facilities and maintenance, salaries and benefits and overheads, and if schools allow Athletic Departments on average to invest more in those things than the actual revenue generated, then that’s what Athletic Departments will end up doing.

          • BruceMcF says:

            @cutter, re: “If the B1G going to sixteen or more teams is the next step in the consolidation of major athletics into four or five large conferences with 16 to 20 teams operating outside the current structure of the NCAA, …”

            Yes, the tremendous amount of turmoil involved in arriving at anything like that final outcome is what I was referring to as all hell breaking loose.

            As far as how ideal it is, on the one hand I am not quite so eager to see the Mid-Majors and smaller schools get screwed, and I am not so sanguine about whether or not this revenue boom is a bubble. But irrespective of how happy anyone might be about the final outcome, there’s no doubt about the process of getting there being a horrible mess.

      • zeek says:

        Does anyone know why the Big Ten would go West?

        Unless you can get to Texas, there’s not enough population or cities or recruits to justify going West.

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I think the entire basis for it, was Gordon Gee’s comment that “a couple of midwestern schools” were under consideration. Other than Notre Dame, it’s hard to get to “a couple” if Missouri and/or Kansas weren’t on his list. Texas, of course, isn’t “midwestern” by any stretch of the imagination. Gee said what he said, but I have trouble imagining Missouri leaving the SEC, and I have just as much trouble imagining that the Big Ten would want Kansas.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            FWIW there were the occasional rumors surrounding Kansas even before Gee’s quote. Of course the two could be completely unrelated and just a case of people finding pieces from two different puzzles that happen to fit together.

            As far as a potential ‘why’…it’s possible that some schools are concerned about taking too many schools from the east and want to try & keep things more even; perhaps to make it easier to balance old & new schools in the divisions.

          • BruceMcF says:

            And which schools might those be? Most likely the four western schools … which would be a large enough group to get Kansas added to the list of schools to be evaluated, but that is a far stretch from decision by the Big Ten presidents to invite Kansas, or postpone expansion until the GoR is closer to expiration in order to be able to invite Kansas.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Agreed, but it would become something they discuss and those types of discussions are exactly the kind of thing that if they slip out suddenly become mistranslated into “Kansas and the B1G are working on a deal!!”.

      • CookieMonster says:

        Friendly PSA: Kansas is nowhere close to being kicked out of the AAU. They haven’t even been placed on probation! The Board of Regents at Kansas have been on the record about the independence of both KU and KSU to make their decisions about athletics. Plus KSU administrators have to be at ease knowing what the strength of the football program is now, as opposed to the 2010 month of panic for little B12 schools.

        I would like to hear any ideas on how any conference is going to pull any team from the Big12 away from the GoR. All I’ve really heard is some vague impressions that a buyout arranged in court would cut down any prohibitive costs that the GoR tried to establish.

        • BruceMcF says:

          But the GoR doesn’t ESTABLISH any prohibitive costs. The new conference just doesn’t get the home game rights of the incoming school, because the incoming school has already made an exclusive commitment of the rights for the GoR period.

          As far as switching to a different athletic conference and engaging in athletic competition as a member in full standing, the GoR imposes no costs on that process at all.

          However, if the new conference wanted to include the new school in its media contracts, then the new conference would have to negotiate a consideration in return for for the conference holding the GoR agreeing to not exercise its exclusive rights.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      The B1G, no doubt, did all the due-diligence necessary on Missouri and Kansas before they took Nebraska. They weren’t interested then so why would they be now? The numbers (population etc. don’t at up). Without Texas I don’t see them going west. I personally would have liked to have grabbed Oklahoma with Nebraska (which, I think, along with a ND add would have eventually brought Texas) but Delany thought differently. I believe the southeastern expansion is where we’re headed and I think it will occur before contract time.

      • HoosandHoosiers says:

        If Missouri were to be added, wouldn’t this force Slive to begin to pick a part the ACC? I can’ see them settling for Cinncinnati. Is the shrewd move to let someone else push the first ACC domino.

        I’ve never lived in Missouri, but they have always seemed like a better fit in the BIG.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Oh, if Florida and Vanderbilt were to be added, it might induce the SEC to be more aggressive in who they invite, but the point is moot since it would take more Jedi Mind Tricks than anyone has on tap to get Florida and Vanderbilt to agree to move.

