Back Home: Big Ten Division Thoughts and Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion

Posted: April 2, 2013 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, DePaul Blue Demons, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: , ,

I’m finally back from a spring break vacation in Arizona (80 degrees for the White Sox spring training game that I attended last Wednesday compared to 30 degrees for Opening Day in Chicago yesterday), so let’s get a few updates since I haven’t posted in awhile:

(1) Big Ten Divisions – It appears that the Big Ten office is heeding the calls for the “Keep It Simple Stupid” approach of dividing the soon-to-be 14-team conference into East and West divisions, with Michigan State heading East with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland, the West having Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota and the only debate being where Indiana and Purdue will be placed.  IU-PU will then be the only protected cross-division rivalry.  Assuming that this comes true, my message to the Big Ten office is the following: THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!  While I initially advocated Michigan State being placed in the West with both Indiana-based schools in the East, the newly rumored setup was the next best alignment from my perspective.  The Pac-12 was smart in not trying to force any protect cross-division games outside of the California-based schools playing each other annually, so it’s great that the Big Ten reportedly will only keep the Old Oaken Bucket as protected while the West can continue to rotate through Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State more often in this KISS alignment.  (Note that it’s a heck of a lot less heartburn for the West schools to see Indiana or Purdue falling off the schedule more often compared to Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, which was likely a large driver for Sparty getting placed in the East.) It still makes a lot more sense in my mind for Indiana to head to the East since it’s (1) actually further East than Purdue, (2) a school with a disproportionately large East Coast student population and (3) better for competitive balance purposes.  The only reason that I can think of for IU pushing back on an Eastern placement is that it knows that it will never break its Rose Bowl drought competing in a division with resurgent Michigan and Ohio State programs.  Regardless, the Big Ten seems to finally be making the right choices on its divisional alignment.  Let’s just hope those right choices also extend to burying the Legends and Leaders division names next to Jimmy Hoffa*.

(* The Meadowlands aren’t that far from Rutgers, so it would still be in the Big Ten footprint.)

(2) Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion – The “new” Big East consisting of the old Catholic 7 schools poached Butler and Xavier from the Atlantic 10 and Creighton from the Missouri Valley Conference right before the start of the NCAA Tournament, which is likely going to trigger a massive realignment of the midmajor non-FBS conferences.  While the MVC is celebrating Wichita State’s Final Four run, it is also the league most openly pursuing expansion/replacement options as of now (Missouri State’s president actually Tweeted that he’s out visiting interested expansion candidates)*.  Various reports so far indicate that the MVC has had some conversations with Oral Roberts, UMKC, Loyola (Chicago), UIC** and Valparaiso.  The latter three Chicago area schools don’t surprise me at all: I Tweeted a few weeks ago that my gut feeling was that those programs plus Belmont would be at the top of the MVC list if Denver wasn’t going to be considered.  (Reading between the lines in this interview by MileHighMids of Denver’s athletic director, it appears that the MVC would have been interested in Denver if the school were to add more sports, but the AD isn’t willing to commit to that right now.)

(* For a great analysis of potential MVC candidates using Google Maps, check out this anonymous posting.)

(** For disclosure purposes, my parents met at and graduated from UIC, with my father then spending over 3 decades working at that campus. I don’t have any real rooting interest in the UIC Flames sports teams, but I’ll admit to having an affinity for the institution overall with my family connection.)

Perusing some MVC message boards and blogs, I’ve generally seen fans vomit over these choices with calls that they could either (1) do better or (2) stand pat at 9 schools.  It reminds me of the recent UCLA basketball coaching search*, where much of the fan base seemed to be incredulous that they couldn’t lure the likes of Brad Stevens or Shaka Smart and had to settle for the protector of a rapist… er… Steve Alford.**  The MVC fans seemed to have hopes for the likes of SLU and/or Dayton (the former of which is definitely going to be in the Big East, where it’s just a matter of when, while the latter likely will be there but has to sweat it out a bit with Richmond as a competitor for spot #12) and are now facing the reality that the realistic candidates aren’t nearly as desirable.

(* For what it’s worth, I believe that UCLA is an elite program with only Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Indiana and those rat bastards from Duke being in the same class. However, the Bruins’ lack of a sexy hire was the result of an elitist approach to job security by the school and fan base. That is, they just fired a guy in Ben Howland who went to three Final Fours, pulled in a top-ranked recruiting class last year and won the Pac-12 regular season championship this year.  At most schools, that record warrants a lifetime contract – Shaka Smart is going to be able to parlay a single Final Four run into perpetuity at VCU.  I fully understand how many UCLA fans believed the trajectory of the program was going in the wrong direction with Howland and a change might have been needed simply for the sake of a change, but they might have failed to understand how top level coaches in stable positions aren’t exactly enthralled with the prospect of taking a job where a 3-time Final Four coach got canned right after winning a conference championship. Hence, the pool of interested parties was much more shallow than anticipated.)

(** I highly recommend Black Heart Gold Pants blogger Patrick Vint’s message to UCLA fans about Alford on Bruins Nation.)

From my perspective, the MVC isn’t going to be able to add any real home run additions on-the-court. Belmont has the best performance over the past few seasons of the potential candidates, but geographic fit seems to be an issue in that case and their attendance figures have been subpar.  As a result, the MVC likely needs to concentrate on attacking its worst weaknesses as opposed to attempting to replace the irreplaceable Creighton in terms of basketball performance.  To me, that worst weakness is that fact that Wichita is the MVC’s largest TV market at #69 overall in the US.  Those of you that read me regularly know that I’m not in favor of expansion only for the sake of additional markets, but in the case of the MVC, having Wichita as your largest market is Charles Barkley turrible. Even if some of the candidates in large markets aren’t necessarily great TV draws, the MVC is eventually going to need them for recruiting purposes for long-term survival.  (This is why even if SLU and Dayton end up leaving the Atlantic 10 on top of Butler and Xavier, that league is still in much better position going forward with its footprint.) That means that a school like Murray State, which has had solid attendance and on-the-court performance, might appear to be desirable for MVC fans but not so much for the conference’s university presidents.

As a lifelong Chicagoan, I have a particular interest in how the MVC is going to proceed since I firmly believe that it should have a better presence in the Chicago market than it does today. Illinois State, Southern Illinois and Bradley all predominantly draw students from and send alumni to the Chicagoland area (with Northern Iowa and Drake also sending large contingents to the region, too).  However, the MVC doesn’t draw the coverage that it ought to considering the in-place fan base since it lacks a direct Chicago presence (which is critical unless you’re the University of Illinois or Notre Dame).  Therefore, it’s not a shocker that two city schools (UIC and Loyola) and a university on the periphery of the metro region in Northwest Indiana (Valpo) are being visited by the MVC powers that be. The MVC leadership likely recognizes what I see in that Chicago is a large market that can be legitimately leveraged by the conference.  It’s not so much that the MVC thinks that UIC or Loyola can “deliver” Chicago in a way that Illinois, Northwestern, DePaul or Notre Dame are able to, but rather that the critical mass of MVC students from and alums living in the area can give the league a solid presence akin to what the A-10 has in Philadelphia or Washington, DC. The MVC doesn’t have any type of major market anchor right now and that’s increasingly going to be a negative risk factor if it’s not rectified.

I haven’t forgotten that ORU’s crosstown neighbor of Tulsa just got invited to the “Old” Big East (or Conference TBD) today. I’ll have more thoughts on that the status of that league in a separate post. Until then, enjoy the Final Four!

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

(Image from mgoblog)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Carl says:

    Hail to the Lion!

  2. Stew says:

    So why doesn’t conference to be named buy the Conference USA name since virtually everyone in will have once been in that conference. Conference USA could then become the new Metro.

  3. Glad to see someone else recognize how much IU needs the East Coast connection. As a Purdue and Illinois alumnus, I want to see my schools play each other. I also think Purdue should be playing Northwestern every year again. The rivalry wasn’t that great during the 11 team era, but the short road trips are great for students. Since Purdue will be a border team in either division, the immediate closeness of Illinois and Northwestern is better. Closest in the East? Michigan and Ohio State…

  4. Pat says:

    Go Blue!

  5. If I’m Wichita State, I try to cash in on this Final Four with a Mountain West berth. They only will have 11 basketball teams since they don’t want to take non-revenue sports to Hawaii. Wichita State is fairly close to the harder to get to Mountain West schools like Wyoming, Air Force, and CSU and would probably reduce their travel costs. The farther away schools like Boise State and San Diego State are all in airport towns and wouldn’t be so bad. In fact, I’ll bet those schools could get to Wichita easier and cheaper than some of the mountain schools. Plus, although neither Wichita nor all of Kansas are huge markets, they are larger than many in the Mountain West and they are new to the conference. The additional on the West Coast could greatly increase the schools national exposure and more importantly help with recruiting California kids. In exchange, the Mountain West gets a great basketball program that has been to two final fours, has become a tourney staple recently, and routinely sells out its home crowd. The baseball program is also very good I understand. If the Mountain West wants an even number for basketball and Gonzaga isn’t interested, I think Wichita State would be a great choice. I actually think that Wichita State’s long term potential is better than Gonzaga’s. seems like a win/win all around.

    • Andy says:

      Does Wichita State play football? The Mountain West is a football league.

      • No, but they have an uneven number of basketball members because Hawaii is football only.

        • Andy says:

          Hm, I guess it could work then.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Is having 11 basketball schools such a problem, though? Did the Big Ten have trouble scheduling BBall during the decades it was at 11?

          I can see a conference with a FB-only school adding a BBall-only school to boost their RPI and chances at NCAA bids, but its not clear to me that it makes sense just to even up the numbers.

          • The problems mainly involve scheduling and tournament buys. They’re certainly not insurmountable but my understanding is that they’re very irritating for the conference.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Tournament byes? The difference between seeding the top four and an eight team first round and seeding the top five and a six team first round seems like a distinction without much of a difference.

            And nine-team BBall conferences seem to be quite common.

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            For the Big Five leagues, NCAA Tournament units, as well as the bowl revenue prior to ESPN’s huge Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowl deals, are petty compared to the overwhelming television contracts for football. A Forbes article from a few months back where FBS conferences were ranked by revenue described NCAA Tournament units and bowl game revenue as a “rounding error.”

            For the other leagues, NCAA Tournament units represent a substantial portion of the conference budget. One of the reasons the MWC and C-USA did not follow through with their merger was that one or both league’s would have had to turn over their NCAA Tournament units back to schools which would have been departed by the time of the merger. For C-USA, which had many rounds worth of units earned by Memphis, this would have been a major loss. The MWC would have lost all of BYU’s units as well as San Diego State’s, which, at the time the merger was canceled, was scheduled to join the Big West for non-football sports.

            NCAA Tournament units also represent a substantial portion of income for soon-to-be-former Big East. Although the members who are joining the league may raise some objections, UConn, Cincinnati, and USF will most likely split the majority of units earned by Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova, not to mention Syracuse, Pitt, ND, Louisville, or the other C7 members. Those units do add up to something significant for a league that will only make a little over $2M/year/school.

            This is why it would make perfect sense for the Mountain West to add Gonzaga for non-football sports. The Zags are the most reliable tournament participant in the western United States, and their ability to deliver NCAA Tournament units means a lot of revenue for a conference with a modest television deal. Gonzaga would do nothing to dilute the TV value for football but would enhance it for basketball better than anyone else in the West. They’d help solidify the Mountain West as a permanent power conference in basketball, rather than a league whose good 5-year-run is destined to cycle back down. The scheduling benefit of adding GU, resulting in an 12-member league, is merely an added bonus, not a reason in and of itself to expand. Some may ask why Gonzaga instead of Wichita State? Gonzaga is in the tournament every single year. Wichita State has been off-and-on for making the tournament. Gonzaga just seems like they’re here to stay in terms of basketball powere. WSU is TBD.

            Likewise, the former Big East is in dire need of basketball power. The league may be wary of adding non-football schools after the divorce it is enduring, but one non-football school in a 12-team league is not the same as 8 in a 16 team league. They could add either Wichita State or VCU. Personally, VCU seems like the better choice because they make the tournament more often, but neither is a slam dunk over the other.

          • Mack says:

            The Big East (C7) kept their NCAA BB units. The TBD conference retained the units of Syracuse, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh (if any). I doubt UCONN, USF, and Cincy plan to keep these units from the new members since they are paid out over 6 years and they do not have the votes to keep this for themselves in future years. That is why they are taking all the exit money since it can be distributed before the new members can change it.

          • BruceMcF says:

            The C7 were a special case, since they had a rule added (I think the last time the Big East threatened to collapse) that they could leave as a group with a share of the assets ~ they actually gave up on some assets they might have had, if they had not wanted to leave this year and keep the Big East name. And the checks will still be received by the Big TBA, its just that the money corresponding to the C7 units will be forwarded, under the agreement settling claims.

            How the Big TBA divides their assets is interesting ~ in part it will involve how they distribute NCAA units going forward. If all units are, for example, 50% to the school and 50% on an even conference payout, then at the very least 50% of the legacy units would be spread around the entire conference. Some conferences go Three Musketeers with the units, some have only a minority spread conference wide (I’ve read, though it wasn’t an official source, that the A-10 is 75/25 school/conference).

          • Bo Darville says:

            What about Wichita State joining the OBE/AAC?

          • Arch Stanton says:

            I think it is more likely that Wichita State could wind up in the Sun Belt than the AAC.

            But what I really think will happen is that the Shockers will use this Final Four appearance to wield more power in the MVC expansion planning.

            The MVC has to know that losing WSU on the heels of Creighton’s departure would be a major, major hit. I have to think that Wichita State will privately get near veto power on the MVC expansion.

          • BruceMcF says:

            If The American wants to fill in the big gap between its top BBall schools and the majority several steps lower down, by having a non-FB “pair” for its FB-only Navy add, the questions are (1) whether VCU or Wichita would play that role more reliably and (2) whether VCU or Wichita would be interested in playing that role.

            If the Military Wing strategy were to happen, they could make either one or three adds like that (assuming that the awkwardness of an odd number of BBall schools increases with the numbers that you are talking about, 11 more awkward than 9, 13 more awkward than 11).

    • frug says:

      I’ve heard people make similar arguments in favor of Gonzaga, but I don’t really understand them, since outside of football their really isn’t any advantage to having even numbers of teams.

      • boscatar says:

        The MWC would take Gonzaga if it could. I’m not sure Gonzaga wants the MWC though – it’s not a great fit. A private Catholic institution wouldn’t mesh well with all the MWC state schools.

    • Mack says:

      I expect the Wichita State coach to leverage the final 4 appearance to get a new job by the end of next week. FGCU got a sweet 16 spot and the coach got a new job (at USC) within a week. Not clear that Wichita State can substain the success, especially with a new coach.

    • Transic says:

      Why not WSU and VCU join up to work for a new Big East invite? If Dayton/SLU goes forward, as rumored, you’d have a good 14-school league encompassing some of the major markets in the North, with Wichita and Richmond as sort of outliers. Both VCU and WSU would have a lot of exposure on the Fox channels to counteract their being ignored by the ESPN channels.

      • Arch Stanton says:

        I’ve heard that the Big East wants all private school members. Not just for “institutional fit” but to prevent FOIA requests, state legislatures, etc, that public schools have to deal with.

  6. vp19 says:

    Who’s headed to the Barn? Howland? Someone’s got to want the Gopher job.

    • Brian says:

      No idea, but Howland would be a good get. He might seem to similar to Tubby (coach with great success a while ago at a hoops king) for the fans, though. Maybe Jerry Kill can coach hoops, too.

  7. stuart says:

    I think the former Big East will go for the Javalin, Matador, and Pacer name of American Metro Conference (AMC). I’ll always think Pacer.

    I think the MVC ought to go for three schools. Valparaiso for sure, probably one of the Chicago schools, whichever has more drawing ability (probably LUC) to get strong Chicago presence and then you have options for the 3rd. It could be another metro like Cleveland State, Milwaukee-Wisconsin, Missouri-Kansas City, or Belmont, or it could be something more pleasing to ADs like Murray State. But way take just one Chicago school? Take two.

    • vp19 says:

      As the Atlantic 10 has shown, a conference that isn’t part of the big six needs more than one rep in a major metro area to make any sort of impact. That’s why the A-10 works in Philadelphia, but is invisible in New York (Fordham) and Washington (George Washington)…and that would be true even if Fordham and GW were successful programs. Adding George Mason to complement the Colonials will elevate the A-10 in metro D.C., and I’m surprised the conference hasn’t pursued Hofstra, Manhattan, Iona or St. Peter’s to give the Rose Hill Rams a local A-10 rival. The MVC needs two Chicago-area schools (and no, Valparaiso does not fit that definition, though it’s certainly Valley-worthy in other ways).

  8. Andy says:

    M I Z – G O Blue

  9. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

  10. Sportsman says:

    Do you believe the MVC will add SDSU or the like, in addition to the aforementioned schools? It would bring the MVC & MVFC that much closer.

  11. Brian says:

    Frank,

    “I’m finally back from a spring break vacation”

    Thank God. That previous post was getting to be problematic.

    “(1) Big Ten Divisions … THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!”

    And to which I say BOO! And no, I’m not saying Boo-urns.

    “so it’s great that the Big Ten reportedly will only keep the Old Oaken Bucket as protected”

    Agreed. If they have to choose these terrible divisions, at least they aren’t locking a bunch of unnecessary games. Score one for us as we long ago predicted they might do this.

    “while the West can continue to rotate through Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State more often in this KISS alignment. (Note that it’s a heck of a lot less heartburn for the West schools to see Indiana or Purdue falling off the schedule more often compared to Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, which was likely a large driver for Sparty getting placed in the East.)”

    We’ve been over the math a bunch of times, but in a nutshell there isn’t much difference with 9 games. The western teams besides PU will play IN one less time every 9 years than they will the other eastern teams. It is not a significant difference.

    Even distribution – 43%
    IN/PU – 33% (plus 100% against each other, obviously)
    Others – 44% (plus 33% against IN/PU, obviously)

    Granted, if there is any team they would want to play less often IN would be at (or near) the top of the list. And certainly MI is a team they would want to play more often. It just isn’t a big enough difference to drive the decision.

    “The only reason that I can think of for IU pushing back on an Eastern placement is that it knows that it will never break its Rose Bowl drought competing in a division with resurgent Michigan and Ohio State programs.”

    If it was anyone but IN, that would be a very good reason. They can just shift to preseason hoops that much sooner now. I’m a little surprised RU and UMD haven’t pushed back against these divisions for the same reason, though. I realize they are used to not winning their respective conferences, but starting off with at least 3 Ls penciled in every year doesn’t help (OSU, MI, PSU, MSU and 1.33 of NE, WI and IA).

    “Regardless, the Big Ten seems to finally be making the right choices on its divisional alignment.”

    No, it doesn’t. Just some of the right choices.

    “Let’s just hope those right choices also extend to burying the Legends and Leaders division names next to Jimmy Hoffa*.”

    Several ADs have come out in support of the names.

    “(2) Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion

    As a result, the MVC likely needs to concentrate on attacking its worst weaknesses as opposed to attempting to replace the irreplaceable Creighton in terms of basketball performance. To me, that worst weakness is that fact that Wichita is the MVC’s largest TV market at #69 overall in the US.”

    You use that to argue for adding 1 or more Chicago schools. Wouldn’t it actually move UMKC to the top of the realistic candidate list, though? KC is a big market and is already in the footprint, plus UMKC would have multiple rivals built in. In addition, KC is a less crowded market which could help them gain traction.

    The real question is how large they want to be. I’d aim for 10, but they may want 12. They may also be concerned about balancing state and private schools.

    If they want 3, I’d say UMKC, UWM and UIC would help them the most. I think they’ll be tempted to add at least 1 private school, though. Loyola should top that list but Valpo will be tempting with their success.

    • Sam240 says:

      “Wouldn’t it actually move UMKC to the top of the realistic candidate list, though? KC is a big market and is already in the footprint . . .”

      Kansas City is #31, while Milwaukee is #35, and Nashville is #29.

      This would make Belmont more attractive than UMKC, in my opinion. Not only is the media market slightly larger, but Belmont has had more basketball success. UMKC has never made the NCAA tournament, and that would be a problem.

      If I were to pick three teams for the MVC, I would go with UIC, Belmont, and Murray State. Yes, Murray State does have a very small market, but it has had some basketball success, and it would form a bridge between the current MVC schools and Belmont. I would go with UIC over Loyola because UIC has had more recent basketball success. Yes, Loyola won a national championship — but that was back in 1963. They haven’t been to the NCAA tournament since 1985.

      With the loss of Creighton, the MVC’s public/private split would be 6-3, or a 2-to-1 ratio. The addition of those three teams would maintain that proportion.

      • BruceMcF says:

        Though if there are supermajorities in the bylaws, the private schools might prefer to return to the ratio before Creighton left to maintaining the split before Creighton left.

      • Brian says:

        Sam240,

        “Kansas City is #31, while Milwaukee is #35, and Nashville is #29. …

        This would make Belmont more attractive than UMKC, in my opinion.”

        Yes, but you skipped the part about KC already being in the footprint. It will be easier to get attention there since multiple schools will have alumni in KC. The local paper may already cover the MVC to a decent extent. Nashville won’t have nearly as many MVC grads and certainly the local media hasn’t been following the MVC.

  12. Brian says:

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/10/Media/BigTenNet.aspx

    Way back in December, SBJ discussed how the B10 might try to leverage RU and UMD games to get BTN on basic cable. It’s the same strategy they planned to use with NE. They’ll withhold games from local distributors until enough of them move the BTN to basic.

    Excerpts begin:

    The fact that Maryland and Rutgers are joining the Big Ten Conference doesn’t guarantee that their games will be on the Big Ten Network. In fact, several of their games may not be available locally at all — TV or broadband — when they kick off their Big Ten seasons in 2014.

    Maryland and Rutgers face the possibility of having at least two football games and at least 15 basketball games go untelevised locally when they join the conference in a year and a half.

    Comcast is the dominant cable operator in the Washington, D.C., and Baltimore markets, and carries the Big Ten Network on its sports and entertainment tier. In New Jersey, Comcast and Cablevision carry the channel on a higher-priced sports tier.

    But the school administrations and conference officials do not want to place any live games on sports tiers in the Big Ten’s home markets. If the Big Ten Conference opted to sell Maryland and Rutgers games to the Big Ten Network from the beginning, Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner Cable would have no incentive to move the network off of their sports tiers. Instead, if the Big Ten Network is unable to reach a deal with the distributors, local Maryland and Rutgers fans only would have access to ESPN-produced games.