    • Brian says:

      allthatyoucantleavebehind,

      “What if Missouri is the next team taken by the Big Ten? Then take Missouri’s rival Kansas as well, while the UMD vs. ACC suit clears up.
      SEC would probably respond with VaTech (simultaneous move as UVA to Big Ten).
      UNC and Duke would be next “battleground” which the Big Ten would win hands down (academic money). Big Ten at 19…Notre Dame finally realizes that the Big Ten is in its best interest.”

      I’ll ignore plausibility and just look at your pods.

      “Pod a
      Kansas (Missouri)
      Nebraska
      Iowa
      Minnesota
      Wisconsin

      Pod b
      Notre Dame
      Missouri (Kansas)
      Michigan State (Michigan)
      Purdue (Indiana)
      Illinois (Northwestern)

      Pod C
      UMD (Duke)
      UVA (UNC)
      Ohio State (Penn State)
      Michigan (Michigan State)
      Indiana (Purdue)

      Pod d
      Rutgers
      UNC (UVA)
      Duke (UMD)
      PSU (Ohio State)
      Northwestern (Illinois)”

      Seems like a lot of locked games, some unnecessary. You said a 9 game schedule but you can’t lock games that way. All 9 games are in division with 20.

      W – NE, KU, MO, WI, IA, MN
      N – OSU, MI, MSU, IN
      S – ND, NW, IL, PU
      E – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke

      Locked: PU/IN (they never play the other 3 teams in the other division unless they play OOC sometimes)

      A 9 game schedule only gets you your division, so you need 10 games. 1 game rotates through the opposite pod of the same size. Play is regionalized and the major rivalries are preserved.

      • I know it’s clunky…and it would be far from our normal paradigms…

        …but in a four-pod situation, why do two pods need to merge to create a 2-year division? Win your pod to make it to the semifinals. Use pod record or overall Big Ten record to choose winner…whatever you choose. That way you can protect four pod opponents plus one crossover…and then rotate the other 4 games among the other Big Ten schools.

    • C. Toda says:

      Kansas,Missouri are non starters. Notre Dame is not interested and is more trouble than it’s worth. UNC &NCS are big dogs in a little yard and are happy . GT ,Duke prob not . UVA is the only other team that prob is interested and has value (TV ,CAB.SAT). So UVA if wants and 1 other either GT or Pitts, 16 and done.

  36. OrderRestored83 says:

    ADD

  37. cutter says:

    There was a lot of speculation about conference expansion three years ago and if you looked at articles from that time frame (such as this one from NYT writer Pete Thamel–see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/sports/ncaafootball/25bigeast.html?src=me&ref=sports), the concern in April 2010 was that the Big East would be target by the Big Ten. This was at the time when the B1G was looking at moving up their time frame for expansion (it was initially going to be a 12- to 18-month study).

    The predictions about the Big East’s demise (or we can call it a transformation) were correct, but the agent of change wasn’t the Big Ten (directly, anyway). Nebraska would accept an invitation to the conference as the sole addition in June 2010. The only Big East member to date that has been invited has been Rutgers, but that was 2.5 years after all the initial speculation.

    Instead, we saw Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville go to the ACC, and West Virginia head to the Big XII. Other major changes included Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC while Texas Christian opted out of going to the Big East to join the Big XII.

    The other thing that is interesting from that time frame is that the schools we now discuss (UNC, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke, Florida State) from the ACC were not even being considered in the mainstream media at the time. Another NYT article (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sports/20colleges.html) talked about Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Connecticut as possibilities for the B1G. Of those five, one one turned out to be true.

    That article also quoted former Syracuse Athletic Director Jake Crouthamel saying he saw the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference and the Pacific-10 forming four 16-team superconferences and leaving the umbrella of the N.C.A.A. (Just imagine the fight between the SEC and the Pac-10 for Texas.) He said that those leagues would form their own basketball tournament to rival the N.C.A.A. tournament. “If you look at the history of what’s been going on for the last decade, I think it’s leading in that direction,” he said.

    We’ll see if he’s correct. The Big Ten, SEC and ACC all have or are projected to have 14 teams (for now) while the Pac 12 has twelve and the Big XII has ten. That’s a total of 64 teams in five different conferences.

    • boscatar says:

      The Big 12 grant of rights will delay the new Big Boy college athletics association, but within 10-12 years, expect the PAC 12 to expand into Texas (and likely Oklahoma and perhaps Kansas) and the SEC and Big Ten to take their pick of the ACC and Big 12 and a few others (BYU, UConn, Cincy, Boise State? USF? Temple?), with the ACC scrambling to survive with the leftovers.

      But, make no mistake, the Group of 5 will simply be left as the NCAA. The new Big Boy association will re-write the rules and leave the NCAA in the dust.

      I think the new C7 Big East will have a seat at the table for the new basketball tournament. Thoughts?

      • BruceMcF says:

        Projections a decade into the future run the risk of being upset by unanticipated turning points. Small movements that are under the radar now will in all likelihood be no more than secondary considerations in another five year’s time … but in a decade could be the next big change that everyone is worried about and trying to make preparations for.

        So in any projection I read that assume current trends continue unabated over the coming decade, I convert “will” to “might”, to wit: “the Group of 5 might simply be left as the NCAA. The new Big Boy association might re-write the rules and leave the NCAA in the dust.”

      • vp19 says:

        I think the Group of 5 will do all it can to freeze out the non-football schools, even it means taking the MWC/MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt at the expense of the WCAC and the new non-football Big East. The SEC and ACC need creampuffs to schedule to fill out their non-conference football schedules, and they can play those same schools in basketball, too. From their point of view, they have to draw the line somewhere, and sorry Butler, Gonzaga, Seton Hall, Georgetown and Creighton — you’re on the wrong side of the line.

        • BruceMcF says:

          As well as the cable-TV bowls ~ no reason the big schools won’t continue to want to have exhibition games after a winning season, even if the biggest bowls are tied into the national championship semi-finals by some arcane system.

          If the Big Boys offered a “best of Group of Five champions” spot in a championship quarterfinal in football and a guaranteed 1 AQ in the big boys BBall tournament, that’d do it for bringing in the Mid-Majors.

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I don’t think the Group of 5 are trying to freeze anyone out; they’re trying to rewrite the rules. They’re not going to kick Georgetown out. They’ll merely say, “These are going to be the new rules of our association. If you’re willing to accept them, you’re in; otherwise, you’re not.” Some, undoubtely, will opt out, much as the Ivy League did many years ago.

  38. Third_Army1945 says:

    Must be a coincidence….

    After the Terps having been called for 8 team fouls before the first TV timeout in the second half Saturday, the B1G can’t come soon enough!

    Updated through 3/2 games

    Away foul differential:

    1) Terps +32
    2) UVA +31
    3) VT +25
    4) GT +23
    5) Clemson +15
    6) Wake +8
    7) Miami +8
    8) FSU +8
    9) Dook +7
    10) UNC +7
    11) NCSU -2
    12) BC -18

    Home foul differential

    1) Terps +18
    2) VT +6
    —————————– everyone else gets less fouls called against them at home
    3) GT -3
    4) UVa -7
    5) BC -10
    6) Dook -12
    7) Wake -15
    8) Clemson -17
    9) Miami -21
    10) FSU -23
    11) NCSU -32
    12) UNC -42 (f’in, for real???)

    Overall foul differential through 3/2 games

    1) Terps +50 (yes, f’n 50!)
    2) VT +31
    3) UVa +25
    4) GT +20
    5) Clemson -2
    6) Dook -5
    7) Wake -7
    8) Miami -13
    9) FSU -15
    10) BC -28
    11) NCSU -34
    12) UNC -35

    • vp19 says:

      And as a a fellow Terrapin fan, one of the many things I love about joining the Big Ten is that some of the, shall we say, less excitable part of the Maryland fan base won’t be able to disproportionately focus on Duke in basketball. In some ways, that’s often hurt Maryland, since there’s so much buildup to those games that it distorts the season and the Terps inevitably stumble the following game. The Big Ten will enable the team to keep a more even keel.

  39. largeR says:

    Has anyone tried running threads on this, ftt’s previous writeup?

  40. largeR says:

    Or, more succinctly, could we try running threads here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s