    The Big Ten Network is 51 percent owned by Fox and 49 percent owned by the Big Ten Conference.
    The most likely scenario would have the conference selling Maryland and Rutgers games to the Big Ten Network once the channel’s distribution hits a specific percentage of the home markets, most likely around 70 percent.

    If only one distributor in Nebraska agreed to make the switch, the conference would provide games for that distributor to carry on a locally originated channel, sources said. The conference planned to sell rights to stations in the markets of Nebraska’s opponents. If Nebraska played Iowa, for example, the Big Ten Conference would sell the game to a local channel in Iowa, not in Nebraska.

    Relevant facts:
    1. The B10 needs to keep RU and UMD games off of ABC/ESPN and BTN to have leverage for this strategy.
    2. Based on the ESPN blog post I linked on the last post, ABC/ESPN get up to 4 games per weekend.
    3. The B10 wants to develop these new markets and maximize the number of big opponents that come to town.
    4. To make things worse, 2014 is a double bye year, so there are fewer games per weekend on average. There are also only 8 B10 games

    This is the scheduling issue I wanted to talk about. How does the B10 emphasize having kings playing RU and UMD while not putting them on TV much in order to leverage BTN money? Do we really think the fans will clamor for RU/IN? They need to have 2-3 better games on most weekends to keep RU and UMD off ESPN. The fans of the other team that is kept off of TV are going to be really angry with the B10 for this strategy, too. For extra difficulty, how do they deal with this in 2014 when they want to make a splash to announce the new members but also don’t want them on TV too much and there is the double bye with only 8 conference games?

    Some early thoughts:
    1. 2014 will probably open with OSU at UMD and MI at RU as a doubleheader on ESPN/ABC.
    2. 2014 should end with PSU at RU or UMD.
    3. Whichever team doesn’t host PSU will likely host NE at some point in 2014.
    4. I don’t see the B10 having much leverage for a while.

      • Brian says:

        http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2380/does-rutgers-really-bring-in-nyc-market

        This post from Darren Rovell in November has some interesting and relevant numbers.

        A New York Times blog published last year by statistician Nate Silver estimated that the New York City market has 607,157 Rutgers fans. Bill Nielsen, vice president of Scarborough Sports Marketing, said those numbers seem accurate based on data his company has compiled.

        According to Scarborough research, 11 percent of the New York City population considers themselves avid fans of college football, compared to 21 percent of the general U.S. population. That’s 73rd out of 77 markets, on a percentage basis, that Scarborough measures. But when broken down by number of people, it’s 1.8 million people, which is second among U.S. cities. Nielsen’s data shows that New York City has 1.4 million Rutgers fans and about 45 percent of them — 609,900 fans — are avid fans of the team.

        “If you want to try to get the New York market, you have no other option,” Nielsen said. “It’s really the only major-sized university that’s close that plays Division I football and basketball. Does Rutgers give you the penetration that Ohio State does in Columbus? Of course not. But this is more about the market than the team.”

        On the other hand, the post continues with this:

        Ed Desser of Desser Sports Media, who negotiated the Los Angeles Lakers television deal with Time Warner reportedly worth $3 billion, isn’t convinced.

        “Rutgers might bring a small pocket of central New Jersey, but college football is not a New York-area sport,” Desser said. “What we’re talking about here is, is there enough interest in New York for Rutgers to get a person to change their cable carrier if that carrier won’t carry the Big Ten Network? I don’t think so. Rutgers belongs in the also mentioned category in a market that includes the Yankees and the Knicks.”

        • Brian says:

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

          That is the Nate Silver blog referenced in my previous comment.

          His numbers:
          CFB fans in NYC = 2.9M (14% of 20.2M)

          Fans in NYC of various schools:
          1. RU – 607k (20.9% market share)
          2. ND – 267k (9.2%)
          3. PSU – 186k (6.4%)
          5. MI – 144k (5.0%)
          9. OSU – 65k (2.2%)

          Just FYI, here is a rough DC distribution (50 mile diameter roughly around DC) from the Common Census map, assuming DC metro is 6M people and 20% are CFB fans (1.2M total):
          1. UMD – 210k (17.5% share)
          2. UVA – 132k (11.0%)
          3. VT – 118k (9.8%)
          4. PSU – 91k (7.6%)
          5. MI – 48k (4.0%)
          7. OSU – 34k (2.9%)

          • Ross says:

            So, together, the Big Ten has about 35% of the NYC college football fans, according to those numbers. Will that one million people be enough to get what the Big Ten wants? It represents just under 5% of the total 20.2M.

            I will say, I think one underestimated part of the college football carriage fight is that fans of college sports, or sports in general, I would think are the most likely viewers to actually call their cable companies or threaten to leave/actually leave than any other viewer. The live element, just as it makes ad spots more valuable, also makes them a tougher customer for the cable companies.

            Someone who loses, say…Comedy Central (which I believe actually happened recently, did it not?) will have alternatives (say online, for example) that they may go to, rather than immediately threatening to leave their cable company. On the other hand, I remember discussions Nebraska fans had about threatening to leave/calling months before the Big Ten season started, in anticipation of potential missed games.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Phil has a very strong point ~ if half of the 5% are avid enough fans to switch to satellite from cable, then the BTN on the dish could be an awfully lot of leverage for getting BTN on the cable. You wouldn’t even have to black out games, if you restricted BTN on a sports package on cable in the contested area to the main feed without the overflow channel, and the BTN on the dish include at least one overflow channel. You just always schedule the eastern schools on the first overflow channel.

        • Phil says:

          I disagree with the premise that there even needs to be some huge 500,000+ bloc of RU fans to get the BTN the price they want price in NJ.

          Pay TV in NJ basically offers the following options:

          1. Each town gives one cable company a monopoly on that type of service
          2. Direct TV
          3. Many NJ towns now offer Verizon Fios cable service

          If the BTN network costs a company another $1 a month ($100 per 100 households), it doesn’t take a lot of cable customers threatening to switch to satellite/Fios (or vice versa) and take the $100-200 total monthly bill they pay the cable company with them, to force the issue (especially since the majority of customers don’t pay attention to what they are paying for each channel and won’t switch because their cable company just added the BTN).

          Direct TV and FiOs were not as mature and weren’t considered the viable options during the YES and NFL network battles that they are now. The BTN just needs to get a foothold with Direct TV, Verizon OR one of the major cable companies and then everything else will fall into place.

      • gregenstein says:

        I don’t think there’s really much the B1G can do. I feel:
        1. Getting the B1G Network carriage in Maryland/Baltimore should not be a huge problem
        2. Getting it in NYC is going to be excessively hard.

        Essentially, I’m agreeing with your 4th bullet point…there’s not much they can do. ESPN gets to pick whatever they want, and the B1G had a long standing policy (whether written or not) of avoiding non conference games once the season starts.

        I’ll even go further and note that any attempt to gain the NYC market that doesn’t include Notre Dame is going to be futile. I don’t think even putting PSU, Michigan, and tOSU in Rutgers’ division is going to be enough.

        • vp19 says:

          Agreed. New Yorkers are ignorant about college football if Notre Dame isn’t involved.

          Speaking of Rutgers, Mike Rice is outta here after public outcry about his treatment of players: http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/03/rutgers-fires-mens-basketball-coach-mike-rice/related/

          OK, which is a more desirable vacancy at the moment — Rutgers or Minnesota?

          • @vp19 – That’s pretty easy. Minnesota was a top 10 team at one point this season, won a game in the NCAA Tournament, and has a pretty good hoops fan base. Rutgers hasn’t made the NCAA Tournament in over 2 decades and there’s going to be heightened scrutiny of the athletic director with this scandal (assuming that he survives this). The Gophers job is clearly more desirable and it’s not even close.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Did I miss something? Is there a reason to no longer believe that the Maryland/Rutgers add, plus the large number of alumni won’t be incentive in addition to the potential of Fox bundling BTN with YES?

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, I don’t think there’s an issue here over the long run. Sure over the shorter run, it may end up needing a bit of work, but over the longer run YES/FS1/FS2 tied to BTN should be enough to forcefeed it down the NYC market.

          • gregenstein says:

            No, it is incentive. Bundling BTN with YES would do it, but I don’t see the benefit from the Yankees perspective. You already have a whole pie. Why share it?

            I just think they aren’t playing with house money in NYC, unlike adding a king in Nebraska or pretty easy path to basic carriage in Maryland when you supplement Maryland with Penn State and Michigan.

          • Phil says:

            1.The BTN is going to get what they want in NJ, and that in itself pays for the Rutgers addition.
            2.The number of NJ transplants in eastern PA gives the BTN a decent chance of improving its rate in the PA portion of the Philadelphia market.
            3. The NY portion of the NYC market will be difficult (although some areas, like Queens and Staten Island are actually located very close to RU and may have more of a connection).

          • ccrider55 says:

            Gregenstein:

            Fox now has controlling interest in YES. Why the Yankees allowed that, I don’t know. But then again, I’m a fan of the PAC wholly owned model of conference networks, and their statement that its goal isn’t solely to generate the most money possible. There are other valuable benefits (control being one).

          • @ccrider55 – I wouldn’t quite call it the Yankees “allowing” it to occur, but rather that they’re getting a crap ton of money back from them. I’ve seen in the past (and this was even before the current explosion in sports rights fees) that the YES Network has a higher market valuation that the New York Yankees franchise itself (and note that the Yankees are the most valuable pro sports franchise in the US, even topping the Dallas Cowboys, and rank #3 in the wolrd with only Manchester United and Real Madrid ahead of them), so I think the Steinbrenner family wanted to cash a lot of that in. It’s a give and take if you’re a conference or pro sports team – partnering with a media company provides a lot more instantaneous infrastructure and leverage with cable companies that may trump 100% control. Partnering with Fox was extremely critical for the BTN when it was launched since News Corp. owned DirecTV at the time. That gave BTN nationwide basic carriage on DirecTV from day one, which is ultimately what provided more leverage than anything else in the carriage disputes with Comcast since fans had a widely accessible competitor as an alternative. Maybe the Big Ten would have gone the 100%-owned route if it knew how successful the BTN would be, but it can’t be emphasized enough that it wasn’t clear at all that the network was going to be successful when it was announced in 2006. That was a *massive* gamble by both the Big Ten and Fox to start up the network and they were pilloried by fans more often than not during the first year of its existence when there were carriage disputes.

          • ccrider55 says:

            True. Even a blind man has 20/20 hindsight :) . I understand (BTN gets an innovators exemption) but my position on P12N and future educational/commercial entities partnering is informed by an interview Steve Jobs gave some time after he had been “booted” from Apple. When asked what he had learned throu the process of creating and building Apple he responded: one thing, always own at least 51%.

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Is there a reason to no longer believe that the Maryland/Rutgers add, plus the large number of alumni won’t be incentive in addition to the potential of Fox bundling BTN with YES?”

            That assumes everyone already believed that. Clearly from the media reports many don’t buy that RU was enough. As for YES, it should help if Fox uses it to for maximum leverage. There’s no guarantee they will, or that they won’t settle for a lesser BTN fee to get YES back on.

        • wmwolverine says:

          Even a relatively small carriage rate (say .45 cents compared to current .10 cents) in the huge NYC market would be a huge influx in BTN revenues… Rutgers should have no problem carrying Jersey (getting BTN on basic cable/satellite), maybe not at the same rate as most other BTN states but similar.

    • BruceMcF says:

      I like the East Coast end of season game approach of having PSU alternate between Rutgers and Maryland end of season, two year’s each, with the PSU home game in Philadelphia for Thanksgiving weekend. Penn State could be the launch of Big Ten season play for the other school.

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Michigan State is going to end up unhappy with its season-ender if Penn State ends against Maryland or Rutgers every year.

        The season-enders look to be:
        Nebraska-Iowa
        Wisconsin-Minnesota
        Illinois-Northwestern
        Purdue-Indiana
        Michigan-Ohio State
        Penn State-Maryland/Rutgers
        Michigan State-Maryland/Rutgers

        Michigan State would much more prefer a game against Penn State to close the season to Maryland or Rutgers. Maybe they’d prefer ending against Wisconsin in years when they’re on the same rotation, forcing Minnesota to face Maryland or Rutgers at the end. That way, instead of two upper end teams facing lower end teams (UW-Minny & MSU-Md/RU), the B1G would have one game with a potentially high ratings draw and one game between two leftovers. It would be all about maximizing TV ratings.

        • gregenstein says:

          As Brian pointed out on the last thread, us PSU fans are pretty divided on our preferred final game opponent. Personally, I’d prefer Pitt. If we’re going to keep it in-conference, honestly Sparty doesn’t bother me as much as some. I think I’m leaning toward Rutgers. Honestly, if they’d just ask Coach O’Brien and go with whatever he says, other Nitters will fall in line. We’re used to the coach telling everyone things like “We can only afford to play Pitt 2 of 3 home/away” and other nonsense in order to settle debates. Sans that…might as well just go with whatever and realize only half of “us” are going to be happy anyway.

          • BruceMcF says:

            If only half of y’all will be happy anyway, would it be better to pick the one that’s best for the conference as a whole and stick with it, or rotate the final games to avoid making it a permanent sticking point? It could, indeed, be rotated annually among the three, MSU, MD and Rutgers, and the Home and Away over six years would work out.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Yes, but if MSU/PSU continues to be the end of season game, that leaves MD/Rutgers, and that might not be the best East Coast marketing strategy.

          • wmwolverine says:

            B10 imo is best off building up the PSU-Maryland rivalry, I think it’s got potential to be a very big one. That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.

          • BruceMcF says:

            What exactly would be the thinking in weakening the market where their fight for carriage will be tougher to strengthen the market where their fight for carriage will be easier?

          • wmwolverine says:

            Perplexed here. The season ending game doesn’t weaken Rutgers or the northeast and the Spartans aren’t a bad opponent to put Rutgers against as a new found rivalry game…

            I’m sure Rutgers would love to have a season ending game with PSU, M or OSU but I don’t see any of them wanting that. If both Maryland and PSU want their season ending game to be against each other, it’ll happen. My uncle is a PSU fan from Pennsylvania and lived in northern Virginia for a decade, he sees PSU & Maryland as potentially major rivals.

          • wmwolverine says:

            Regardless, PSU is still going to play Rutgers EVERY season and MSU is going to play Maryland every season.

          • BruceMcF says:

            “Perplexed here. The season ending game doesn’t weaken Rutgers or the northeast and the Spartans aren’t a bad opponent to put Rutgers against as a new found rivalry game…”

            It was your claim in the first place that, if true, would suggest that the Big Ten would be unlikely to want to see a PSU/MD, MSU/Rutgers season finale: “That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.”

            It would seem that the one that the Big Ten would want to build up would be the Rutgers season finale. The notion of PSU alternating the two would be more a concession to a PSU fanbase that may not have any consensus preference for season finale.

          • wmwolverine says:

            Please don’t paraphrase me as you’re awful at it…

            From what I gather from relatives who’ve lived in the east, PSU and Maryland would both like to play each other to end the season, it’s a potentially big rivalry in the making. PSU is glad to have Rutgers in the conference and in its division but doesn’t care much about building a rivalry with them, these are words from my uncle who is a PSU/Steelers fan. I’m not sure he speaks for the entire PSU fanbase.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Actually, “That leaves MSU with Rutgers, not a very exciting matchup but I think the B10 would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.” was a direct quote, not a paraphrase. And in your elaboration, I don’t see any additional reason WHY the Big Ten would be willing to sacrifice the latter to build up the former.

            You’ve added something about why Penn State might happily sacrifice the latter, to build up the latter, and nothing about why the Big Ten as a whole should do so. As far as what the Big Ten should do, the first question to be addressed is when is the most strategically useful time for Penn State to play Rutgers.

          • wmwolverine says:

            “It was your claim in the first place that, if true, would suggest that the Big Ten would be unlikely to want to see a PSU/MD”

            This is the part I don’t understand in the least. Where do you get that I think it’s unlikely the B10 wouldn’t want a PSU/MD matchup? I say the EXACT opposite, it would immediately become PSU’s 2nd biggest rivalry, after Ohio State and a boon for the B10.

          • BruceMcF says:

            My question is how scheduling Penn State as the Maryland finale helps increase the appeal of the Penn State / Rutgers game, in both northern NJ and across the border from Philadelphia, which ought to be expected to be the first priority for the Big Ten when considering the interests of the conference as a whole.

            If Maryland and Penn State are such a natural rivalry, they would be able to set that game for any fixed position in the schedule and it would become an event, as “the third week in October” is in Knoxville. However, if the question is the interests of the conference, as opposed to the wishes of Penn State, you wouldn’t allocate the finale game between Penn State and Maryland unless some other date is the best time to be setting Penn State to play Rutgers.

          • vp19 says:

            I still say the best solution is to alternate two-year cycles — in years A & B, Maryland ends with Penn State and Rutgers ends with Michigan State, and in years C & D, Maryland ends with Michigan State and Rutgers ends with Penn State. No one’s completely satisfied, but no one is completely left out, either. And why should PSU end on the road every year, as Dartmouth did in the Ivies for so many seasons before it gained an annual season finale with Princeton? You can’t compare PSU’s scheduling to an independent like Notre Dame.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Is the idea of playing an alternate year Thanksgiving home game in Philadelphia against an eastern opponent ending on the road every year? Wouldn’t a lot of Penn State students would be away from campus that time of year?

          • m (Ag) says:

            I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.

            If they decide that PSU/Maryland or PSU/MSU is the best game to schedule Thanksgiving week, that isn’t giving up on the New Jersey/New York TV market. Regardless of the order of the games, Rutgers will be playing Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Penn State every year, with 2 of those games at home. They don’t have to be the first or last conference games to be exciting for the fans.

            Having PSU/Rutgers the week before Thanksgiving would still get a lot of coverage in NYC. Have it be the only Big Ten night game that week and it would get the attention of the entire Big Ten region.

          • Eric says:

            Personally I think the most likely thing is that Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland rotate around for season ending games amongst each other.

            With that said, if Michigan State really did want in the west (with a locked crossover with Michigan), then I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Penn State-Michigan State ended up as the season ender again. The logic will be that Penn State is already getting a lot of what it wants by making an eastern division with 2 new eastern schools (schools, most the rest of Big Ten country isn’t excited at all about playing given the lack of history/geographic footprint). Giving Michigan State the Penn State game for a season finale would be like kind of like giving Wisconsin the first Nebraska game and a season ender with Penn State in the last alignment.

          • Arch Stanton says:

            “I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”

            Thank you!

            I understand it when it is Michigan and OSU fans, as they have the tradition of playing in the last week. Penn State doesn’t have that and doesn’t need to force a year end rival. They have plenty of traditions of their own. Michigan State played Minnesota to end the year last season. I don’t recall anyone being up in arms about that. It’s hard enough to get everyone to play everyone else that they want to play as often as possible without worrying about when they play as well. Let’s leave a little flexibility in the schedule when possible.

          • BruceMcF says:

            “I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”

            I surely haven’t been overstating the importance, since I haven’t been making any claims regarding its importance. I keep posing the question when would be the best time for Rutgers to play Penn State from the perspective of boosting Rutger’s profile, but the Penn State fans on the board seem more interested in talking about whether Penn State is badly done by in having to play the Spartans in the last game of the season, and if so, how to fix that.

            If, blank schedule, the best thing to do for Rutgers profile is to have Penn State open Rutgers’ Big Ten conference season, then Penn State SHOULD be scheduled to do that, and the question of who they play in the season finale comes after that is settled. If among the remaining games, the season finale is the best time to schedule Penn State with Maryland, from Maryland’s perspective, then that means Penn State and Michigan State play each other some other time of the season.

          • gregenstein says:

            Rotating would be fine. It probably is best just to do whatever is best for the conference, so long as the eastern block teams are included somehow.

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “I still say the best solution is to alternate two-year cycles — in years A & B, Maryland ends with Penn State and Rutgers ends with Michigan State, and in years C & D, Maryland ends with Michigan State and Rutgers ends with Penn State. No one’s completely satisfied, but no one is completely left out, either.”

            It’s certainly a reasonable option.

            “And why should PSU end on the road every year, as Dartmouth did in the Ivies for so many seasons before it gained an annual season finale with Princeton? You can’t compare PSU’s scheduling to an independent like Notre Dame.”

            1. The same reason the B10 is ignoring balance to force brands into the east. It’s better for building the new markets/programs. PSU will bring a ton of fans so the stadiums will look full, and more media is likely to be there than in State College.

            2. It’s more convenient for many PSU students and alumni on Thanksgiving weekend than playing in State College.

            3. It locks in a fairly benign road game for PSU every year, so why should they complain? They’ll get an easier November schedule because of it.

            4. Why can’t we compare it to ND always ending in California? It’s simply an example of a team that does end on the road every year by choice, and they’re also a king like PSU. That’s seems relevant.

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            “I think some of you are way overstating the importance of the last game of the season.”

            Most of this discussion is based on these things:

            1. The vehement PSU reaction to playing MSU in the last game. Thus they make the last game extra important. However, they don’t have a complete consensus on who to play or how much difference it makes.

            2. The competition the final week. These 2 games have to compete with OSU/MI, NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN and a bunch of national rivalries for attention. Maybe PSU/RU and PSU/UMD would both be dwarfed by those games and should be played another time to get maximum value from PSU’s visit. Maybe one of them would do well

            3. How difficult it can be to get to State College, especially on Thanksgiving weekend with so many people gone for the holidays. With all those PSU fans in DC and NYC on that weekend, it may be better for them to play there.

            4. What is best for the B10?

            5. What is best for RU, UMD and MSU?

            “If they decide that PSU/Maryland or PSU/MSU is the best game to schedule Thanksgiving week, that isn’t giving up on the New Jersey/New York TV market.”

            Or is it? Holiday weekends are different from regular weekends. Especially with so many PSU students and fans in DC and NYC for Thanksgiving, the choice for the final game could imply a lot.

          • Brian says:

            Arch Stanton,

            “Penn State doesn’t have that and doesn’t need to force a year end rival.”

            The last game being important and it being a rivalry are two separate things. You don’t have to “force a rivalry” to have a reason to choose a certain game or games to end the year. It can be just a sound business decision.

  13. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

  14. BruceMcF says:

    The Group of Five merry-go-round continues, with the Sunbelt hosting the FCS/FBS transitions of Appy State and Georgia Southern, as widely expected, and also inviting WAC-orphans Idaho and NMSU back to the Sunbelt FB-only (of course, both of those along with Utah State originally left the Sunbelt to join the WAC in the middle of last decade).

    Then before Tulsa from CUSA to the Big TBA was actually announced, so that the Big TBA could have 12 teams when (if?) Navy joins in 2015, Western Kentucky was announced as moving up (if you count by current TV contract, possibly moving laterally by quality of the football) from the Sunbelt to CUSA, setting off the next round of speculation as to who the Sunbelt will next promote from the FCS to the ranks of the sorta-FBS, with James Madison widely speculated but not without some doubters.

    The MAC is rumored to have or be about to put their ultimatum to UMass to play all-sports, as they negotiated the right to do two years after an exit by either UMass or Temple, though no telling how much of that rumor is simply due to the fact that they do have that card to play.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I was kind of surprised C-USA used Western Kentucky as the replacement for Tulsa. Troy (for football success and recruiting territory), South Alabama (for Mobile TV market and recruiting), and Georgia State (for Atlanta TV and recruiting) would have been my guesses for expansion candidates. WKU isn’t in as rich an area for football recruiting, nor is Bowling Green a very populated area. I suppose C-USA may have decided to shore up basketball a bit in order to at least give itself a shot at having multiple bids to the NCAA Tournament, and WKU helps with that more than other options. Also, C-USA may have been thinking short-term: “Let’s get WKU. They have Bobby Petrino, therefore we’re sure to have a big name coach in our league for years to come!”

      • BruceMcF says:

        I think it may be the BBall, as a pair with Middle Tennessee. CUSA had one bid this year, and Memphis leaves in July, while the Sunbelt had two, and after dropping down from being a four-bid conference, that has got to stick in the craw. Both those two Sunbelt bids were Middle Tennessee, already slated to move to CUSA, and Western Kentucky.

  15. ZSchroeder says:

    A10 is talking about going to 18 league games and UMass is required to play 4 MAC basketball games a season. That is 22 ,so that leaves them with just 7 out of conference games they can schedule (if not playing in a tournament). Their in a bad position both ways. A10 is far superior basketball conference, but going independent is football will be tough.

    • bullet says:

      Not sure A10 will remain a far superior bb conference. When SLU and Dayton or Richmond leave, there aren’t many schools left who draw much and a lot of deadweight-Fordham, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne.

  16. Mike says:

    The American Athletic Conference? AACk!

      • largeR says:

        The ‘double A’, the ‘A, A’, the ‘Amath’? What’s it gonna be? It sure as hell won’t be called the American Athletic Conference!

        • vp19 says:

          Be thankful this league won’t be spelled in ALL CAPS. Press releases would look like a 1930 editorial from one of William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers.

      • bullet says:

        Inspired by Bill the Cat (if you are too young to remember-look it up). AAACCCKKKK!

        • largeR says:

          Too young? I feel like I was here before Gutenberg!

        • Mike says:

          Their name reminds me of the comic Cathy. Jerks!

        • @bullet – Yes! I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day. (That was the golden age of comic strips in the late-80s/early-90s with Calvin and Hobbes going on at the same time.)

          First thing that came to my mind: Billy Joel singing that the name gives me a heart attack AAC AAC AAC AAC.

          • bullet says:

            Berke Breathed was actually at UT when I was there. My roommate got an autographed copy of a book he published of his “Academia Waltz” cartoons in the Daily Texan. He told me that Berke would be big. He was right. I agreed Berke was great, but figured someone hitting it big in the comic business was a long shot. I did not get my autographed copy. But a lot of people did.

            I also loved Calvin and Hobbes. My son has discovered it and is checking out all the C&H books at his school library. And back then Doonesbury was funny before he became too partisan.

          • bullet says:

            You didn’t quote the most fitting part of those Billy Joel lyrics:
            “If that’s movin’ up, then I’m movin’ out,” says Boise St.

    • BruceMcF says:

      Double A: “Alcoholics Anonymous Conference”

      Though if the ACC gets raided, then the AAC may as well stand for “All Aboard Conference”.

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      I guess “Generic Sports Conference” was already taken.

      • bullet says:

        Since they didn’t invite any MAC teams from the Great Lakes, they could have called it the Gulf and Atlantic Conference (just thinking of G names after your GSC suggestion).

        • Aaron Morrow says:

          So if Boise State and San Diego State stayed, they could be Gulf+Western?

          Clearly they want to trick Cincinnati and Connecticut into thinking they’ve succeeded in seceding.

          (Note to Delany: Check the trademark status of Engulf & Devour.)

      • BruceMcF says:

        I think “Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives” is now available.

        I don’t really think having a generic name is such a horrible thing. After all, while the Big East held up to the ambition of its name in Basketball, in Football it was often referred to by skeptics as the Big Least.

  17. Transic says:

    The jokes will continue no matter what name they choose. So it shouldn’t matter to them, either way.

    I read that now ex-bb coach Mike Rice cried in his interview with a reporter. Jeez! But typical with wannbe-authoritarians. As soon as somebody calls him on his behavior he reverts to being small.

    • BruceMcF says:

      It could be worse ~ when they go to a CCG in 2015, they could call their divisions “Leaders” and “Legends”.

    • Richard says:

      Authoritarians? Psychopaths (often the one and the same).

      All of the Soviet secret police heads that Stalin (who was a psychopath himself) and Khrushchev had liquidated were pathetic pleading begging sobbing messes when they were shot even though they themselves had destroyed countless lives and tortured numerous people with zero regard for the suffering they caused.

    • zeek says:

      http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9131624/auburn-tigers-coaches-bribed-players-altered-grades-broke-recruiting-rules-gene-chizik-according-report

      Is anyone shocked by this at this point? The UNC situation was just the tip of the iceberg. This has to be going on at a lot of schools.

      • vp19 says:

        In retrospect, perhaps SEC expansion to 14 was triggered by Slive in case Auburn received the “death penalty” and had to shut down football for two years. Without expansion, the SEC would be down to 11 members, and thus ineligible to hold a conference championship game. It could still be done with 13 members. although the league might have to obtain temporary dispensation from the NCAA to alter its setup (as the MAC did).

        I’m not necessarily saying that’s ultimately what will happen here — an SEC program, especially representing a public college in a football-crazed state, may be politically “too big to fail,” unlike Southern Methodist more than a quarter-century ago — but you never know.

      • Jake says:

        @zeek – Even Captain Renault can’t feign shock at that one. I don’t see the death penalty happening, though. SMU kept it up after being caught, leaving the NCAA without much choice. Postseason ban, loss of scholarships, etc.

        • ct says:

          Some help for our friends in the SEC .You should consider playing by the rules . The path you are on is not a good one ,the result down the road is more than 1 death penalty . The drive for the NC is causing more and more cheating. This cheating is coupled with the idea that what ever you do you can get away with. Read some of your SEC posts you believe cheating is a joke. It’s not ,stop and think . The SEC is at the edge of the cliff.

    • bullet says:

      There were worse allegations during the Cam Newton era. Nothing ever came of it. I suspect the NCAA will fail to find anything here either.

      • zeek says:

        They’ll probably end up reusing the UNC scandal logic that kept them away from that case.

      • bamatab says:

        Emmert has already started trying to sweep it under the rug. Here is a link to an interview with him: http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2013/04/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_on.html#comments

        Here is a quote that caused me to do a double take: “So you obviously believe that those allegations are true and you have evidence that they’re true and you’re saying, Okay, here’s the facts, so why don’t you throw the book at Auburn?” Emmert said. “We have a higher responsibility when we’re saying somebody’s committed some offense than reading a newspaper story. I mean, obviously when anything like that comes out, we conduct an investigation and look into it.”

        • ccrider55 says:

          How is basically saying he won’t discuss a current or pending investigation, apparently frustrated and exasperated that a blog report was being offered as proof of guilt and showed a reluctance to enforce, sweeping something under the rug? Sound like a longer version of “we don’t prosecute or punish simply based on a “news” story.

          • bamatab says:

            The NCAA has been investigating auburn since 2010. The same stuff being talked about in this latest rash of articles, is basically the same stuff that has been talked about since 2010. Heck, 4 or 5 former auburn players went on HBO’s sport show in 2011 and said that this same stuff was going on back then. They didn’t need this news story to alert them as to what as been going on down on the plains.

          • ccrider55 says:

            I just don’t have a problem with what he said. I might not have been as cryptic, or, I might have gotten way out of line. To me he was just responding to someone needling him. Almost refreshing to have a human reaction instead of the usual nonresponseve corporate canned “response”.

  18. BuckeyeBeau says:

    Re: Howland, see this SI article.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130325/ucla-ben-howland/

    The gist: supposedly, in the summer of 2009, Howland badly mismanaged the recruiting of a local so. california Bball player and alienated a segment of the so. california AAU bball coaches who, thereafter, steered their players to other programs. supposedly Howland compounded the problem with other recruits post-2009 by showing no interest in the local talent and trying to land recruits from other parts of the nation.

    if you anger the local coaches, even three Final Fours won’t save you.

  19. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22001576/big-ten-acc-in-discussions-with-pinstripe-bowl

    No shock here, but the B10 and ACC are talking with the Pinstripe Bowl about a deal for 2014 and beyond. It’s a no-brainer, they just need to figure out where it fits in.

  20. ZSchroeder says:

    Liberty University to Sun Belt?

    I’m fascinated with this prospect, partly as a Husker fan I would be excited to see Turner Gill build another program at the FBS level, but also because Liberty University is a strange beast.

    Liberty is private Evangelical university in Virginia that was created in 1971 by Jerry Falwell. It has 12,500 students, but is working on new dorms and buildings that would allow the university to expand to 20,000 residential students. It has a law school and will be opening a medical school in the fall. It’s football is not good, it’s attendance is good though, and it has plans to expand the stadium to 30,000 on 2015.

    Liberty would be the first private school to move up to FBS since it split and it appears to have the means to dump some serious cash into the prospect. It already have 20 varsity sports.

    http://www.vuhoops.com/2013/4/3/4179616/expansion-apocalypse-caa-exhales-as-sun-belt-focus-shifts

  21. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Now that the old Big East has a new name, how would you rank college basketball conferences going forward over the next 5-10 years? I’m not asking who’s the best this year (which was clearly Big Ten at #1 and the Big East at a solid #2), nor next year. Rather, which conference will perform the best over the long haul?

    For these rankings, please do not list conferences based on what their makeup MIGHT be. That is, the Big Ten should not be given credit for UNC, Duke, FSU, or any other speculative new member. The ACC shouldn’t get credit for UConn, Cincinnati, or anyone else, either.

    Here are my rankings:

    1) ACC. It edges out the Big Ten thanks to the strength of Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse and Louisville. Pittsburgh and Notre Dame have been tournament regulars. Florida State, Virginia, NC State, and Miami provide further depth and have proven capable of developing and/or recruiting some serious talent. Clemson and Virginia Tech are capable of making the NCAA in any given year. BC, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest are admittedly dead weight these days.

    2) Big Ten: I’d call this league a very close #2. Reasonable minds could disagree. Iowa, Penn State, and Rutgers are about the only real dead weight in this conference, and even Iowa and Penn State can be very competitive. It speaks volumes when this conference sends 7 out of 12 teams to the NCAA’s, not even including one of its traditionally strongest teams in Purdue. Nebraska is pouring lots of money into facilities. Northwestern is, too, and just made a pretty decent hire with Chris Collins. Maryland, though it’s not the power it was 10 or 11 years ago, will provide depth for the conference.

    3) Big 12: Nine of the league’s ten head coaches have made the NCAA Tournament in the past 2-3 years. Kansas’ Bill Self, K-State’s Bruce Weber, Texas’ Rick Barnes, Texas Tech’s Tubby Smith, and West Virginia’s Bob Huggins have made it to the Final Four. TCU is the only real dead weight.

    The rankings get murkier after the top three…

    4) SEC: Kentucky is one of the true blue bloods. Florida has made three straight Elite Eights and won two straight national titles in ’06 and ’07. They’re both pretty solid. This past year was a down year, but over time, I see a lot of depth. Missouri is a top 20 program. Arkansas is improving under Frank Haith. Over time, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Mississippi State, and Alabama generally perform very well. Ole Miss may even pove to be more than a flash in the pan after winning the SEC Tournament this year. South Carolina has Frank Martin and ought to be in tournament in the next few years. I’m not so sure about LSU, Texas A&M, and Georgia.

    5) Big East: I couldn’t rank this league, given its upcoming makeup, ahead of any of those above because it’s so hard to imagine one of its teams winning a national title. Teams go deep in the tournament, but going all the way hasn’t happened since 1985, although Butler came awfully close in 2010. It is, however, a really strong league, thanks to the schools’ commitment to basketball and, even more so, to the big-time coaches in the league. Georgetown and Marquette are the most consistent programs. Butler, Xavier, and Villanova make the Sweet 16 fairly often. Creighton makes the Dance more often than not. DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence (even with this year’s tournament team), and St. John’s have to show me more before the Big East gets ranked ahead of those above them.

    6) Mountain West: I hesitate to put this league ahead of the Pac-12, but it’s just been plain better lately. That could change, but I don’t see evidence of that (yet). There’s no program at the level of UCLA or Arizona, but it’s a deep league nonetheless. New Mexico, Colorado State, San Diego State, Utah State, Boise State, and UNLV provide a lot of punch at the top.

    7) Pac-12: UCLA is a major brand name. It’s a great but not outstanding basketball program, and I can’t see Steve Alford doing better than Ben Howland did. Arizona is a great program, and I’m confused why it’s not more dominant. Other programs like Cal, Stanford, USC, Washington, and Oregon are capable of being much better, but they haven’t been. Colorado’s been better in the Pac-12 than expected. Utah has been much worse. Oregon State has just about never been good. Washington State is just a hard place to win, being so isolated.

    8) American Athletic: At the top, it’s really, really strong. UConn is in that tier immediately below a blue blood. I’d put UConn alongside Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State, Ohio State, Arizona, and Florida. Memphis is very consistent and strong as well. Cincinnati is a consistent NCAA tournament team, as is Temple. The problem is that those four schools have hardly any challengers to finish in the top four, and it will be a stunner if someone other than those four schools wins the regular season without the aid of losing one of those schools to the ACC. Maybe South Florida could challenge for NCAA bids. Maybe SMU will do an amazing turnaround under Larry Brown, but I’m not holding my breath. Maybe Tulsa will improve under Danny Manning. But Houston is not the Houston of Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. ECU is having its best season ever–with just 20 wins, several of which were earned in the weak CIT tournament. UCF has potential but few results.

    9) Atlantic 10: For now, it still has VCU and Saint Louis both better than any MVC program, including Wichita State. Richmond, Dayton, George Mason, St. Joseph’s, and LaSalle provide decent depth, but it’s weak at the bottom.

    10) Missouri Valley: It’s not as strong at the top as the A-10, but all programs are capable of making the NCAA in any given year.

    11) West Coast: It’s often a multi-bid league, thanks to Gonzaga and St. Mary’s.

    Past those, it’s pretty much single-bid, mid-major leagues. Horizon, MAC, C-USA, CAA, and OVC usually produce teams in the 9- to 13-seed range. Other leagues pretty much fill out the bottom of the bracket.

    • bullet says:

      I’d go with your top 3
      1) ACC
      2) B1G
      3) Big 12
      4) Pac 12-down now but programs with history who care about basketball
      5) Big East-the question is how much not having football hurts its publicity. But I think the C7 all improve.
      6) SEC-down now with too many programs whose fans don’t care about basketball
      7) MWC-developing lots of solid programs with good fan support
      8) Missouri Valley
      9) Bill the Cat conference-some solid programs, but lots who haven’t been good for a while
      10) West Coast

      Atlantic 10 has been gutted. I think they slip into equality with the MAC/Sun Belt group in that 11-18 range.

      • Andy says:

        SEC’s basketball attendance was ranked #2 after the Big Ten. The idea that SEC fans don’t care about basketball is a myth that I once believed but found to be false. They care about football more than they do about basketball, but they care about basketball just as much as other leagues do.

        • BruceMcF says:

          One of the SEC’s advantages in football, High School spring football, is also one of it disadvantages in Basketball.

          I know that Knoxville cares a whole hell of a lot about Volunteer basketball, but there are large numbers of rabid fanatics about Volunteer football all over East Tennessee, and with the number of simultaneous head coaches they are paying bucketloads of money to refrain from working as the head coach, they surely have had to penny pinch a bit in basketball in the past few years. If their finances recover, their basketball team is likely to recover too.

          • Andy says:

            Tennessee still manages to draw around 19k basketball fans per game, which is 5th in the country. Kentucky averages 23k, good for 1st. Vandy is 18th at nearly 14k. Missouri and Arkansas are at 12k (athough both can draw into the 15-16k range for most conference games and qulaity noncon games), Alabama and South Carolina are near 11k, Florida’s at 10k, etc. There’s a lot of basketball fan support. Yeah they care about football more, but believe it or not they’re capable of caring about more than one thing.

            And when Missouri came into the league, I was worried that SEC basketball interest wouldn’t be high. But truth is it’s just as high or higher than the Big 12. The quality of play was pretty bad this year, but I think that will turn around. The SEC was the #1 conference in Sagarin just a few years ago. It’s cyclical. It’s not like the Big 12 was any good this year either.

          • BruceMcF says:

            “Tennessee still manages to draw around 19k basketball fans per game, which is 5th in the country.”

            Yes, as I said, Knoxville cares a whole hell of a lot about Volunteers basketball.

    • drwillini says:

      Oklahoma’s Lon Kruger made it to the final four as well.

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Micheal – you may not be sure about LSU, but I’m telling you that my Tigers will be back, and soon. This season, they exceeded everyone’s expectations. After going 0-4, to begin SEC play, the Tigers finished out going 10-6, to finish .500. I know the SEC was bad, but we all expected LSU to be terrible. According to Rivals, LSU has the #6 recruiting class signed for next season, including three of the top 66 players in the nation. First year coach Johnnie Jones is an LSU guy, having played for and coached with Dale Brown. Jones recruited many of the Parade All-Americans that played for LSU in the 80s and 90s, including Shaq, Chris Jackson, and John Williams. We all knew Jones could recruit, and were all pleasantly surprised to find out that he is also a pretty good sideline coach as well.

      I expect LSU basketbaqll to be a top 5 basketball program in the SEC over the next several years..

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I’ll take your word for it, Alan. I said, “I’m not sure about LSU,” because, well, I don’t really follow the team and haven’t a clue as to whether they’re headed in a good direction or what.

        But if LSU does come back, it just adds to to my reasons that I anticipate a reasonably strong SEC in the coming years. Kentucky and Florida are very much mainstays in the top 20, with the exception of an off year now and then. Missouri, Mississippi State, Tennessee, South Carolina (under Frank Martin), Alabama, LSU… the league will be back. It certainly won’t get the media recognition that the Big Ten, Big East, and ACC get because those leagues have so long been regarded as the top basketball conferences, but it’ll be a solid league.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      With the BCS going away, along with the emergence of the Mountain West and the split of the Big East, I’m hoping that the media stops giving elevated status to “BCS conferences” in basketball. The “Big Six”–SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Pac-10/12–have been treated as the only major conferences, with all remaining conferences, including the Mountain West, C-USA, the MVC, the West Coast, and the Atlantic 10, being regarded as mid- or low-majors.

      Going forward, there is no logical explanation for why the Mountain West, the non-football Big East, and the “AmeriCon” not to be regarded as major confernces on par with the SEC or Pac-12. They’re not “BCS conferences” or “Contract Bowl conferences.” They may be part of the “Gang of Five,” or in the case of the Big East, not part of FBS at all, but they are absolutely power conferences.

      So, for basketball, aren’t there at least 8 power conferences? How could a league with UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, and Temple not be a “power conference”? Or a league with 5 out of 9 teams making the NCAA Tournament not be a power conference? Or a league with Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, Butler, Xavier, and St. John’s, not to mention the possibility of Saint Louis?

      • BruceMcF says:

        Except the BCS is not going away, its just mutating, and the Big Six are becoming the Big Five. And of course the media are still going to put the lion’s share of the attention on the Big FIve, they possess the lion’s share of the national fanbases.

        If a non-Big Five conference finishes in amongst the Big Five in basketball, conference wide, for a few seasons, it’ll be granted recognition as a Basketball Major, since the alternative would be to view one of the Big Five as NOT being a BBall Major, which will upset their fanbases, which the media won’t do. So that’s the target for the New Big East, Mountain West, and the American in BBall, to get recognized as finishing as a conference in amongst the Big Five.

        Obviously the longer the SEC stays in its current down phase in basketball, the better their chances of that.

      • Mack says:

        I think it will be a lot like football. You will have the big 5 and a gang of 4 or 5 mid-majors including MWC, AAC, Big East (C7) and A10. Four of the 5 slots that the Big East got into the Men’s/ Women’s final 4 this year are future ACC members. There are revenue and facility differences between the big 5 and other conferences. There will always be a few exceptions in the mid-majors, but that does not translate across these conferences. Gonzaga has not make the quality of WCC competition much better despite many years of success.

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Yeah, but the Big East (Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, Butler, St. John’s) and the AmeriCon (UConn, Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati) is much more analagous to the Pac-12, SEC, or even the Big 12 in basketball than the MWC or AmeriCon are to the Big Five in football. They’re at a level playing field in basketball. The Big East and AmeriCon are also going to have tons more exposure than Gonzaga’s WCC or the A-10. They may not be on FS1/ESPN as much as the Big Ten or ACC, but they’ll get similar exposure to the other Big Five leagues. Why wouldn’t they?

          Moreover, there is a big difference between the WCC, where the entire league has relied mostly in vain on Gonzaga to lift the quality of play for everyone else, and the new Big East, where there are already plenty of tradition-rich, high-quality programs.

          Another thing: the coaches are not treating the Big East like it’s a mid-major conference. Buzz Williams, Greg McDermott, Brad Stevens, John Thompson III, Jay Wright, Chris Mack… these guys show little sign of leaving. They have a track record of success that stands up well to other Big Five leagues.

          Granted, I can easily imagine the MWC, AmeriCon, and Big East being dismissed as being below the quality of the Big Five, but it would take an awful lot of spin to do that. They’d have to ignore rankings (which, in any given year, likely will include several from each league), coaching, NCAA Tournament appearances & results, and Final Four appearances (UConn, Butler, Memphis all in recent years).

          • BruceMcF says:

            That’s why I’d expect if a conference is in amongst the Five Majors in BBall, on member top-25 rankings, number of NCAA bids, tourney success, and various conference power ratings, the media would be more likely to treat them as “a Basketball Major” than to try to put the dividing line between the BBall Majors and Mid-Majors anywhere that would exclude one of the Big 5.

            But any one year can always be given a backhanded compliment along the lines of being especially strong this year, so it might take a couple of years for it to become entrenched.

          • Mack says:

            There is a reason there was a Big 6 (now 5). The NCAA basketball distribution per school by conference for 2011 (based on 2006-11 units) is given below. Look at the table and it is clear where the majors end and mid-majors begin. After the mid-majors you have the single bid one and done conferences that collect about $200-$250K per school. These numbers are before most of the recent conference changes. If the Big East had kept its members it would clearly be a basketball major. It is less clear if either the AAC or BE will retain this status going forward.

            I agree with Bruce. To the extent the BE (C7+3) have tournament results that give it a payout exceeding the SEC (or whatever Big 5 conference is bringing up the rear) it will be considered a basketball major. The same goes for the AAC after adjusting for its current membership. The AAC will be at least #6 and far above the other conferences for at least the next two years due to retaining the units of the top two schools (Louisville, Syracuse) after they depart for the ACC. Both of these conferences could retain major status If they continue to recruit and win. However, the other conferenes require improvement to get out of mid-major status. With the recent school movement from CUSA, A10, Horizon, and MVC these conferences have taken a step back rather than forward.

            Conference and payout per school for 2011 (covers 2006-11 performance)
            Big 12* $1,893,346
            Big East $1,661,670
            Big Ten $1,537,844
            ACC $1,517,872
            Pac-12 $1,338,124
            SEC $1,298,180
            CUSA $ 579,188
            Horizon $ 505,957
            WCC $ 503,735
            MVC $ 503,294
            MWC $ 503,294
            A10 $ 359,496
            * Divided by 10 in 2011 (still had Mizzou, A&M) No units earned in previous 5 years by NE or CO who had left.

      • Mack says:

        The Big East makes it as a basketball major on both NCAA units and TV contract. Not so much the American or MWC. The 2013 $ per school are adjusted to the the units earned by the current schools (-3 B12, +1 P12, +15 SEC) with the future Big East and American below the P12. The BE is in solidly above the SEC and P12. The ACC will increase with its new members and the BE is likely to move lower, but not below the level of the C7. With the loss of members CUSA and A10 will be trying to hang on to mid-major status.

        $ in 2011* $ in 2013 Conference
        $1,517,872 $1,915,009 Big 12
        $1,677,648 $1,861,815 Big Ten
        $1,661,670 $1,849,539 Big East
        $1,517,872 $1,493,544 ACC
        $1,358,096 $1,245,107 SEC
        $1,605,749 $1,104,813 Pac-12
        $1,701,614 $1,669,495 Big East (10)
        $1,369,509 $1,227,570 Big East (C7)
        $818,852 $859,299 American
        $503,294 $662,888 MWC
        $505,957 $654,704 WCC
        * This was just before the Nebraska move

  22. Arch Stanton says:

    http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2012/05/wichita-state-football-returns-with.html

    Article from last year talking about Wichita State’s club football team. I thought the last sentence was interesting:
    “The group’s eventual goal is to become an NCAA division I program.”

    Good luck with that!

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Arch – Wichita State used to be D-1 in football. In fact for my first LSU game, I witnessed Bill Arnsparger’s Tigers thrash the Wheat Shockers 47-7.

    • frug says:

      Wow. Investigators misleading witnesses and suspects. Shocking! Just imagine if the police find out about this.

      Oh wait, they already know about it; it’s a basic interrogation technique. I don’t get it the big deal.

      • BruceMcF says:

        That’s a fundamental part of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, “well look Duane/Eddie, I know that you are trying to protect Eddie/Duane, but HE says you were the mastermind and he just followed along because he was scared of what you would do to him.”

      • Andy says:

        The NCAA doesn’t have the legal right to do this, and it’s against their own rules.

        Also, it sounds like it didn’t lead to anything anyway. As far as I can tell, the only testimony they got against Haith was from a convicted felon.

        • frug says:

          The NCAA doesn’t have the legal right to do this

          Yes they do

          it’s against their own rules.

          No it’s not

          Also, it sounds like it didn’t lead to anything anyway.

          Agreed.

          • frug says:

            Actually, I’ll amend my reaction to this statement

            it’s against their own rules.

            Despite Miami’s assertions in their letter to the NCAA, the Cadwalader report did not declare that lying to witnesses was impermissible. It said their were no formal rules regarding the practice, but that it could be regarded as “beyond the pale”.

            So, I guess my more accurate response should be “depends who you ask” instead of “no it isn’t”.

          • Andy says:

            I guess we’ll see what the courts decide.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Who from the NCAA has been arrested and is headed to court?

          • Andy says:

            lawsuits.

    • David Brown says:

      Rooting for the NCAA and its Dictator Head is like rooting for North Korea and Mr. Kim

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Uh, not quite. I’m not proclaiming the NCAA or Mark Emmert as innocent of wrongdoing, but come on. North Korea is threatening to kill millions of people with a nuclear blast, while leading an entire country that is one giant cult blind to any truth from the outside world.That’s not the same thing as a few comparably petty college sports scandals.

  23. mouse says:

    I’m curious what happens next to Rutgers. They had a coach committing a crime, and an athletic director or president covering it up. The last time this happened the school got as close to the death penalty as the NCAA can give and keep a straight face. Of course, the last time didn’t involve athletics — just a retired coach who wasn’t involved in recruiting, or dealing with players. And it was low-hanging fruit for the NCAA due to the moral aspects of that earlier matter. This one, with the gay slurs, has some of that but not enough to make the NCAA look like heroes. So what happens?

    • Arch Stanton says:

      You are embarrassing yourself by making a comparison between the Rutgers coach and Sandusky.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        He’s not making a comparison between Rice & Sandusky. He’s making a comparison between how PSU & Rutgers handled the cases.

        • Arch Stanton says:

          That IS making a comparison between Rice and Sandusky.

          It wouldn’t matter how two separate schools handled two separate cases if you aren’t comparing the acts at the center of each case.

        • Carl says:

          Scarlet_Lutefisk said:

          “He’s not making a comparison between Rice & Sandusky. He’s making a comparison between how PSU & Rutgers handled the cases.”

          Welcome back, Scarlet_Lutefisk!

          Since you didn’t answer my question before you left, let’s review the history of your claim about the Big Ten’s “intentions”.

          Here’s the first post of mine to which you replied. I said (to Brian):

          “With respect to MSU, you’re overstating Penn State fan disagreement tremendously. Nothing against MSU, or even playing them (it’s often a good game). It’s the forced rivalry. Notice that PSU hasn’t even played them the last two years; when Nebraska entered the league, MSU was dumped for Nebraska. The evidence is clear. You are misstating it.”

          My post mentions the lack of Penn State fan disagreement, includes the context of Penn State’s current schedule (has any group protested against the lack of MSU?), and contains NO CLAIM — not even a mention! — of the Big Ten or the Big Ten’s intentions.

          Scarlet_Lutefisk, here’s how you entered the discussion (this is the beginning of your first sentence):

          “How in the world is the B1G changing scheduling to accommodate a new member ‘evidence’ of …”

          Look carefully: from the very beginning you claimed that “the B1G chang[ed] scheduling to accommodate a new member”. Then you doubled down: your next post made explicit what was already clear in context: that your words meant that the Big Ten’s actions were NOT EVEN PARTLY intended to accommodate Penn State! :-)

          Scarlet_Lutefisk, up to this point you’ve pretended that I have something to prove about your wild claim. But enough of that silliness! (And no more word games.)

          Scarlet_Lutefisk, do you have proof for YOUR claim?
          ;-)

          • Carl says:

            Carl:

            “Scarlet_Lutefisk, up to this point you’ve pretended that I have something to prove about your wild claim. But enough of that silliness! (And no more word games.)

            “Scarlet_Lutefisk, do you have proof for YOUR claim? ;-)”

            Well, it’s been another week with no answer from Scarlet_Lutefisk. Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

            A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard and smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face, and the egg, frowning and looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and mutters, “Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question!”
            ;-)

        • BruceMcF says:

          mouse is drawing a semantic equivalence between what the schools did in covering up what Rice and Sandusky did, “covering up a crime”, which is valid if and only if the crimes covers up are equally heinous. They are not, so the semantic equivalence is playing word games.

          Redirecting pot stirring skills to controversies other than institutional cover-ups is simple prudence, given the circumstances.

    • bullet says:

      He got suspended for 3 games and fined $75,000. Hardly a coverup.

      • Phil says:

        RU’s lead counsel left his position today and the story is that his advice in December was that the tape was not grounds for firing Rice. Now, that probably means it wasn’t grounds for firing Rice and not paying him.

        The point is, it seems like this decision went way above Pernetti and he is getting crucified because he is the one who had to sell it.

        ESPN seems to be working very hard on getting Pernetti fired. I’m sure it has nothing to do with him being one of the ringleaders of the Big East turning down ESPN’s contract extension 2 years ago.

  24. frug says:

    New Dude post, and it is surprisingly well reasoned

    http://www.sportsmancave.com/why-the-wait/

    Why hasn’t the Big 10 moved? Why hasn’t Jim Delany put his “Delany Doctrine” into place? What’s the holdup?

    Over the weekend I did some investigating into the matter to see what could be causing the delay. The consensus answer surprised me – the Big 10 just doesn’t feel any need to rush.

    The Big 10 isn’t being lackadaisical, the multitude of factors that comprise the motivations and deterrents driving realignment are just not as time sensitive as we think. Nothing has to be settled before 2015 when the NCAA implements the playoff format and playoff shares become important.

    The truth is that only Jim Delany knows the Big 10’s timeline for expansion. All we can do is try and understand the contributing factors affecting the timeline.

    #1 Big 10 plans to expand to 18 – Michigan and Illinois still cool on FSU

    #2 UNC wants time to save the ACC

    #3 Everyone saves (except the ACC) money on the exit fee by waiting

    #4 Realized Revenues

    #5 Big 10 cashes in in 2016

    —-

    Of course being the Dude he couldn’t help posting some rumors at the bottom.

    1. FSU has the votes to join the Big Ten contrary to reporting

    2. Mizzou is the Big Ten’s top choice to take the place of UNC if they pass on FSU after taking UVA and G-Tech and the Tarheels go south

    3. BC would be considered for spot #20 if ND joined the Big Ten.

    • Andy says:

      That’s the third time in two weeks that his story has completely changed. Like dramatically changed. This guy is a clown. And you guys keep giving him the time of day like he’s serious. And with every new fanciful story you say “oh, sounds quite reasonable” and then talk about it like it’s true.

      • ccrider55 says:

        One post about Dude recognizing his time line has been wrong. Some reasonable explanations that anyone who thinks the B1G isn’t done expanding (whether in favor or against) might surmise, too. A soft bit of ridicule for the Dude being the Dude. What in that gets your knickers in a twist?

        • cfn_ms says:

          He’s entertaining, and I think just about everyone here realizes that at the end of the day he will have predicted about 90 of the next 3 realignment moves.

      • frug says:

        This guy is a clown. And you guys keep giving him the time of day like he’s serious

        That’s the whole point. He’s amusing and makes just enough rational points to be entertaining.

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      Great post from an impeccable source. Glad to see it. Let’s discuss it in depth.

      “Why hasn’t the Big 10 moved? Why hasn’t Jim Delany put his “Delany Doctrine” into place? What’s the holdup?

      Over the weekend I did some investigating into the matter to see what could be causing the delay. The consensus answer surprised me – the Big 10 just doesn’t feel any need to rush.”

      Why would they? The UMD lawsuit and the coming new TV deal means later is better for the B10. It also gives the B10 a chance to get RU and UMD integrated into the conference before having more newbies. Playoff money could be an incentive, but that really only applies to FB powers like FSU or maybe ND.

      “The truth is that only Jim Delany knows the Big 10’s timeline for expansion. All we can do is try and understand the contributing factors affecting the timeline.”

      Well said.

      “#1 Big 10 plans to expand to 18 – Michigan and Illinois still cool on FSU”

      You left out the parts about UVA, and likely GT too, being signed, sealed and delivered. The debate seems to be over #17, and he says FSU is the leading choice. The final question is who is #18, with UNC being the obvious choice. But if the B10 wants to add all 4 at once, they need to get #18 on board first.

      “#2 UNC wants time to save the ACC”

      Of course they do. We’ve all said they would be the last to leave the sinking ship of the ACC if they ever leave. There was also this nugget:

      “Everyone I speak to, including those in the SEC, believe that given a choice between both the B1G and the SEC that UNC picks the Big 10.”

      I agree with him that the ACC is unlikely to be able to match the future revenue streams of the B10 and SEC, so this may all be a delaying tactic until the new TV numbers come in to prove to the old guard that UNC can’t afford to stay put.

      “#3 Everyone saves (except the ACC) money on the exit fee by waiting”

      Exactly. Why leave with the UMD lawsuit pending?

      “#4 Realized Revenues”

      Again, the ACC’s treatment of UMD comes to the fore. Since they are withholding all money from UMD, the others would be foolish to leave until the lawsuit is settled.

      “#5 Big 10 cashes in in 2016″

      Heck yes we will. Having hard numbers may be the last piece of evidence needed to get UNC to say yes. There’s no point in splitting the current money more ways.

      “Of course being the Dude he couldn’t help posting some rumors at the bottom.”

      That’s his role in this.

      “1. FSU has the votes to join the Big Ten contrary to reporting”

      It’s possible that the B10 would prefer to swing another vote or two before making the decision. They prefer unanimity to divisive votes.

      “2. Mizzou is the Big Ten’s top choice to take the place of UNC if they pass on FSU after taking UVA and G-Tech and the Tarheels go south”

      An odd choice. UVA and GT make 16. FSU is #17. How does MO fit in? Wouldn’t another eastern school make more sense? Duke? Miami? BC?

      “3. BC would be considered for spot #20 if ND joined the Big Ten.”

      Unavoidable I suppose. It’s similar to the RU decision, but for a lesser school. ND is big in Boston, but BC is the biggest CFB team in the northeast. MI and PSU are pretty big there, too. Boston is another huge market the B10 would love to have.

      • David Brown says:

        Another aspect to this is the O”Bannon case, and how that turns out. But most important, is picking the right schools. You don’t want to waste a spot on say Georgia Tech or Virginia when you can have a shot at North Carolina.

        • Brian says:

          David Brown,

          “Another aspect to this is the O”Bannon case, and how that turns out.”

          I don’t think that’s a major factor, actually, unless the B10 actually chooses to de-emphasize sports.

          “You don’t want to waste a spot on say Georgia Tech or Virginia when you can have a shot at North Carolina.”

          I doubt the B10 sees it as wasting a spot. They see it as gaining half of metro DC, all of VA as well as Atlanta, plus some great academics for the CIC.

          • wmwolverine says:

            B10 wants all of Virginia, NC and Georgia Tech and is willing to go to 18-20 members. There are some B10 presidents/AD’s who don’t want GT unless UNC is added too, which makes it harder to pry UNC loose unless you have GT on-board…

            I’ve shared it here before but I have it on good authority GT has been very active in selling itself to the B10 and not the other way around. GT doesn’t see a future in the SEC and much like Maryland aren’t much at all ‘tied’ to the ACC. They are lacking natural rivals, their biggest is an SEC member…

            B10 at first didn’t seriously consider GT but Delaney has convinced B10 presidents/AD’s GT is a great fit academically, athletically and provides a tremendous market. Atlanta is arguably the best CFB market in the US and GT is that markets home team. That would put Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska games on in Atlanta.

          • vp19 says:

            If possible, you take UVa and GT first, hoping to put the squeeze on UNC down the road.

          • John O says:

            If the B1G does go to 16 with GT and UV (or anyone else for that matter) I hope they (successfully) petition the NCAA and dispense with divisions or pods altogether, matching instead the top two in the standings for the CG. With 16 schools, protecting 3 rivals per school with a 9 game B1G schedule allows for each school to visit on every other at least once every four years.

          • Brian says:

            wmwolverine,

            “There are some B10 presidents/AD’s who don’t want GT unless UNC is added too, which makes it harder to pry UNC loose unless you have GT on-board…”

            I understand the desire for contiguous states, but GT is an academic prize and Atlanta is easy to get to. GT is closer than NE to PU, IN, MI, OSU, PSU, RU and UMD anyway, not to mention any future ACC additions (UVA, UNC, Duke, FSU).

            “I’ve shared it here before but I have it on good authority GT has been very active in selling itself to the B10 and not the other way around. GT doesn’t see a future in the SEC and much like Maryland aren’t much at all ‘tied’ to the ACC. They are lacking natural rivals, their biggest is an SEC member…”

            They should be selling themselves. They have no hope of joining the SEC even if they wanted to, and they’d greatly prefer a B10 with some other former elite academic ACC teams to the B12 even with some ACC neighbors. GT’s rivalries will stay virtually the same – UGA and AU are their top 2.

            “Atlanta is arguably the best CFB market in the US and GT is that markets home team.”

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

            According to Nate Silver, it’s #2 behind NYC with LA a close 3rd. Then it’s bog drop to Dallas at #4. But considering the high percentage of CFB fans in Atlanta compared to NYC and LA, you could argue it’s the best market.

            “That would put Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska games on in Atlanta.”

            That’s better than NYC and DC to me. At least people in Atlanta care about CFB, not that the B10 will ever really own this market.

          • Matt says:

            If the B1G does want Atlanta, and GT is not enough to dominate the market (because of UGA), then FSU becomes more attractive. I think I’ve read that Atlanta has the highest number of FSU alumni outside the state of FL. Sure, UGA would still be the top draw in that area, but GT/FSU would make a very strong foundation for the B1G in one of the best college football markets.

  25. frug says:

    RIP legendary film critic (and Illinois alum) Roger Ebert.

  26. Richard says:

    Can someone try to explain what Pernetti was thinking?

    I personally think he should be fired.

    • Hank says:

      I don’t have any idea what he was thinking, but I don’t think he should be fired. He’s been a good AD and helped get them into the Big Ten, for goodness sakes. He blew this call, but he wasn’t the one abusing players and using homophobic slurs, and I don’t think one bad call should make him lose his job.

      • Richard says:

        He was the one who essentially said abusing players and using homophobic slurs is no big deal as he didn’t fire his subordinate for doing those things.

        Also, Pernetti didn’t get RU in to the B10. UMD joining, the state of NJ having a lot of people, and RU being close to NYC got RU in to the B10.

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          “UMD joining… got RU in to the B10.”

          This point has been underemphasized. Maryland was the harder school to get. No ACC school had left the conference since South Carolina left in the early 70′s (a choice for which the school suffered until the early 90′s when it was invited to the SEC). Maryland took some convincing because the revenue gap was not nearly as large. Additionally, all of Maryland’s long-time rivals, except for WVU and Penn State, were still in the league, although Maryland was scheduled to play those schools much less often. Rutgers, on the other hand, had no attachment to the Big East, especially with Syracuse and Pitt headed out the door. More importantly, the revenue difference was so large that Rutgers was begging to get into the Big Ten for years. For the Big Ten, it was simply a lot easier to get a Big East school to leave its conference than to get a second ACC school, let alone one that wasn’t in Maryland’s financial straits, to leave.

          And, no, I’m not implying that Rutgers got in simply because the Big Ten didn’t have to work as hard to get them as it would have for an ACC school, but the idea of Rutgers as low hanging fruit didn’t hurt, either.

    • BruceMcF says:

      Pernetti didn’t seem to have his head wrapped around what kind of activity can be covered up successfully and what kind of behavior is impossible to cover up indefinitely. Since sweeping things under the carpet is such an important part of an AD’s job, and he’s been caught trying to sweep under the carpet something that couldn’t possible be swept under the carpet, I think he should be sacked for rank incompetence.

      • Phil says:

        You are assuming he made the decision in December and more facts are coming out that imply that is not the case.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Which, that he made the decision, or that it was made in December?

          If it was made higher up, then it may indeed have been a lack in sufficient political skills and/or influence to get the decision he wanted, as opposed to incompetence in judging what decision should have been made.

          If the decision was made further up but it was a decision he went along with happily, it’d still be inadequate judgment in what can and what cannot be successfully swept under the rug with a slap on the wrist.

    • Brian says:

      That a bunch of whiners were making too big of a deal out of things?

      • Richard says:

        I think that being capable of judging what is deemed socially acceptable behavior should be a required skill in those who are hiring people to jobs where being a role model is part of the job description and who will represent their organization to the public.

  27. Richard says:

    I always thought that, if the MWC wanted a Chicago presence, UIC made more sense than either Loyola or Valpo.

    Loyola is roughly half the size of UIC, private, and worse in basketball.

    Valpo is better at bball than Loyola, but a third the size of Loyola (thus a tiny fraction of the size of UIC) and isn’t even in Chicagoland (doesn’t help for getting Chicago recruits or reaching out to alums in Chicago).

    If UIC got even a small fraction of their students and alums to attend, their attendance would become respectable, and joining a conference that regularly lands multiple NCAA bids should get them there.

    • bullet says:

      I really don’t think Valpo or Belmont make sense. Both are small. Belmont is relatively new to Division I. Loyola or UIC make sense. Loyola does have a championship. Not many schools can claim that.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      *Or forced to resign.

    • acaffrey says:

      Not a Rutgers fan by any stretch, quite the opposite, but this seems a bit unfair. The guy gets a middling athletic program into the lucrative and prestigious Big 10 and he loses his job for this? I think he made a huge mistake in glossing over the issues with Rice… but c’mon. I am not sure that the zeal to fire everyone is always the best solution. I think it is a bigger loss for Rutgers than it is a gain. Send the guy to sensitivity training, management courses, whatever. That stuff failed the coach, but the AD could gain from it. But to part ways just seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      If I think of any more cliches, I will reply to myself. :-)

      • greg says:

        “The guy gets a middling athletic program into the lucrative and prestigious Big 10″

        From everything thats been published about the Rutgers/Maryland addition, I feel pretty confident that Pernetti had zero to do with it, and maybe even had zero knowledge before it was announced. He doesn’t deserve any credit for it happening.

        • acaffrey says:

          Who has published anything that suggests that “he had zero to do with it.”? I’d like to see it. If so, then so be it.

          What the guy did do was participate in the Big East’s rejection of the ESPN deal. But that helped lead to the breakup of the Big East. That helped make Rutgers “very available.” If the Big East was still whole, maybe there would have been a battle between Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers as to that last spot. Maybe Rutgers still wins, but who knows?

        • vp19 says:

          Getting Maryland into the Big Ten? That was Loh’s work, not Anderson’s.

      • bullet says:

        Off with their head! Standard response nowadays. You have to remember the AD is a human being dealing with human beings. Sometimes that can lead to a loss of perspective. Sometimes that is a good thing. He really should have fired the guy the first time, but that doesn’t mean he should be fired.

        • ccrider55 says:

          If failure to fire is a firing offense, then everyone above (to the very top) is guilty and should be gone. Sounds like a great way to build cohesion, trust, loyalty, longevity, respect, teamwork within an organization. (Sarcasm)

          Why don’t we just name a group of media members to decide these issues for the schools, since the seem to drive the process now. They certainly have no stake in it (other than a sensational story sells better than a investigation and disciplinary process).

          • Richard says:

            Not everyone; just those who saw the video and made the judgement call that it was no big deal.

            The simple facts are that this incident (and its exposure) cost RU several times more in money and reputation than Mike Rice brought in.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Next phrase: those who knew, or SHOULD have known…

          • ccrider55 says:

            Can you quantify the cost of embarrassment, and let us in on what costs a wrongful termination suit (or suits) will be?

          • Richard says:

            Losing recruits. Losing donors. Possibly even losing applicants.

            A full economic study would have to be done, but it’s almost certainly more than what value Mike Rice provided (since he didn’t seem to provide much).

            Also, again, who’s wrongful termination, and how would it be wrongful?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Pernetti (mutually agreed “resignation” ;) ), and Rice, who went through the universities review and discipline process, and was sanctioned. Now has suffered double jeopardy. And this only comes to light because Pernetti and/or others wouldn’t pay the cost (blackmail) to eliminate the video.

          • Richard says:

            It’s going to be hard for Pernetti to claim wrongful termination considering that he wasn’t actually, you know, terminated.

            As for Rice, I would actually like to see him sue, just for the hilarity. He would be laughed out of court.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yes, it would be amusing, but I’m not sure he loses (in actual court, not the public opinion one). He pays 75K penalty, serves suspension (3 game?), attends behavior modification classes, which the school legal council recommended over termination. Is there evidence of continued problems since that point? Bobby Knight wasn’t fired for his practice problems that everyone remembers. It was breaking the zero tolerance policy when he grabed a kid crossing campus who said ” hey, Knight” and told him: its Mr. or coach Knight. A repeat offense. If Rice has repeated, screw him. If not, what use is there in following any rules? Why bother trying to change? The legal argument isn’t about Rice or his behavior. It is about process, and this case reeks of lynch mob.

          • Richard says:

            Are you a lawyer?

            I’d like to hear from one or several of them, because from my understanding of the legal system, he would get laughed out of court.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Nope. Not a lawyer. I believe you don’t need to be one to see the potential when the school and legal advisors won the argument over whether to fire or not back in December. Details of internal investigation (and knowledge of the video’s existence) were withheld, but it wasn’t kept completely out of sight. His fine and suspension was announced. Are all schools now (public and private) required to open all disciplinary proceedings for inspection?

            I’d hope we still adhere to rules and procedures rather than depend on a public outcry or a media driven story to formulate remedies to problems. Are the talking heads and talk show callers really who we need setting university policy?

          • I very much doubt the attorneys said that Rutgers *couldn’t* fire Rice. What was more likely was that they said that they couldn’t fire Rice without incurring some type of financial penalty or settlement. As a practical matter, a highly compensated white male in an authority position is basically the weakest type of wrongful termination plaintiff that you could find. If Rice attempted a wrongful termination suit, he would have been crushed.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Past tense?

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I agree.

        • Phil says:

          Pernetti is very highly thought of by RU fans and there is an uproar over his firing. No one is saying he is blameless and that some discipline isn’t warranted for his being involved in a bad decision to only suspend Rice.

          However, we already know that:

          -he brought in an outside investigator
          -the president was involved in the decision
          -The school’s counsel (also removed this week)recommended the suspension over firing
          -just leaked today is that at least 3 members of the RU Board were informed and approved of the suspension decision

          Firing him because there is a media frenzy that he somehow covered this up is ridiculous.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Will the media kick in to help cover RU’s costs when they lose the upcoming wrongful termination suit?

          • Richard says:

            Who’s termination and how is the termination wrongful?

          • Richard says:

            “Pernetti is very highly thought of by RU fans and there is an uproar over his firing.”

            Seems to me that RU fans don’t have their priorities straight, then.

          • Phil says:

            You are obviously ignorant of the history of the RU athletic department over the last 30 years and why Pernetti might be viewed favorably in comparison to what some previous ADs have done.

            As far as the uproar goes, it is a reaction to the idea RU rushed to use him as a scapegoat when evidence is mounting that keeping Rice wasn’t Pernetti’s decision (and now in his letter of resignation Pernetti even says he wanted Rice fired immediately and was overruled).

          • Richard says:

            Perhaps I am.

            _Something_ is rotten in Denmark.

          • acaffrey says:

            “Seems to me that RU fans don’t have their priorities straight, then.”

            It’s like the SEC masquerading as an Eastern school within the Big 10? A perfect partner for Penn State? And so on…

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Welcome to America 2.0

          • Transic says:

            I think there’s some fear among RU sports fans that the next AD would be a political pick and not someone who could take athletics forward. At least from my reading at one RU board.

          • BruceMcF says:

            After a politically inspired sacking of the AD? I would be SHOCKED if the next AD was a politically inspired pick! And also if there was gambling at Atlantic City.

    • zeek says:

      I didn’t expect it to get that far but I guess this is the 24/7 twitter/youtube/viral media world that we live in nowadays where mistakes are amplified and the echo chamber reverberates a lot stronger.

      The loss of him is a pretty big loss considering that he played a direct role in their move to the Big Ten, and no doubt it was his vision of Rutgers athletics that the Big Ten saw in its meetings with Rutgers officials.

      It’s going to be hard to recapture that given how close Pernetti was to the school.

  28. zeek says:

    I’ll say this, the loss of Barchi would be a much bigger loss than that of Pernetti.

    Barchi played a fairly large role in the debate over the UMDNJ-Rutgers merger, and I’m not sure how the loss of him would affect that in anything but a negative manner. That’s probably Rutgers’ biggest priority given how large an undertaking a university-medical school merger is…, far larger than athletics.

    • Transic says:

      Well, we’ll see. The governor of NJ has basically said that Barchi can stay at his job. Probably was a necessary move, given the circumstances RU finds itself in.

  29. Tom says:

    Delany needs a do-over with the RU and UMd adds. What a mess.

  30. Andy says:

    LOL at the B1G for taking Rutgers. No NCAA tournament appearances in 20+ years. One of the losingest football programs in NCAA history. Pitiful fan support. And now on top of that a very ugly scandal that should set their athletic department back years. I just don’t see how a school like that is going to do much for the B1G as far as making headway into the NY market. They are a joke.

    I’ve long said that the B1G would regret not moving more aggressively to get Missouri before they went to the SEC. I think the B1G’s mistake is becoming more and more clear. Mizzou may not be a king of a program, but they sure kick Rutgers’s ass. Both are AAU schools from populous states, but it doesn’t do much good to have a high population state if you don’t have any fans or successful sports. Mizzou vs Rutgers: 30 bowls vs 8 bowls, 65k attendance vs 45k, 26 NCAA tournament apperances vs 6 NCAA tournament apperances. Missouri’s also quite a bit better at baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, women’s soccer, and more. I’m not really sure if Rutgers is good at anything. I looked and couldn’t find anything.

    So enjoy Rutgers, guys. You’re stuck with them now.

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      @Andy.

      You really have to stop with posts like this. You are embarrassing your alma mater. Awhile back, I did not have too many thoughts/knowledge of Univ. of Missouri. Now, when Missouri comes to mind, I think of you, Andy, who is, concerning realignment, angry, bitter, aggressive, argumentative and always looking for a fight. If every Mizzu fan is like you are on this Blog, Andy, then the B1G dodged a bullet and woe to the SEC.

      Further, none of this ends well. Every success in the SEC leads to “see, B1G, you should have taken us,” a sentiment that will not endear you to the SEC and its fans. If the B1G changes its mind and offers Missouri, every success in the B1G will lead to “see, B1G, you should have taken us earlier.” Every failure, of course, offers easy fodder for needlers.

      My suggestion is that you move on and just be really really really happy that your school escaped the dumpster fire that is the BXII.

      Finally, you are being intellectually dishonest with posts like this. You know perfectly well that realignment for the B1G is not about being “good” in various sports. It’s about branding and tv markets. If the UofM main campus was a 25 minute train right from Manhattan, UofM would have been invited to join the B1G. But it’s not. With due respect, stop writing things that make us wonder about your IQ.

      • vp19 says:

        Andy, given some of the problems Mizzou’s athletic program has had over the years, criticizing Rutgers is pot calling out to kettle. Just let it be.

        Oh, and as a side note: When Missouri was invited to the SEC, some of that conference’s bloggers criticized it for being in a state where pro sports was viewed as more important (one pointed out that Mizzou items were next to invisible at airport gift shops in St. Louis and Kansas City), and that it didn’t apparently worship college football like other SEC states do.

        • Andy says:

          I just gave you a head to head comparison of the two athletic programs’ accomplishments. Pot? Kettle? Black? Rutgers could greatly exceed their historical output and Missouri could underachieve theirs and Rutgers wouldn’t catch up to Missouri for decades. But keep lying to yourself about it if it makes you feel better.

        • m (Ag) says:

          I’m kinda hoping the rumored move of Mizzou to the Big Ten does happen. Not because I particularly want them to leave the SEC, but because I would enjoy seeing all the comments that would be posted here in the aftermath.

          • frug says:

            To be honest, I doubt it would be all that interesting. Outside of Andy I don’t think anyone on this board has any strong feelings on Missouri either way.

            Really, confusion would likely dominate the discussion since MIzzou wouldn’t really fit with the Big Ten’s East Coast strategy.

      • wmwolverine says:

        Well said, his act is getting really old.

      • Andy says:

        BuckeyBeau, I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you so pissed off. Haha!

        As I clearly demonstrated, Rutgers is a whole ten notches below Missouri all around when it comes to athletics and fan support. No doubt. Missouri would have to fail pretty much nonstop for the next 60 or 70 years to sink to Rutgers’s level.

        And if you don’t like me then tough titties. I certainly know of a few Buckey fans that are just as bad or worse than me, ::cough:: ::cough:: Brian ::cough:: ::cough::.

        And this forum is absolutely filled with utter crap and nonsense on a weekly basis. The stuff I post isn’t anywhere near as dumb as a ton of the stuff I read on here.

        Anyway, what annoys you most about me is the fact that I’m totally right. And you know it.

        • Andy says:

          To justify my 60 or 70 years comment: over the last 50 years, Rutgers has been to 8 bowls (0.16 per year). Missouri has been to 20 (0.40 per year). Rutgers has been to 6 NCAA tournaments (0.12 per year), Missouri has beent to 25 (0.50 per year).

          So if Missouri’s output dropped by 50% and Rutgers climbed by 50% they’d be about even. If Missouri’s dropped by two thirds and Rutgers’s increased by 3 times then they’d gain on Missouri by about 0.10 bowl and tournament per year, so they’d catch up in around 200 years.

          But how likely is that considering Rutgers’s athletics department is even more a dumpster fire than ever, and Missouri has been to 8 bowls in the last 10 years and 4 straight NCAA tournament appearances?

          The facts are totally on my side here, folks. All the personal attacks and insults you throw my way won’t change that one smidgen. It will only prove that I got to you. Ha!

          • ccrider55 says:

            And yet the B1G saw more value in Rutgers.

            “And this forum is absolutely filled with utter crap and nonsense on a weekly basis. The stuff I post isn’t anywhere near as dumb as a ton of the stuff I read on here.”
            When I don’t read your posts this forum is, or has been, one if the most civil, informative, and thoughtful sources of speculation and information I have visited. When I do, it’s like visiting a flame fest. Thanks for single handedly diminishing the experience, and Missouri.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Wow, cherry pick your periods much? Boasting about Missouri’s football prowess versus Rutgers in the first half of your “last 50 years” is like boasting about Missouri’s football prowess versus Harvard in the last 50 years.

            I expect you could make a similar argument over the past quarter century, without making it look like you have to pad the numbers to get a favorable comparison.

          • Andy says:

            Bruce: pre-50 years ago, Missouri went to 10 bowl games. Rutgers went to 0. Nice try though. Try using wikipedia before your next “gotcha” attempt. Putz.

          • Andy says:

            ccrider, don’t know how you missed all the other flaming. I’ve been posting on here for years and have seen tons of it. No idea how you missed it.

          • Andy says:

            Bruce, here is Rutger’s all time bowl history:

            1978 Garden State Bowl
            2005 Insight Bowl
            2006 Texas Bowl
            2008 International Bowl
            2008 PapaJohns.com Bowl
            2009 St. Petersburg Bowl
            2011 New Era Pinstripe Bowl
            2012 Russel Athletc Bowl

            Meanwhile Missouri has been to 30 bowls dating back to the 1940s, including 3 Orange Bowls, 2 Sugar Bowls, 2 Cotton Bowls, a Fiesta Bowl, 3 Gator Bowls, 2 Sun Bowls, 2 Holiday Bowls, etc

            Not. Even. Comparable. At. All.

            But nice try.

          • vp19 says:

            Andy, it’s apples and oranges. For decades, Rutgers was an ersatz Ivy in football, playing the likes of Princeton and Columbia, as well as other Ivy wannabes such as Lafayette and Lehigh. It wasn’t a big-time program, and didn’t really start to grow into one until the late 1970s (when it won at Tennessee in ’79, and gave Alabama a tough game at the Meadowlands in 1980). If you’re going to use bowl games as your sole criteria, then you must relegate Army’s long football history, as well as that of Virginia’s. Neither played in a bowl until the 1980s.

          • Andy says:

            The thing is Rutgers hasn’t been any good *ever*. Look at the bowls they’ve been to since the 80s. All crap bowls. Every single one.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Andy, just looking at your list shows what absurd cherry picking you are engaged in ~ claiming that Missouri in the 1940′s, 1950′s or 1960′s was stronger than Rutgers in those years is a lot like saying that Missouri in the 1940′s, 1950′s or 1960′s was stronger than Denison University (nee College) in those years.

            “Bruce: pre-50 years ago, Missouri went to 10 bowl games. Rutgers went to 0. Nice try though. Try using wikipedia before your next “gotcha” attempt. Putz.”

            Don’t be willfully obtuse. You are answering me pointing out that you are OBVIOUSLY padding the comparison by pushing AS FAR BACK as 50 years, and your answer is that if you pushed EVEN FURTHER back, you could have padded the comparison even more?

            Why am I a “putz” to notice that you are obviously padding the comparison? I didn’t even claim that making a fair comparison would change the result in any fundamental way, because I don’t think it would. I think you probably could have supported your argument WITHOUT padding the numbers.

            However, for a lot of people, when they see somebody claim “since the 40′s” or “the past fifty years”, they are naturally am skeptical that the record in the more recent past is as strong, and think its quite possible that they are reading something from somebody sitting on dry and dusty laurels. Otherwise when comparing to a school that wasn’t even pursuing serious college football success in the 60′s, they would make the comparison over the past twenty five or twenty years, and wouldn’t include the earlier years to pad their resume.

          • Andy says:

            Bruce, I can’t believe you’re even trying to argue with me. Rutgers basically just started going to bowls in 2005, and every single bowl they’ve been to is some rinky dink crap bowl. They suck. Period. Doesn’t matter when they started, they suck. And aren’t they a founding member of the Big East? That means they’ve been playing football since way before 2005. Jesus, man. You don’t even try to make sense sometimes.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Andy, please. Of course they have played FB for a while. In fact, longer than anyone except the team they played, Princeton, in the first ever NCAA FB game (on the same field they still play on?). Would Princeton be a terrible addition, assuming they would accept, or even entertain the idea?

            Obviously Rutgers was chosen over many who would have accepted that had a better W/L record in many areas. Doesn’t that tell you something about what actually was the selection criteria? Joining the B1G is a very different deal than simply joining athletic departments. The PAC and ACC (so far) is similar, but not the same, for various reasons.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Andy, you OBVIOUSLY can believe that I am arguing with you, since you keep ignoring what I am saying and instead pretend that I am arguing with you.

            I simply pointed out that you are so dedicated to absurdly biased evidence that you present an absurdly biased evidence WHETHER OR NOT it is required for your argument, and you first response was to present evidence that was even more absurdly biased.

            Your claim is valid ~ even a school like Missouri, which is, after all, no real big deal in college football, has a much stronger record in college football than the Rutgers program. If Rutger over the past twenty years has been weaker than a school that would not be considered a Prince, let alone a King, then clearly it was chosen for something other than the quality of its football program.

            Its a pointless argument, since nobody credibly argues that Princeton has a program as strong or stronger then even an occasional contender like Missouri, let alone a King or a Prince … but it is such a safe argument that it would be absurd to set out to unnecessarily pad the evidence.

            And yet, you felt the need to do so. It seems as if you can’t bring yourself to presenting a fair argument for a point even when a fair argument would win you the point.

          • Andy says:

            Alright, so Rutgers was an Independent until joining the Big East in 1991. But if you look at their historical schedules, they were playing a lot of the same teams that ended up in the Big East as far back as 40 years ago. So maybe 50 years was too far. I just picked 50 because it was a nice easy number to work with. But the point remains, Rutgers has never, ever been good at football. And they were good at basketball once: 37 years ago. They are not good at sports and they don’t have many fans. So I’m not sure how they’re supposed to deliver New Jersey let alone NYC without any athletic tradition to speak of. Missouri on the other hand has a huge following in a state of 6.1M people. Also both are respectable AAU schools. Rutgers is a bit better academically, but not tremendously so.

            The only reason to take Rutgers is as a long term investment, under the hope that many years from now they’ll build themselves into something substantial and then they’d be able to deliver some of those huge markets that they’re located next to. But that may never happen. If history is any indication, it probably won’t happen. And now they just hit another big stumbling block with this scandal.

        • Bruce in Ohio says:

          So you admit your posts are “dumb”. I would agree.

          • Andy says:

            My posts are dumb. But they’re also true. They’re dumb because they’re pointless flaming. They’re true because they’re factual. Plenty of posts on here are dumb and untrue, so at least I beat those.

          • BruceMcF says:

            Except a post from someone who is misinformed on a point, and learns from the response is by no means worse than pointless flaming. Pointless flaming is worse.

          • Andy says:

            That’s a matter of opinion I assure you.

    • Phil says:

      Well, Andy, another way of looking at it is that Rutgers got more national media publicity from their scandal this week than Missouri ever got for any of their success so maybe there is something to the idea of RU’s proximity to NYC having a lot of value.

      • Andy says:

        That’s only because Missouri has never had a scandal this ridiculous.

        Missouri has never had any probabtions in football. Ever.

        The last scandal in basketball was the Ricky Clemons allegations 10 years ago (that Quin Snyder paid him), and the NCAA was never able to prove those. The best they could prove was that he got some free flip flops and cheese sandwiches.

        But if ghastly, embarrassing scandals are the standard for value then Rutgers wins hands down. Ha!

        • Stephen says:

          How about the fact that your basketball arena was named after a girl who cheated her way through college and you had to, consequently, rename it. LOL

          • Andy says:

            It was never named after Paige Laurie. That was the plan but it ended up not happening. She’s the daughter of one of the Wal-Mart multi-billionaires. Sam and Bud Walton are originally from Columbia, MO. They give many millions of dollars to the University. Other than that she has no connection to Mizzou whatsoever. Didn’t go to school there. Never worked there. Nothing. It’s not like we had a coach beat our players and then the athletic director covered it up.

        • Stephen says:

          And there was SO much more to the Ricky Clemens scandal than you suggest. The guy earned 24 credits during summer school via on-line classes with the help of the Missouri basketball program so that he could become eligible. This is for a guy who was a terrible student. He violated his work-release program by attending a party at the University president’s house and crashing an ATV. I could go on. The whole episode was one huge embarrassment for the University of Missouri.

        • Phil says:

          I agree that RU’s basketball coach should have been fired, but maybe I have just grown completely out of touch. In a world where truly horrible events and atrocities happen, my first reaction is to question the sense of a person who can characterize as “ghastly” a coach throwing basketballs at 18 years old and calling them names.

          • Andy says:

            This is one of the uglier basketball scandals of the past 20+ years. It brought down the coaching staff and the athletic director. It was also very ugly and shocking in nature.

            If you don’t like “ghastly” then how about ugly, shocking, offensive, unpleasant, deplorable, unsightly, repulsive, distressing, disgusting, etc. You pick an adjective. Certainly a lot of sharp words have been said of Rutgers basketball of late in articles and comments sections. It was not a good moment for them.

          • Phil says:

            “ugly, shocking, offensive, unpleasant, deplorable, unsightly, repulsive, distressing, disgusting, etc”????????

            If watching a basketball coach throw the ball at some players evokes such a strong reaction in you, I would imagine watching the nightly news can get you curled up on the floor in the fetal position.

          • Andy says:

            Phil, I’m pretty sure you didn’t pay much attention to this scandal.

            cc, if they hire Howland more power to them. They haven’t been good at basketball in nearly 40 years so he’ll have a challenge on his hands, but he’d be a step in the right direction for them. We’ll see if they pay what’s needed to get him.

    • metatron says:

      But really, tell us more about these sour grapes.

      • Andy says:

        Oh you know I’m right. Rutgers sucks. No doubt.

        • wmwolverine says:

          Rutgers didn’t take athletics seriously till the late 80′s…

          B10 cares more about markets than the success of revenue sports.

          • Andy says:

            If Rutgers took athletics seriously since the mid 80s then why haven’t they been to an NCAA tournament in the last 23 years?

          • wmwolverine says:

            It takes awhile to build an entire athletic department. Alumni support was nil and there was uproar when the athletic department borrowed money from the university…

            If the B10 wanted the better athletic program, it would’ve taken Missouri. They wanted the Jersey/NYC markets, that is all it comes down too.

          • acaffrey says:

            The Rutgers add is mystifying. Should have added Maryland and created a free-for-all for the 14th spot. Maybe take Rutgers anyway, but perhaps break lose someone else. Not like Rutgers was going anywhere. And maybe they could do better in a watered-down American Athletic Conference.

          • BruceMcF says:

            In what way is it mystifying that they added a 14th that they wanted when a 13th presented itself that they really wanted?

            Indeed, if one is engaging in conference expansion with an eye to the twenty and fifty years ahead, then this scandal highlights the risk of waiting ~ trying to take Rutgers now would present a much greater risk of it falling apart. If nobody more desirable was available, the Big Ten might have had to invite a revenue diluting add like Pitt.

          • Andy says:

            Keep telling yourself that, Brucie. Rutgers was a horrible addition. Maybe in 20-30 years they’ll rise up to the level of a Purdue or a Minnesota. We’ll see.

          • BruceMcF says:

            It will take more like 100 years to rise to the level of Minnesota, since first they have to rise to being a feared football program, and then they have to decline from that peak, and then they have to stay in decline long enough for it to be a faded memory.

          • Andy says:

            well then I guess the B1G should have waited a few decades to pick Rutgers. Clearly they’re not ripe yet.

    • Stephen says:

      And yet, Rutgers has more NCAA Final Four appearances in their history than Missouri (1 > 0). LOL

  31. BuckeyeBeau says:

    LOL. Sorry if already posted, but the AAC already exists and won’t be giving up its URL.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22014305/original-aac-big-east-didnt-call-about-american-athletic-conference-name

    Apparently, the newly named conference formerly known as the Big East is going to go by the shortened name “American”

  32. Mezzemup says:

    T-shirt fan here and I read The Dudes link and say UGH. These moves are about money and the B10 channel, right? So why make two weak efforts into big markets that dilute and over extend your product, i.e. Rutgers getting NY market and Georgia Tech gettin ATL market. Seems this blog is come to the consensus you need Notre Dame for NY and Georgia for ATL. Now if B10 gets Virginia, then why couldn’t they just have gotten virginia and maryland to begin with? Maryland is in debt and Virginia is enamored (per internet talk). Why assume that just obtaining Virginia and Maryland was off the table, after the Nebraska expansion, but now magically Virginia is on table! These latest and potential future moves just seem weak especiailly if you already have the pull of B10 network and loaded with CIC universities and have a huge contract in 2016. I get the feeling that Delaney and presidents could be more aggressive. If you make the decision to expand and all the positive and negatives that come with it, then why half-ass it? If you haven’t guessed I don’t like the idea of Georgia Tech and Rutgers in B10…I can stand maryland and viriginia.

    • BruceMcF says:

      Though if it was not magic that has put Virginia on the table, but rather the instability caused by the fact of Maryland deciding to leave, and Virginia will wait until the Maryland exit fee is decided before making any final decisions, then the “Maryland / Virginia” move would not have been on the table.

      • Mezzemup says:

        In the ACC pecking order I view Virginia higher than Maryland. A lower level univ leaving shouldn’t rattle an upper level college into leaving a strong conference, not with tobacco and florida schools intact. I don’t think the addition of Maryland with Rutgers is what sold Virginia into PROBABLy joining the B10. If Virginia joins I think it will be more of a ‘we should have got you the firt time’ and left Rutgers and Georgia Tech alone mentality among the B10 higher-ups. Also those additions will signify they didn’t act aggressive enough to get the two properties they really wanted.

        • BruceMcF says:

          “A lower level univ leaving shouldn’t rattle an upper level college into leaving a strong conference”

          Except its not like a light switch, all on or all off. Maryland leaving changes the assumptions of lots of people, and changing people’s assumptions about what kind of moves are possible affects what kinds of moves are possible.

          It would be one thing to argue whether the destabilizing effect is sufficient on its own to flip UVA from 0% chance of moving to 100% chance of moving, but that’s not the argument. Its much more plausible to argue that the destabilizing effects of having a founding member raided by a higher status conference factor in, and if Maryland wins a reduction in the exit fee, that factors in as well.

        • SpaceTetra says:

          I suspect that the leadership at Virginia has decided it would be good to join the B1G. However, the leadership needs to build a consensus. Having MD move to the B1G and not having all of the detractors screaming about a 50 million dollar exit fee are two things that are helping the leadership build the consensus with the fans, administrators, coaches, and alumni necessary to make the move.

    • wmwolverine says:

      Delaney wants the BTN on all those cable & satellite TV’s all the way from NYC, through Jersey, to Philly, through Maryland, to DC, through Virginia and in Atlanta…

      Virginia & Maryland get you Maryland, Virginia & DC… Adding Rutgers & GT too nets you Jersey, Atlanta and at least a foot in NYC. Delaney’s ‘demographics’ issue is solved and he still has room for university #18; 1 of NC, ND or FSU.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        They’re going to twenty and it’s going to be all three.

        • BruceMcF says:

          If it takes Notre Dame to get to 20, then the Big Ten is not going to 20 anytime soon.

          • GreatLakeState says:

            To be honest, I couldn’t care less if ND is number 20. If we get to 19 with the teams being discussed, 20 is going to be icing on the cake. I just happen to believe it will be them. Sure, they could join the Catholic league, or even the Big 12 with an ACC-like deal, but both those options are long term losers. Independence issues aside, the B1G would be their dream conference at that point. I suppose a more likely scenario is that the Big Ten stops at 18 for a few years until ND joins, but I don’t think the Big Ten’s interest in ND is nearly as obsessive as many believe.

            MgoBlue!

  33. Mezzemup says:

    Although I think the population issue was a ‘red herring’ to get everybody onboard for expansion, Delany could still get all those areas without adding fluff univs. At somepoint you can over dilute your empire and compound that with over extention of your influence (conflicting cultures and loyalties)…especially when the product (football) is not top notch. B10 football is 3rd or 4th right now behind SEC,B12,and PAC12. If the game Delany is playing is to create a good sports channel under the facade of old univ education priorities then he’s gotta start adding football powers to keep the channel affloat. The addition of fluff univs and alienating your fan base ,in these short 4 years, could undo what took decades to create. They have to realize this is a bubble and they are in a strong position and shouldn’t accept anything less than the best.

    • Richard says:

      Depends on what your priorities are. To the B10 presidents (unlike presidents of certain other institutions of higher learning), academics/research overshadows athletics because (again, unlike certain other schools) the revenue from football & other sports is a small fraction of the money from research. Demographics is _not_ a red herring. These are massive research institutions and they need to go where the people, money, and corporations are increasingly located. I really believe that the B10 presidents (again, unlike presidents of certain other schools) see athletics as a branding/alumni relations vehicle; as means to an end rather than the end-all-be-all.

      Also, keep in mind that the O’Bannon case could make spending a ton of money on athletics really unworthwhile, which would tip the emphasis of the B10 schools even more towards academics & research from athletics (BTW, if “O’Bannon” gets players a significant cut of TV revenues, what you will see is a ton of non-revenue sports being dropped; particularly non-revenue men’s sports). That’s why, while as a fan, I really want to see FSU in the B10, the B10 will likely wait to see what the verdict in the O’Bannon case will be. If the status quo holds, adding FSU makes sense. If the revenue from sports is really curtailed, the B10 may pass (and wait for UF & UGa, if they ever come)

      • Eric says:

        The thing is though is that this is a sports driven expansion. If it was academics primarily, it would likely have occured earlier and could be done with the CIC and not the Big Ten.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        The ‘likeness’ suit would likely have gone their way, the class action suit is probably a bridge too far. I do think, however, that any major expansion will be on hold until that ruling comes down (some time next year). I don’t think it should win on the merits but when you consider the Judge/Court involved, anything is possible.

      • Florida, and especially Georgia, will never join the BIG 10. Both Universities have an identity that is so wrapped up in the SEC that it would be impossible for them to leave due to legislative and alumni action unless the SEC was essentially destroyed. If they did leave, it would be to either go independent or found a new, Southern conference with themselves as pillars. I would put the odds of Florida joining the B1G in the next 50 years at less than 0.5% and of Georgia doing the same at less than 0.01%.

      • rich2 says:

        “Demographics is _not_ a red herring. These are massive research institutions and they need to go where the people, money, and corporations are increasingly located. I really believe that the B10 presidents (again, unlike presidents of certain other schools) see athletics as a branding/alumni relations vehicle; as means to an end rather than the end-all-be-all.”

        As we project the competitive landscape a decade from now, why would anyone believe that geographic location (or more formally, geographic propinquity) will be a key factor in determining awareness and communication with people or companies or to attract money? Geography matters if you are not elite. If you are elite, people, money and companies will find you, no matter where you are located.

        In addition, of the 14 members, which universities do you believe attempt to leverage “Big 10 membership” as a key reputation asset? I would hope, none. E.g., “Enroll with us, with have good programs, but more importantly, we are members of the Big 10″? Who would be attracted by this claim?

        Again, if football is all that matters to the Big 10, then adding MD, RU, GT and Virginia is a bust — it will not close the actual and perceived gap between the SEC and the BIg 10 at all — and today, the Big 10 could not even go head to head against the PAC-12 — although I am sure that the BTN would proudly carry WSU vs. Rutgers on a Wednesday night (actually 4:45 pm pst kick-off) ”

        I agree with one point you make, the best bet is that there will be no increased return of “profits” from the athletics program to the academic side of the ledger due to this expansion: additional revenues generated will be spent on additional athletic expenditures (both current items — salaries, facilities, and recruiting and newer or rapidly escalating items — athlete salaries, health insurance premiums and liability).

        • Brian says:

          rich2,

          “In addition, of the 14 members, which universities do you believe attempt to leverage “Big 10 membership” as a key reputation asset? I would hope, none. E.g., “Enroll with us, with have good programs, but more importantly, we are members of the Big 10″? Who would be attracted by this claim? ”

          Actually, I’ve heard that used with grad students and it works quite well, but it was about CIC membership not B10 membership. Being able to go to your school of choice while also using a premier facility at another school for a while can be the best of both worlds, for example.

    • vp19 says:

      The University of Maryland a “fluff” university? It’s won more ACC titles in all sports than Virginia has (though Virginia has a heckuva athletic program, particularly in recent years), including more in football and men’s basketball. Moreover, Maryland is one of the few schools to win national titles in football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball. It’s also been an AAU member since 1969.

      I can understand some skepticism over Rutgers, as it’s relatively new to big-time athletics, but Maryland has legitimately been in top-tier collegiate competition since the late 1940s. College Park has made some administrative mistakes in sports in recent years, but once those are resolved, it’s certainly Big Ten-worthy (as Rutgers will also be in time).

      • Nemo says:

        If memory serves me correctly, only FIVE Universities have the won the NCAA in both football and basketball. Michigan and OSU are two and Maryland is definitely another. Not sure about MSU, but I can see them being another for the B1G. Terps Women’s basketball makes it three Natties for the Terps. I do realize that the NCAA championship in football was a long time ago, but with entry of Wilson Elkins from Texas as President and the exit of Jim Tatum, the Terps run in football has then been mediocre at best. And with guys like Bear Bryant as coaches back in the day, we had a nice thing going. By the way GO BLUE–beat Louisville!

      • frug says:

        I think he was talking about FB only when he mentioned “fluff”.

  34. Michael in Raleigh says:

    In the four, almost five, whole days since the announcement of the “American Athletic Conference,” I would say it’s a successful choice. Considering that there was going to be pushback from some people regardless of what name was chosen, the objections seem to be fairly minimal, at least so far. Some people will insist it should have stayed Big East based on the idea that the Catholic 7 left the Big East, not the other way around; therefore, this conference should still be the “Big East.” Some people will argue that it should have been “Metro Conference,” which I personally favored. Many were just salivating over the opportunity to make fun of the new name no matter what it was going to be called simply because they enjoy the act of ridicule.

    I still would have preferred the “Metro Conference,” but American Athletic works just fine. When you think about it, what’s wrong with the name, anyway? As long as they don’t go overboard with the patriotic theme, which has been a smart move by the Mid-American Conference, for example, I think they’ll avoid a Legends/Leaders-type of corniness (for lack of a better term) for their brand. So far, the lack of an uproar is a good thing.

    Getting the logo to be attractive without being corny will be key. I think they ought to hire the same people who came up with Pac-12′s logo a few years ago. Even the Big Ten’s new logo, which, remember, was very unpopular at first, has caught on pretty well. We see “B1G” typed all the time–which is a sign of success.

    • BruceMcF says:

      The biggest knock against the name is that it is too vanilla. Which isn’t that much of a knock ~ how vanilla was the Big Ten’s original name? For a group of football programs constantly knocked as the “Big Least”, maybe a vanilla name that doesn’t make any claims to grandeur is for the best.

      • Brian says:

        BruceMcF,

        “how vanilla was the Big Ten’s original name?”

        Which one, Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives (official name) or Western Conference (common name)? In 1896, I think either was a decent name. In 1899 it was the Big Nine with 9 schools, then in 1917 the B10 with 10, then Big Nine again after Chicago dropped sports in 1946, then back to Big Ten in 1949. Only in 1987 did Big Ten become the official name rather than ICFR.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives, Western Conference was itself fairly vanilla, given the balance of population at the time.

          It was a conference that had the “Big” applied to it by others, rather than applying it to itself. Calling yourself Big and then making it stick (in Basketball at least), like the Old Big East, that’s brash. Calling yourself “Big” when nobody else would, as with the Big West, is a bit silly.

          Calling yourself “Big” when you used to be a bigger deal than you have become, as “Big American” or “Big Metro American” (aka Big Mac) would have been, smacks of desperation.

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      I think declaring it will be the “American” for short was a mistake.

      1. You don’t get to tell people what to call your conference.
      2. Many will call it the Ack to rhyme with the WAC, MAC, MEAC, etc regardless.
      3. Some will now call it the Ack just out of spite.

      “When you think about it, what’s wrong with the name, anyway?”

      1. Another conference is the AAC already.
      2. It implies everything else is un-American.
      3. Some groups of vets/patriots/etc get very upset with people appropriating “American” for commercial purposes.
      4. It’s bland enough to make Wonder bread seem exciting.
      5. Being called the Ack is not good PR.

      To put it another way, one could ask the same question about the B10 division names.

      “As long as they don’t go overboard with the patriotic theme, which has been a smart move by the Mid-American Conference, for example, I think they’ll avoid a Legends/Leaders-type of corniness (for lack of a better term) for their brand. So far, the lack of an uproar is a good thing.”

      Many people are paying zero attention to it right now. Wait for football season before judging.

      “Getting the logo to be attractive without being corny will be key.”

      Most conference logos suck. It makes no difference.

      “Even the Big Ten’s new logo, which, remember, was very unpopular at first, has caught on pretty well.”

      Has it? Or do millions of people just not care and many of the rest mock it?

      “We see “B1G” typed all the time–which is a sign of success.”

      It is? Many people do it to mock the Big Ten for having more than 10 teams. Others do it to mock the logo. Some do it because it is the logo. B10 fans being aware of the logo doesn’t mean they like it. They know the division names and even use them quite often. That does NOT indicate success for those names.

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        “Some groups of vets/patriots/etc get very upset with people appropriating “American” for commercial purposes.”

        FWIW, the presence of the Naval Academy may help legitimize the league as the “American Athletic” for at least a portion of that group. Adding West Point and the Air Force Academy would help, too.

        As for the Big Ten’s logo, I don’t sense much pushback against it anymore. “Legends” and “Leaders,” on the other hand, still gets mocked. But that’s just my perception.

        • Brian says:

          Lack of pushback doesn’t mean people like it, just that the battle isn’t important enough to fight if they don’t like it. We all know they wouldn’t change it even if all the fans hated it, so how much energy should people invest in pushback?

    • Eric says:

      Small point on the Big Ten logo. The originally introduced logo was completely light blue and read out “B1G Ten” It was almost universally criticized. The “B1G” logo with the B being a different color was realized shortly afterward as a side logo (although I think the designers themselves wanted it to be the main one). That one didn’t get nearly as much criticism and the conference quietly dropped the full one.

  35. GreatLakeState says:

    Another reason to be proud to have Nebraska in the Big Ten.
    It’s only a minute long and you won’t regret it. Here’s the back story.

    Jack Hoffman is a 7-year-old brain cancer patient, but that didn’t stop him from scoring a touchdown in Nebraska’s spring game Saturday afternoon. Jack, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 and is currently on a break from his chemotherapy treatment, came into the game for a fourth-and-1 on the 31 yard line. With the help of some blockers, Jack ran the ball all the way into the end zone in front of more than 60,000 fans.

    • Brian says:

      Are they sure that kid didn’t play for WI they way he ran past the D?

      • Mike says:

        @Brian – after the initial moment had passed, I thought the same thing.

        • Brian says:

          Yeah, I don’t mean to belittle the moment. It was just a bit of deja vu with the untouched outside run for a long TD. The kid ran pretty well once he got started, at least. Maybe it’s genetic in NE to be a Husker tailback?

    • SpaceTetra says:

      I am really surprised that the B1G doesn’t move to the East/West divisions model for the other sports in order to reduce travel expenses.

      • Gailikk says:

        Interesting article. It means that Nebraska is spending between 1-2 million a year to play in the Big 10, kinda bites into the theory that schools will jump for money unless it is a large amount. (I;m looking at you WV nuts who keep waiting for the ACC to fall apart). I mean 2 mil can hurt you if your only making like 3-5 mil more. I wonder what Maryland will be spending now that they have to travel by plane to Indiana, Ohio, Penn?, and Michigan.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Going from 4.7M in average travel expenses the last two years in the B12 to 5.3M for first year in B1G. Doesn’t seem an amount to be concerned about (and isn’t adjusted for increase in cost for travel in general). Certainly not enough to go about splitting the conference in sports that don’t require it.

      • Brian says:

        SpaceTetra,

        “I am really surprised that the B1G doesn’t move to the East/West divisions model for the other sports in order to reduce travel expenses.”

        Most sports play too many games to do that. If the B10 expands more, I think you’ll see more home and homes with local teams and single games against those far away. Why should the schools in the middle be forced to play one set of neighbors much more than the other? Why risk a lack of balance or a need for a convoluted championship?

  36. I think something that is really hurting the B1G Ten’s chances of landing Notre Dame is the speed with which the conference is expanding, or at least the speed which it is making it look like it plans to expand. The truth is, every single conference would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat, so there is absolutely no need for them to decide anything for the foreseeable future. Notre Dame knows that if the B1G goes to 16, 18, or even 20, (whatever is eventually decided) and has no possible room for Notre Dame, than Notre Dame can join the ACC (or whatever remains of it, which I think will be pretty much the entire conference), the Big 12, the SEC, the Pac -12, or even the American Athletic or Mountain West,(if the school held out on independence for too long) all of which would welcome the school, and honestly be a better match for the school than the B1G.

    If Notre Dame wants to recruit the best athletes nationally, the Big Ten is not the ideal conference. The ACC (assuming no more defections, which until they actually occur I am choosing to do so), SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, and even Mountain West and American Athletic (and for that matter C-USA and the Sunbelt too) are locating in far, far more fertile recruiting grounds for all sports than the B1G.

    For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs .

    Most importantly, there is a huge problem with Notre Dame and some of the research that members of the CIC involve themselves in. Notre Dame is fundamentally a Catholic University, and would not want to associate itself with stem cell research, (and many other types of related medical research) in any way. I know that the CIC would not force Notre Dame to conduct research that the school found morally reprehensible, but there would still be an undesirable connection for much of the schools administration, alumni, and donors. I think that a similar problem would come with joining the Pac-12, (which is one of a million reasons that BYU will never join that league). The ACC and Big 12 already have religious schools in them, as would the Mountain West when BYU is inevitably forced to rejoin, and the SEC is made up of of much more conservative public schools than the other major conferences, I’m not saying that this would be a complete dealbreaker for Notre Dame, but it would factor into their decision making process.

    And I am not suggesting that Notre Dame will ever joining any of these other conferences, but I am saying that there is no possible threat the B1G could ever use to coerce them into giving up their independence. Notre Dame knows that if the B1G ever says, “This is our last spot ever. You have to join now or never.” Notre Dame can simply say, “That’s fine. We’ll keep doing this independence thing for as long as it is possible for us to do so, maybe forever. It looks like the SEC/Big12/ACC/Pac 12/Mountain West/AAC still have some spots open, and will for some time. If the situation changes, we’ll have plenty of other partners. Thanks but no thanks.” And yes, I do believe would risk being relegated to the Mountain West or American Athletic if it meant maintaining their independence.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Michigan would vote no, that’s all I care about.

    • frug says:

      The truth is, every single conference would take Notre Dame in a heartbeat

      No they wouldn’t. The PAC is a million times more hardline on its no religious schools policy than the Big Ten is on its CIC requirement and the SEC would also (probably) pass, since ND would hurt the conference’s Southern identity (which it takes very seriously).

      Notre Dame knows that if the B1G goes to 16, 18, or even 20, (whatever is eventually decided) and has no possible room for Notre Dame, than Notre Dame can join the ACC (or whatever remains of it, which I think will be pretty much the entire conference), the Big 12, the SEC, the Pac -12, or even the American Athletic or Mountain West,(if the school held out on independence for too long) all of which would welcome the school, and honestly be a better match for the school than the B1G.

      ND will never put their non-FB sports in a mid-major which means the AAC and MWC are also out.

      For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs .

      The Big Ten is still more prestigious than the ACC even if FSU, Miami and Clemson are all good at the same time.

      Most importantly, there is a huge problem with Notre Dame and some of the research that members of the CIC involve themselves in. Notre Dame is fundamentally a Catholic University, and would not want to associate itself with stem cell research, (and many other types of related medical research) in any way. I know that the CIC would not force Notre Dame to conduct research that the school found morally reprehensible, but there would still be an undesirable connection for much of the schools administration, alumni, and donors.

      ND wouldn’t have to join the CIC if they joined the Big Ten.

      ——

      I guess what I am really saying is that if ND had to join a conference as a full member their only realistic options are the Big Ten or ACC (yes I’m aware that the Big XII is a power conference that would take them as a full member, but ND isn’t going to join a conference that requires them to play in Lubbock, Waco, Ames and Manhattan, KS.)

      • If you think that neither the Pac 12 nor the SEC would accept Notre Dame if they came calling, that’s your call. I think you’re absolutely wrong, but I understand.

        The SEC already took Mizzouri and very happily, I don’t think that they have a Southern identity thing. And in any case, have you ever been to the southern half of Indiana, it’s pretty Southern. (And yes, I know Notre Dame is not in the southern half of Indiana.

        As for the Pac-12, much of the no religious school stance comes from the California schools, especially Stanford. Both USC and Stanford play Notre Dame every year anyway, so I don’t think the objections would be as severe. Plus, as early as the 1940′s there was a movement to get Notre Dame into the Pac 12, or what would have been called the “Airplane Conference.”

        • frug says:

          The SEC already took Mizzouri and very happily, I don’t think that they have a Southern identity thing. And in any case, have you ever been to the southern half of Indiana, it’s pretty Southern. (And yes, I know Notre Dame is not in the southern half of Indiana.

          The thing is, the SEC bent over backwards to try and convince everyone that Missouri was a Southern state when they added Mizzou. It was a slave state and set up dueling government during the Civil War, so the considered it Southern enough I think.

          As for the Pac-12, much of the no religious school stance comes from the California schools, especially Stanford. Both USC and Stanford play Notre Dame every year anyway, so I don’t think the objections would be as severe.

          Their is a difference between playing schools and adding them to the conference. After all, PAC schools play BYU regularly and they have made clear they won’t be adding the Cougars in our lifetime.

          (And of course I haven’t even mentioned the logistical nightmare of attempting to schedule ND’s non-FB sports. Honestly, I’m not even sure it would be feasible to send 20+ back and fourth across the country).

          That said, we will never really know because ND won’t be joining either any time soon.

          • Andy says:

            Missouri had a star on the confederate flag. That’s good enough for most SEC-ers. I don’t know if the SEC would take Notre Dame or not. I think it’s such a ridiculous concept that it’s not really worth asking, but if for some reason it actually was a decision that had to be made I think it would be debated and could go either way.

    • Mezzemup says:

      Pipe dream alert! I bet if Miami and Florida state joined to make 15 and 16, the chances of landing notre dame becomes a better possibility, but still far-fetched. I mentioned that even though I don’t want notre dame in the B10. Ironically, it seems that both those schools are available (internet talk) but moral standings and CIC membership is blocking such a chance. If you sit back its kind of comical b/c the best possible athletic expansions aren’t being considered b/c of CIC requirements when a major part of the end game is channel content. The game changer has been the network b/c the CIC’s membership and prestige has always been there. I view as if the CIC membership factor is the starting point of why the B10 is uppity and the B10 Network put the B10 over the top…a shiny new toy nobody else has that bring in bookoo bucks to athletic depts. I just wonder how much 3 universities, that happen to be football powers (Nebraska, Florida st, and Miami), could hurt other B10 members in getting research money. The overall advertising of Miami and Florida St in combination with current B10 blue bloods would be invaluable.

      • vp19 says:

        It’s AAU membership you’re referring to that’s Big Ten membership, not CIC (which goes hand-in-hand with joining the Big Ten). You earlier described yourself as a “T-shirt” fan, and I suppose such comments are proof.

    • Brian says:

      Jeffrey Juergens,

      “I think something that is really hurting the B1G Ten’s chances of landing Notre Dame is the speed with which the conference is expanding, or at least the speed which it is making it look like it plans to expand.”

      I don’t. ND has zero interest in joining the B10 right now. No other factor matters.

      “For football prestige (which is what Notre Dame most cares about), the B1G is well behind the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12, and probably an ACC with strong FSU, Miami, and Clemson programs.”

      Care to back that up with some facts?

      SEC – sure
      B12 – for now, OK
      P12 – based on what? Sagarin had the conferences basically tied in 2011 and 2012.
      ACC – When was the last time those three teams were all strong? How does that top a B10 with strong OSU, MI, NE, WI, etc programs? What about the ACC having 3 whole BCS wins versus 12 for the B10?

      • gfunk says:

        @ Juergens,

        You are full of garbage. The BIG footprint is certainly the best or near best when it comes to basketball talent, esp now that Jersey, Md and DC fall into the boundaries. As for retention, different story – but such can change. Try researching hs basketball recruiting history – where the kids come from: Chicago Land – really Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Milwaukee, Philly, Ohio and now up and coming Minneapolis-Saint Paul hold their own in hs basketball.

        As for football, the BIG certainly holds its own with the Pac12 and Big12 – talent wise due to largely populated states. Tx saves the Big 12, but the state has to serve so many programs not just the Big12, the SEC, now that aTm is a member, creates crowded recruiting battles. Same goes for the Pac12 – Cali can only feed so much of the Pac12. Moreover, hs football in Ca is dropping in popularity & has been for nearly a decade.

        The ACC must share there most talent rich football states with the SEC: Fl, Ga, SC. SC actually has better per capita hs football than NC – which is more of a hot spot for hs basketball. Va is the one state with no SEC competition. But the talent in that state often leaves. Clemson is not on par with SC at this point. FSU and Miami have been behind Fl in the BCS era. GTech is not as good as Ga, period. Can this all change for the ACC? Perhaps, but the SEC has a huge jump on everyone in the BCS era – “huge”.

        As for all sports, the BIG is comfortably second to only the Pac12 in NCAA team championships.

        In the end, much of this expansion talk could sour. I see a bubble coming, moreover, increasingly less interest in college sports could become the norm. If the SEC continues to dominate football, people will turn off. If the NBA doesn’t come up with a better draft rule for hs-college kids – college basketball parity may be good come March-Apr, but it won’t sell tickets during the regular season.

        These pending cable tv court cases are interesting. I get that people will always want to watch live sports, but if the BIG can’t deliver in football & basketball, packaging will be a tougher sell if the a la carte options become reality. The digital BIG network was a wise decision, but will it earn enough money? This O’Bannon case gives me the creeps as well.

      • Looking at the facts, I admit that my prestige statement may have been overstated.

        Just looking at AP and BCS/Coaches’ Poll National titles, since I think that’s the best way to determine overall football prestige. I’m also going to count USC’s vacated title, since they won it and everyone knows it. There are some split national titles, and I counted both, including 1997 when 2 current Big 10 teams split the title. Bowl games are not very useful because of conference tie-ins and other selection factors (see Illinois getting into the 2008 Rose Bowl over Georgia, sorry Frank.) I’ll go as far back as 1980, so the last three full decades. I will count schools based on their current conference, not the confererence they were in when they won games.

        SEC Members – 11 National Titles from 6 Schools
        B 12 Members – 3 National Titles from 2 Schools
        ACC Members – 9 National Titles from 4 Schools
        P 12 Members – 4 National Titles from 3 Schools
        Big 10 Members – 7 National Titles from 4 Schools
        Other Conferences and Independents – 2 National Titles from 2 Schools

        If you prefer BCS bowl wins, we can look at it that way. I’m still counting vacated wins.

        SEC Members – 17 Wins from 6 Schools
        B12 Members – 12 Wins from 6 Schools
        ACC Members – 8 Wins from 4 Schools
        P 12 Members – 15 Wins from 5 Schools
        Big 10 Members – 13 wins from 6 Schools
        Other Conferences and Independents – 2 Wins from 1 School

        As someone who is very willing to admit when I am wrong, I concede the prestige element. However, the Big 10 clearly does not have more prestige than the other conferences with regard to Football. So my point still works. Notre Dame would not be placing itself with less prestigious partners football wise by joining a league other than the Big 10.

        Also note that if the Big 10 were to add Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech, the Big Ten would absolutely crush the ACC in these rankings, and every other conference, including the SEC.

        Also interesting to me was that Boise State is the only school not in one of the major five conferences to WIN a BCS bowl game.

        • Brian says:

          Jeffrey Juergens,

          “Looking at the facts, I admit that my prestige statement may have been overstated.”

          [the facts]

          “As someone who is very willing to admit when I am wrong, I concede the prestige element.”

          I know tone of voice is lost on the internet, so let me stress that I mean this: I appreciate that. It’s easy on the internet, and in life in general, to not acknowledge when the facts are against you. It’s even easier when you’re the one researching the facts. It’s always nice to see someone willing to post research that shows they were wrong and then adjust their opinion. Kudos.

          “However, the Big 10 clearly does not have more prestige than the other conferences with regard to Football.”

          That is a very different statement, and one I wouldn’t instantly object to. Maybe the ACC, but it all depends how one measures prestige. You provided 2 sets of facts that back you up. My quibble would be the time period. Haven’t some of those ACC titles lost some luster over the years?

          • Changing the date does change things. The shorter the time frame the lower the numbers are for the ACC and Big 10. The longer the time frame, the worse the numbers look for the PAC. I didn’t want to go too short or too long.

        • Blapples says:

          @JeffreyJurgens

          Your stats and your point are still wrong. My Ohio State Buckeyes who are mocked endlessly for their “awful” 6-3 BCS record, have a better resume than the ACC by themselves.

          Where in the hell are you pulling 8 BCS wins from the ACC from? They are 3-12 in BCS games. They’re actually even worse if you add the fact that Notre Dame (0-4 in BCS games) is a partial member.

          Those 3 wins are FSU over VaTech (Big East at the time) in 2000, VaTech over Cincinnati (Big East) in 2010, and FSU over Northern Illinois (LOL MACtion) in 2013. Seven of those 12 losses are to “at-large” teams (a league’s #2 BCS bid) or Big East champions (aka the worst BCS league). Notre Dame’s 4 losses are to three “at-large” teams (Ohio State, LSU, Oregon State) and the drubbing they took against Alabama.

          The ACC isn’t even close to catching the B1G, let alone passing them. Notre Dame did hitch their wagon to a weaker football conference.

          ND picked the ACC because ACC teams not named North Carolina will kiss their ring. They picked the ACC because they are small, private, and religious. The B1G is large, public, and secular. The ACC places a higher premium on undergraduate programs. The B1G places a higher premium on research. Outside of their geography and a long-time rivalry with Sparty and Purdue, there isn’t a single thing about ND that says “B1G” to me. They actually are a much better fit in the ACC when you look at their university profile and not where they are located.

          ND does not want to join the B1G, and I can safely say that I don’t want them in the conference under any situation that gives them any type of scheduling or media rights concessions not given to other universities.

        • Blapples says:

          @Jeffrey

          Alright, so after thinking about it. I figured out you had to be counting the BCS wins of Miami (3) and Louisville (2) as Big East members in your totals. And to your credit, you did add that in your post and I skimmed by it.

          That being said. One of Miami’s wins was over FSU, and one of Louisville’s was over Wake Forest. You know, I could stop here and point out that Wake Forest won the ACC as recently as 2007 as evidence that the B1G > ACC. But I won’t.

          That being said. Of your 8 ACC BCS wins, 3 of them are over current ACC teams. One of them is over a MAC school. One more is over a school that was barely a full recruiting cycle removed from being C-USA in Cincinnati. So you’ve proved you can beat a.) yourselves and b.) non-BCS schools.

          You do kind of own Florida though (2-0), so bully for that. And split with the B1G. Miami beat Nebraska in the Rose and lost to the Buckeyes in Tempe!

  37. zeek says:

    Rutgers was always a lock to be added to the Big Ten in a move to 14 or 16.

    Even if the Big Ten had gotten ND and Texas to 14, it would have made sense to grab Rutgers/Maryland to go to 16.

    Why? Because you need a physical presence in NYC (and D.C.). You can’t just go to cable providers in northern New Jersey and say “we have Notre Dame now, put us on every TV set in the northern half of the state”. They would laugh at you.

    There’s no way that would work. Rutgers has the strongest claim of any school on northern New Jersey (which accounts for 20-25% of the NYC TV market) as the local public school.

    It is the only proven ratings draw on that section of the NYC TV market as its ratings in that market on ESPN/ESPN2 show (it has virtually all of the top ESPN/ESPN2 football game ratings in that market).

    Rutgers has always been something of a lock to join the Big Ten.

    • zeek says:

      This is the same reason why the SEC needed Texas A&M.

      The SEC already drew great ratings across Texas even without A&M when it was a 12 school conference.

      But there was no way for the 12-team SEC to go to cable providers in Houston and say “add us, we draw 2.0-3.0 ratings on Saturday in this area”; they would have been laughed out of the state.

      Having Texas A&M (itself a terrific draw) is the reason why they have a good shot at getting coverage for the SEC Network.

      Obviously, Texas A&M is a legit brand on a somewhat national level with vastly larger drawing power than Rutgers (I’m not arguing that point).

      What I’m saying is that the SEC needed a physical presence there. For the same reason, the Big Ten needed Rutgers.

      • Mike says:

        @zeek – it’s been mentioned that Fox might leverage (bundle) the YES network with BTN to help get carriage in NY. Do you think ESPN will do the same thing with the SECN and the LHN?

        • zeek says:

          I’m not really sure there’s anything ESPN can do about LHN. There are direct quotes from cable providers to the notion that “two football games does not constitute a network”…; that’s a tough situation no matter how you look at it.

          Bundling is a tricky strategy when you’re talking locally as opposed to nationally; you’re going to want some other highly rated local network for one to piggyback on another. That’s the angle with Fox taking a supermajority stake in YES eventually alongside its majority stake in the BTN.

          My guess is that ESPN won’t really need bundling for the SECN; you’re really talking about two regions when you talk about the SECN and possible struggles to get carriage: Texas and South Florida. As far as South Florida goes, there’s enough UF grads in the area along with t-shirt fans to pull it off.

          Texas is the real question mark. My guess is that they’ll get carriage in Houston and then just let the rest shake out as it will (sports tier) but we’ll have to see how it plays out…

          The whole YES-BTN angle may end up being a unique thing to NYC. There’s really nothing similar to that unless you were talking about Fox teaming up on the SECN and then trying to bundle Fox Sports Southwest with the SECN to try to make a push in the Dallas/San Antonio areas.

          ESPN hasn’t really been much of a player in the RSN game like Fox and Comcast, so it’s hard to tell how they go about this given what they’ve done with LHN.

          • zeek says:

            This is also why the Georgia Tech angle is worth consideration.

            There’s a definite possibility there that Fox would look into bundling Fox Sports South/SportSouth with the BTN in Atlanta. I’m not sure that’d go over that well in that market though considering that the SEC is king in Atlanta with UGa and the rest of the SEC’s grads and t-shirt presence generally.

            That’s probably the most difficult market play that we’d be looking at if there is another round of expansion…

    • wmwolverine says:

      Agree (w/ Zeek) Rutgers was likely to end up in the B10 thanks to its proximity to NYC, with Jersey being a relatively large market itself. People arguing against it are correct that Rutgers revenue sports don’t quite belong in the B10 (though it’s football is trending up) yet they are completely missing why Rutgers was added; tv/cable markets…

      If you look at Jim Delaney’s plan, it is go grab up all the major TV markets on the East coast: NYC, Jersey, Philly, Maryland/DC, Atlanta.

      • Andy says:

        I don’t know that a school can “add markets” if it doesn’t have fans or successful sports programs. Long term, maybe. But as of right now not so much.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Damn, I wish the COP/C had called you before making a hasty unthought out decision. It’s so like them…

        • wmwolverine says:

          You do realize Fox/ESPN are running this expansion show as much as the conference commissioners? I think they’d know what programs provide what markets.

      • ccrider55 says:

        “…yet they are completely missing why Rutgers was added; tv/cable markets…”

        And academics/research was an afterthought? Delaney proposes, COP/C decide.

        • wmwolverine says:

          Rutgers addition was mostly because of their location next to NYC, never stated academics/research was an afterthought; that’s a straw man’s argument.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Oh, I agree that location was the distinguishing feature between Rutgers and any number of arguably superior athletic teams. The academic/research box was checked off too. Would an OkSU located next to NYC have gotten a look?

          • Andy says:

            Rutgers is not especially good in any way. Their academics are adequate (much like Missouri, but a bit better), their academics will by by far the worst in the league, but at least they’re division 1, so that gives them the nod over, say, Johns Hopkins or Princeton. The ONLY reason they got picked over so many other candidates was location. And maybe that’s enough. Time will tell. I’m skeptical.

          • Andy says:

            *should read their athletics will be by far the worst in the league.

        • BruceMcF says:

          Oh, the academics are clearly a factor in the sense of implying that there was no need to worry about Rutgers acceptability on academic status ground. It was not the primary motivation, but it is a clear enabling factor.

  38. fly on the wall says:

    Looking into the crystal ball. … what are the most powerful college athletic conferences in 2023? rank your conference and list of future members.. and imagine

  39. loki_the_bubba says:

    C-USA commissioner publicly discussing expanding to 16 teams

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22030790/conference-usa-weighing-16-team-model

    Personally, I still can’t justify having gone above 12. I have no desire to add Arkansas State or Louisiana-Lafayette, or any other team that would actually join this reg-tag mismatch of a conference.

    • BruceMcF says:

      The main factor they cite is saving in travel costs. Rather than worrying about playing the whole conference, the focus is on building as close to a bus division as possible and keeping as mch travel as possible in-division.

  40. [...] Big 10–the commentators over at Frank the Tank are busy arguing over whether the Big 10 will be taking some of the ACC or all of the ACC.  The [...]

  41. FlyOnWall says:

    2013 -The 10 Year Projection-

    How would you rank the college athletic conferences by power/wealth in 2013 based on how you see the realignment endgame? Include which unis you think would be in the conferences!!

  42. frug says:

    Latest Dude

    http://www.sportsmancave.com/conversations/

    The whole thing is written bizarre fake conversation between Jim Delany and Eric Barron with the only real “news” being that Urban Meyer convinced Illinois and Purdue to support FSU’s admission to the Big Ten by promising to help them with recruiting in Florida.

    (Note that I originally wasn’t going to post this, but then I remember how much Andy loved the last one so I thought why not :P)

    • Andy says:

      So he’s gone from writing fiction that tries to look sort of real to fiction that looks like… fiction. And he starts it off by attacking Missouri for the first few lines. How novel. I guess he’s still bitter that Missouri got the spot they wanted in the SEC. Looks like the Big 12 isn’t working out so well for them. It’s almost enough to drive a fan mad and to create a fantasy world that is more hospitable than the one they actually inhabit.

      • Arch Stanton says:

        “It’s almost enough to drive a fan mad and to create a fantasy world that is more hospitable than the one they actually inhabit.”

        Sounds like a certain someone who comments on this blog!

        • Andy says:

          If I’ve posted any fiction it wasn’t written by me. I’m only passing on info from people who I think probably know what they’re talking about. And I’ve always admitted that it might be wrong, but I doubt it is.

          • bullet says:

            So what makes what you do any different than the Dude, except in volume?

          • Andy says:

            I only have two sources, they agree with each other, I don’t embellish, I only have the one story, and it doesn’t change.

  43. ct says:

    I see Andy is still in a hate mode . Enough already, give it a break, come back in a week !

    • Andy says:

      Ridicule mode actually. Triggered by Rutgers’s scandal. Now not only do they suck at sports, but they are disgraceful as well.

  44. zeek says:

    Great game.

    Louisville owned the second half with their offensive rebounding when McGary picked up his 4th. Just got so many 2nd and 3rd chances down the stretch. Siva was in command.

    Not really sure how Michigan could leave McGary on the bench for so long as Louisville started picking up offensive rebounds faster and building their lead. It was too late by the time he came back in…

    • Brian says:

      Allow me to express my shock at a B10 team losing a championship game.

      In the past 15 years:
      FB – 1-2 (all OSU)
      MBB – 1-5 (MSU 1-1, OSU, MI, IN and IL all 0-1)

      Way to make us proud.

      • gfunk says:

        It’s sad really & the bad luck has been too consistent in terms of match ups. The BIG was the underdog in all but UNC-Ill 2005, past 15 years – that was the best matchup. But UNC was still favored by most analysts due to the paper talent & the fact that Self left for KU.

        Michigan showed up. But, unlike UNC 2008, this Michigan team won’t return to win it all. Gut tells me Burke isn’t the only one leaving. Or think about Fla 2007? They returned with the sole goal of repeating. Who did they beat? The Thad 5, who all but Lighty bolted after the loss.

        BIG basketball coaches have got to start retaining the best recruits in the region, no more, no less. They don’t do the above with much consistency. The Thad 5 was the best recruiting class for the BIG in years. They stick together in 2008, they beat KU.

        I think a big reason why BIG coaches can’t retain the recruits: the half court, slug fest brand, sticks in recruit’s minds. To think otherwise, means steep delusion. Kids want to run first, become better defenders later. They want to dribble drive and create their own shots. There has to be a happy medium.

        I’m so sick and tired of seeing top shelf recruits bolt the Midwest, Pa for the likes of Ky, UNC, Duke, Lville, UConn, etc.

        I was spoiled during my child hood and teen years: MSU 79, IU 81 and 87, Michigan 89. Winners who played exciting basketball.

        I really thought this Michigan team could do it. They got one thing right from those above winners, offense. But they lost the game in the paint, last 5 minutes – they needed to pull a page from this current era of BIG hoops – rebounding and shutting down the lanes. Louisville simply had more intensity and experience, they were due.

        In hindsight, Mi needed about two more weeks of playing together & only then could they likely beat Lville in one game, neutral court.

        • @gfunk – To be sure, the Big East is a bang-em-up type of league, too. Louisville was more of a stereotypical Big Ten team this year than Michigan was. I also think the “slow and big” branding of Big Ten basketball is vastly overstated with so much of it focused upon Wisconsin’s grinding style of play. Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State and now Illinois don’t really play that way. However, I sympathize with your overall point. My personal observation over the years is that to win championships in college basketball, you need elite offense and good defense (not necessarily a shutdown D, but you do need to make stops when necessary), whereas it’s the opposite in the NBA where you need an elite defense and good offense. In college, the most elite athletes are the ones that do best in an uptempo game, which inherently creates more offense. So, it’s not an accident that the best athletes tend to pick more offensive-minded schools. You can’t win a national championship with a *bad* defense, but you can probably get by with a mediocre defense if your offense is great enough. However, there just isn’t any way that you’re winning a national championship in this day and age with a mediocre offense no matter how good your defense might be.

          At the NBA level, everyone is an elite athlete, so it takes a top tier defense to be anything more than a regular season wonder. I hate giving the Heat any type of credit as a Bulls fan, but they are an unbelievably great defensive team much more than being great offensive like the Thunder (and you saw what happened when those two worlds collided in the NBA Finals last year). The ’90s Bulls dynasty teams were the same way – they might have had the greatest player of all-time with Michael Jordan, but where they really made their mark was with Scottie Pippen teaming up with MJ on defense.

          • zeek says:

            Frank, I would just add that the rules changes enhancing offenses in the NBA have added to the premium placed on good defenses (schemes and players).

            In a sense, any team can slap together a good offense nowadays with the current rules in the NBA and with an eye on sabermetric efficency (look at Houston and Denver as examples of explosive and efficient NBA offenses), but it’s really tough to put together the personnel/coaching/schemes to have a great defense.

        • Brian says:

          gfunk,

          “BIG basketball coaches have got to start retaining the best recruits in the region, no more, no less.

          “I’m so sick and tired of seeing top shelf recruits bolt the Midwest, Pa for the likes of Ky, UNC, Duke, Lville, UConn, etc.”

          I disagree vehemently. It doesn’t matter where the players come from, just how good they are and how well they play together. It’s not like UK just gets KY guys. Top recruits in hoops go everywhere. There is very little concern about staying home for many of them, perhaps fueled by their AAU experiences. The top programs go after the top players nationally, not locally.

          • bullet says:

            And its been that way for a very long time. Now maybe schools outside the top 20 or 30 are recruiting nationally as well when they used to recruit regionally, but the top schools have done it as long as I remember.

          • gfunk says:

            @ Brian,

            I’m not saying they need to get every single one of these recruits, or even 60%. But you need to follow basketball recruiting more closely. Take a deep, historical, look at the last 20 years & tell me BIG coaches scored with consistency on the recruiting trail, esp their local communities.

            You underscore my point by mentioning Ky – their recruits. Pick KEY players off of 96 or 2012 – they were plucked right from Illinois and IU’s back yard.

            Of course it matters how well these kids play together – no argument here. But I’m with Pitino, you need great recruits to ignite a program. Btw, Lville’s starting 5 = hs ball in Oh, Wa, NYC, Ill, Senegal then WVa.

            @ Frank,

            I do agree the BIG brand of half court, shot clock exhaustion is overstated, but perception is sadly reality. How much does Bo Ryan factor into this perception? : ).

            The number of McDAA’s in the BIG the past decade is low compared to the ACC, SEC, Big East & even the Big 12. Sure there will always be recruits who didn’t make this game & become stellar in their own right – Burke immediately comes to mind.

            But, recruits of this caliber very often factor in a team’s NC run. Behanan is the sole McDAA on Lville’s roster, & he was huge last night. He’s the biggest reason why Lville won, imo, in terms of individual players, not the bearded fellow – though he was money. Behanan was the only player with a double-double in last night, a nice one by the way. He exploited the paint, esp when McGary was out. That one bucket of his, the hot potato put back, amazing! To me it was the crushing blow, not Hancock’s final 3. Consolation – Levert stepping out on a that rebound. Mi had a very good chance of bringing the game to the wire at that point, down 78-74 with 52 seconds left.

            I absolutely remember BIG basketball in the 80s to early 90s, heck I became a MSU fan because of 79 and the uptempo brand that team ran with incredible style n substance. IU 81 was a phenomenal uptempo team as well. I clearly remember them running Lefty’s Md team out of Assembly Hall – Lefty didn’t think they could run. 89 Michigan could put the ball in the basket as well – Jesus it seemed like every team in the BIG that year was scoring in the 80s to 90s.

            Regardless, the BIG dry spell in NCG’s is unprecedented at this point – amongst major conferences. Until next year . . . . .

          • bullet says:

            @gfunk
            Pick key players off of Kentucky’s 1983 final 4 team or 1978 champions (Kyle Macy transferred from Purdue, Rick Robey was from Louisiana, Mike Phillips was from Ohio-Jack Givens was from Kentucky) or 1975 or 1966 championship game teams and you will find players from all over the country and many from Ohio or Illinois or Indiana. Key players off the 1966 team (which lost to Texas Western) were Pat Riley (yes that one) from New York and Louie Dampier from Indiana.

            Whether the B1G schools are losing more I can’t say, but top teams and top players go national.

          • Brian says:

            gfunk,

            “I’m not saying they need to get every single one of these recruits, or even 60%. But you need to follow basketball recruiting more closely. Take a deep, historical, look at the last 20 years & tell me BIG coaches scored with consistency on the recruiting trail, esp their local communities. ”

            If you mean to say the B10 needs to recruit better, then say that. I’d generally agree. Better talent wins more titles. You’ve given no reason why location matters, though.

  45. Brian says:

    http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/04/carl_kirschner_to_be_named_rut.html

    This is a bad idea.

    “The Star-Ledger reported today that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is expected to have a role in the search for a new AD as Rutgers prepares for a move to that conference in 2014.”

    • zeek says:

      Agreed. I’m not sure why the conference should have any say in this kind of personnel issue.

      • gfunk says:

        Yes, but the folks in NJ don’t seem to mind. Delany can at least offer a blueprint of how other BIG AD’s go about the workings within the conference. That can’t hurt, but only help.

    • Kevin says:

      This isn’t the first time. He (the conference) offers assistance to conference members for coaching searches. It’s not like he picks the AD for the school. It’s more of a screening process. Hey, here are 5 or 6 good candidates etc…

      • Brian says:

        And it’s always a bad idea. It’s not the league’s place to do that.

        • Phil says:

          It might be a bad idea in a normal situation, but since there will be pressure to react to the Rice scandal by making a politically correct AD hire, I would rather they get the B1G to influence the decision than the politicians and “PC police”.

          • Brian says:

            The B10 aren’t pros at this. That’s why it’s a bad idea. Stick to your core competencies and outsource the rest.

        • Kevin says:

          I am not sure it is a bad idea. The conference is effectively acting as an executive search firm. The hiring decisions are still left up to the individual institution.

          If I am Rutgers I am not sure I am confident in Barchi hiring a legit AD. He’s not experienced with this type of hire. A little assistance may be warranted.

          • Brian says:

            Kevin,

            “I am not sure it is a bad idea. The conference is effectively acting as an executive search firm.”

            And what experience and expertise do they have to indicate that they should be a search firm?

            “If I am Rutgers I am not sure I am confident in Barchi hiring a legit AD. He’s not experienced with this type of hire.”

            And Jim Delany is? How many ADs has the B10 office ever hired?

          • ccrider55 says:

            He may not have hired any, but I’d bet Delaney (and Slive) have had, through the expansion process, more contacts with and possibly an idea of who might be interested in jumping schools/conferences than anyone else. Why wouldn’t Rutgers look to the man in the best position to let them know what the B1G offices think would be important important characteristics to look for, and who might be available?

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “He may not have hired any, but I’d bet Delaney (and Slive) have had, through the expansion process, more contacts with and possibly an idea of who might be interested in jumping schools/conferences than anyone else.”

            And I’d take that bet. ADs and coaches network with each other a heck of a lot more than with conference commissioners. Besides, what basis does Delany have to make a good decision on this? He has no track record of hiring good ADs.

            “Why wouldn’t Rutgers look to the man in the best position to let them know what the B1G offices think would be important important characteristics to look for, and who might be available?”

            Asking him (and anyone else you have an in with) a question or two is one thing, using the B10 like a search firm is another. Delany shouldn’t have a role in any hiring process at any B10 school unless it’s checking with him that the B10 won’t object to a specific risky hire (like if someone wanted Tressel in a few years).

          • ccrider55 says:

            Wouldn’t he be a logical conduit for suggestions to be transmitted indirectly from Columbus, Ann Arbor, Iowa City, etc., places they may not have networked as much at coach/AD level? I seriously doubt anyone actually thinks Delaney is any more than a resource. Granted, I doubt many check with their commissioner. But, how many are moving to a new prestigious new home and have a big embarrassment damage the administration and take out a coach and AD at the same time? Seems prudent to use all avenues to try to smooth an entry already soiled.

          • m (Ag) says:

            The Commissioner will have worked with current and former associate AD’s in the Big Ten, some of whom may have already moved on to the head position at other schools. He can certainly name some who impressed him that Rutgers can add to their list to investigate.

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Wouldn’t he be a logical conduit for suggestions to be transmitted indirectly from Columbus, Ann Arbor, Iowa City, etc., places they may not have networked as much at coach/AD level?”

            Not really. At most they are two steps removed from having an in with any major school. I’d bet Barry Alvarez knows a lot more about who is out there than Delany does.

            “I seriously doubt anyone actually thinks Delaney is any more than a resource.”

            Then why say he’ll have a role in the process? If you’re just making a phone call, why would you say that?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Being a resource isn’t a roll in the process? You say it to express your wish to fit into their new conference, to show confidence in the leadership as a sign or gesture.

  46. rich2 says:

    Am neither a lawyer nor a technologist. However, I have worked on strategy execution at IU and in the private sector for several decades — long enough to know instinctively that the vision of a business model imputed to the BTN on this board that yields always increasing revenues for the next decade: will not happen.

    This is an example — not the smoking gun – simply one example. read the Cablevision case and the Aereo lawsuit and tell me that you believe that the model of forcing everyone who gets cable to pay for channels they do no want to watch will be sustained for another ten years. Will universities find a way to charge paid subscribers directly — sure. Will the same net amount of revenues be generated if those who want to watch a game must pay the full cost — not one subsidized by the majority of subscribers? We will see if consumers will agree to pay the full price plus an annual price hike for decade envisioned on this board. Or if desperate providers (universities) with ever-increasing athletic budgets decide to cut prices (decrease revenues) to maintain market share — as occurs routinely in product markets all the time. The Big 10 better add members15-18 in the next year or two — and obviously it cannot be more football teams that will go 7-5 or 6-6 and want to represent us at tier 3 bowls. We already have a half-dozen programs that fit that bill — we don’t need ten of them.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/news-corp-coo-if-we-lose-aereo-copyright-case-well-stop-broadcasting/

    • ccrider55 says:

      I’ve been “forced” to purchase, also known as “included” in the package I’ve chosen, channels I don’t want since day one of cable. And I’ve been subjected to never ending increases in commercials that were supposedly unnecessary since the consumer was paying for the programming, not the advertiser. Wake me up when the ala carte that’s been predicted for three plus decades actually arrives.

    • @rich2 – This is an interesting discussion that I have already been planning on exploring further in the near future with some separate posts. A couple of things:

      (1) The Aereo case ought to be distinguished from the a la carte debate, although it does deal with overall media company profitability. What that case is dealing with is the ability to receive clearer transmissions of over-the-air channels via the Internet as opposed to cable channels. What might be Aereo’s favor here is that it is simply improving access to OTA channels that are otherwise free with regular rabbit ear antennae and ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox bargained for that with their broadcast licenses. Now, the counterargument is that Aereo is gaining revenue from the retransmission of those OTA channels in the same way cable companies used to, which isn’t kosher anymore under the law. Cable companies now need to pay a subscriber fee for those OTA channels just as they have been for pure cable channels, which is what the media companies are now seeking from Aereo (which is using a technical advancement that arguably allows it to be in compliance with the current law). I see this as a “separate but related” question in the cut the chord discussions, which is whether people should be paying subscriber fees for OTA channels that are using part of the federally licensed broadcast spectrum at all (whether it’s through cable, Aereo or any other outlet). Those OTA channels are different than ESPN, TNT, BTN, etc. because the latter group isn’t using public airwaves at all.

      (2) At the end of the day, I think it’s all largely form over substance. That is, we might be switching the vehicle in which we receive entertainment (Internet as opposed to cable/satellite), but that doesn’t mean that we’ll be really paying less or truly shifting to a la carte and away from “buffet” pricing. Think of what has worked with Internet streaming so far. A few years ago, every network tried pushing their own separate online sites for streaming shows. However, they found that this was inefficient because as much as viewers want choice on paper, they also want it to be easily accessible in one place. As a result, the networks got together and created Hulu so that there would be a single outlet for shows even though they might come from different networks. This is still a la carte pricing in a different form. I might only watch a handful of shows on Hulu, but I’m still paying for the hundreds of shows that are on there. It’s the same thing with Netflix streaming – you’re not purchasing one movie or TV show at a time, but access to thousands of titles that you may or may not ever watch. Netflix streaming can’t survive on a pay-per-view a la carte model any more than the basic cable channels.

      ESPN3 is already one example of how sports could be shifted to the Netflix/Hulu model. You need enough scale of content in order to make it feel like you’re giving each individual subscriber a deal, but having scale means that each such subscriber is going to pay for a bunch of content he or she will never watch. Netflix and Hulu are really buffet pricing just like cable/satellite. So, I don’t think we’re going to spend less, but rather our dollars are eventually going to get shifted around.

      Now, that being said, there are still significant reasons why there will be heavy resistance to this shift (not the least of which is that the largest cable providers also happen to be the largest Internet service providers, so they have the direct ability to block the shift and something tells me that these guys aren’t very charitable), but that’s a separate discussion.

      • BruceMcF says:

        A la carte versus buffet pricing is really a continuum rather than a dichotomy. “Complete” buffet pricing would be one tier, one price, all channels included, “complete” a la carte would be pay per view for all programming.

        A linear channel “a la carte” is still buffet pricing for the shows on the channel, a Video on Demand channel “a la carte” is buffet pricing for the shows available at any point in time.

        The issue is how fine grained the buffet pricing is going to be, with most subscription TV including a core set of very course grained tiers, and then most of them including some additional a la carte offerings.

        And the appeal of the course grained tiers can be illustrated with a crude example of three linear channels ~ Sports, News and Movies ~ and three customers, Sports Guy, News Guy, and Movie Guy. Sports Guy is willing to pay $8 for Sports Channel, $1 for News Channel and $1 for Movies Channel. News Guy is willing to pay $6 for Movie Channel, $2 for Sports Channel, and $2 for Movie Channel. Movie Guy is willing to pay $10 for Movie Channel, and nothing for anything else.

        Now, a la carte, Sports Channel can get one subscriber at $9, and two subscribers at $2. News Channel can get one subscriber at $6, and two subscribers at $1. Movies Channel can get one subscriber at $10, two subscribers at $2 and three subscriber at $1. So they each price for one subscribers, for a total revenue of $25.

        But if they can be forced onto a single tier, and its all or nothing, the tier can be priced at $10 and get three subscribers, for a total revenue of $30. Give the a la carte price to each, and you have $5 bonus to spread around ~ which could be $1 extra to each and pocket $2 as the distributor. And its not Movie Guy that is the driving force in that, its News Guy, the customer that has a broader range of things they kind of like, from whom the tier extracts an extra $4.

        Now, its obviously an artificial example, since they were allocated out of a given $10 total willingness to pay, and while each individual can spread their viewing more widely or focus it more narrowly, total time spent viewing and willingness to pay per hour of different types of programming will vary. If the tiers are well built, they act a bit like second degree price discrimination without falling foul of any rules against second degree price discrimination.

        The business model that is used by some internet streaming video services that have hit profitability offers premium features for subscribers, and a lower level of service for free ad-streaming. Given low CPM rates of online streaming video, the free streaming essentially amounts to self-funding advertising for the premium service. So Hulu Free has availability expire on most shows earlier than Hulu Plus, and Hulu Plus is available on smartphones, set top boxes and smart TV’s. Crunchyroll gives access to anime simulcasts ad-free to subscribers at up to 1080p, and for most series the ad-stream is one week later and maximum 360p resolution.

        If CPM’s for online streaming video rise to the point where the ad-streams are a positive revenue generator for the online distributor, that is a model that will start to catch on more widely ~ a certain level of ad-supported access to all comers, and then premium features valued sufficiently to support an a price in the $5 to $10 range for an “individual buffet”.

        But it’ll mean that it becomes much less lucrative to be in the media business, because that tends to make it a more competitive market. The flip side of greater freedom to selectively drop specific types of content and so cut total spending on media will be less revenue generated by media which implies the big piles of money being used to win the bidding to gain rights to content are likely to be smaller piles of money a decade from now.

  47. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Weekly College Baseball Update.

    Indiana continues to rise in all the polls, and is as high as #12 in the Baseball America rankings. Notre Dame is ranked in all polls and is ranked as high as #16 and as low as #24. Pitt fell out of the Collegiate Baseball rankings, but Creighton entered the rankings at #30. No other northern schools are ranked this week.

    After skull-dragging consensus top ten ranked Kentucky in a weekend sweep by a combined score of 31-6, my LSU Tigers are now ranked #1 in the Collegiate Baseball poll. North Carolina, despite a loss to Clemson last Monday, continues to be ranked #1 in the other three polls. At 30-2, LSU is off to its best start in school history. Vandy, Fullerton, and Virginia round out the top five in all polls.

    LSU travels to Fayetteville for a top 10 match-up with the Hogs in the biggest series of the weekend.

    • ccrider55 says:

      I’m pretty sure Oregon and OrSU are northern, about 45 degrees north. Approximately the same as Minneapolis.

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        cc – while you are geographically correct, for the purposes of a college baseball discussion, Oregon and Oregon State are considered west coast – not northern – teams.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Oh, I know. I would suggest that while it’s not quite the same as upper midwest, but there is a distinct and dramatic difference between the Northwest and Az/Cali. They fight to get outdoors, and schedule away the majority of pre conference play. And it’s not like the NW schools have frequented Omaha with anything like the regularity of the winter baseball weather friendly schools.

          I suggest that there is only two groupings. Those places you go to escape winter weather, and those you escape from. If you see winter city league baseball and softball in the parks during Christmas break, you are in a “southern” baseball friendly weather area (even if its West). That’s not Seattle, Pullman, or the Oregon schools. I only bring them up to highlight that it is possible to develop consistent success in spite of some built in “handicaps”. (More time indoors helps develop small ball skills, which are of increased importance with the newer bats :) )

    • Arch Stanton says:

      Alan – I will be at the Saturday Arkansas-LSU game in Fayetteville. The crowd is always loud and large for the LSU series. The weather forecast is looking great – can’t wait!

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Arch – I’m jealous. LSU’s Ryan Eades v. Arky’s Ryne Stanek is battle of future 1st rounders.

        • Arch Stanton says:

          Hoping for a great game, but no way can it top the last Arkansas-LSU game I attended. Must have been in 2011: all time record crowd for Baum Stadium (>11,000) and Arkansas won 8-7 on a three run homer in the bottom of the ninth.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Arch – are you an Arkansas fan or do you live in the area?

          • Arch Stanton says:

            I live nearby, transplant from Big Ten country.
            I’m more a fan of college baseball than the Razorbacks specifically. Though I do pull for Arkansas in baseball more than any other team in this region. After Arkansas, LSU is probably the only SEC team that I like to see win. That goes back to regularly attending the CWS while growing up and always meeting a bunch of cool LSU baseball fans. They out-tailgated everybody and some of them showed up even if LSU wasn’t in the series!

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Rice has still not lost a weekend series, pulled into a tie for CUSA, and is ranked as high as #16 in one poll.

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Kendall Rogers of Perfectgame.org, and the Joe Lunardi of college baseball released his regional projections and listed Indiana as the #8 national seed. Indiana is the B1G team in the field, but Ohio State just missed his cut.

      http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=8279

      Rogers’ top 8 national seeds are:

      #1 North Carlonina
      #2 LSU
      #3 Vandy
      #4 Virginia
      #5 Cal State Fullerton
      #6 Oregon State
      #7 Florida State
      #8 Indiana

      SEC lead with 9 bids, followed by the ACC with 8 bids. P-12 gets 5 bids. Big West and Sun Belt get 3 bids each.

  48. Wainscott says:

    Athletically and geographically, Louisville would be a great fit in the B1G. Too bad the school’s academics and profile (urban, commuter) aren’t even remotely up to B1G standards…

    • rich2 says:

      For me, the discussion in the business press about Aereo lawsuit — and on this board — underscores the mis-aligned strategic thinking about the addition of RU and UMD — and then especially about GT and Virginia.

      It is posted here, that expansion is driven almost exclusively by football. However, at the Big 10, we supposedly also will not “cut” people from the Big 10 if they don’t perform well on the field — (good thing for NU and the “Mild-cat” era and for IU the past 40 years). Supposedly the new members and the Big 10 are making a “50 year” commitment. We are adding universities to the conference that add little to our football prospects other than the presumed positive effect that the new members will have on the total cable revenue that their addition will generate in the future. Yet, the business model upon which the revenue forecast is based will most likely not be sustained for a decade much less fifty years. If we don’t cut schools from the conference, then we should make decisions to expand based on criteria other than our forecast of the positive impact that adding a school will have on BTN revenues in a decade. We should be able to say that we would add this school (for football reasons) even if their inclusion leads to a smaller share of the revenue pie. Using football as the measure — RU, UMD, GT and UVA do not measure up as new 50 year members of the Big 10. Now, if implicit in how you cheer for expansion is a belief that if the underlying financial model changes, than “loser” properties (i.e., universities) will be dropped quickly from the conference — than this changes the calculation. We can also watch “Glengarry Glen Ross” again and picture the new AD from RU in a room with the new Big 10 Commish instead of Jack Lemmon and Alec Baldwin.

      • ccrider55 says:

        You’re confusing B12 thinking with the B1G. Forecasting success of a new, disruptive, antithetical model to the B1G’s history strategy is less risky? I’ll stick with the stable, desired by others,, and profitable model. I’m confident in the mission (not 100% FB driven), and the leadership to achieve it.

      • @rich2 – I think it’s a bit more complex than simply the immediate financial model. The Big Ten was still the wealthiest conference prior to the BTN just as the Yankees were the still the wealthiest MLB franchise long before the YES Network was created. The underlying fundamentals of what made those cable networks profitable in the first place have been in place for decades and aren’t going to suddenly change if a la carte pricing comes to fruition. Now, I’d agree that we can’t assume that the current cable network model will survive in perpetuity (although I still think the speed in which change would and the substantive effect are vastly overstated). However, from a pure football perspective, there are still important Big Ten needs met by the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The states of New Jersey and Maryland happen to be the top producers of Division I football recruits that aren’t in the Sun Belt or in the current Big Ten footprint. This access to talent is critical to the long-term health of the Big Ten, regardless of how well Rutgers and Maryland as programs might actually perform on-the-field. Also, please note that New Jersey is the #1 exporter of high school graduates to out-of-state colleges in the country, which means this is the single most valuable concentration of people that are willing to pay out-of-state tuition that public universities are increasingly relying upon. You probably already see this at the school that you work at. The value of the Big Ten becoming more East Coast-friendly in terms of perception has an impact beyond athletics and football in this regard. Frankly (and I’ve said this before), adding Rutgers is absolutely a risk even from a pure BTN standpoint (as I’m not certain that they can be leveraged to get basic carriage for that network in the NYC market), but I can understand the long-term value of the conference getting into New Jersey specifically in terms of recruiting both for football and the general student population. I have less of a concern about Maryland, which is really a pretty easily justifiable addition regardless of how profitable the BTN might be in the future with its DC area location and in-place fan base.

        • bullet says:

          I think Maryland and Rutgers made a substantial amount of sense even without directly getting $ from the BTN. The access of the other 12 to those markets for athletics, academics and research is very important. A conference like the Big 12 (or SEC) wouldn’t be able to capitalize on those schools the way the Big 10 can.

          As for change, I’m reminded of a quote I saw in the 90s from an AT&T president-Technology will change things slower than you expect, but when it happens it will be more fundamental than you can imagine. I’m old enough to have had 8 tracks, a black and white TV, 2 over the air channels with no cable, radio dominated by AM music channels and schools in the south with no air conditioning. There’s a lot that can change in the entertainment business.

          The risk to the Big 10 isn’t that they will fall behind others. Its that there will be a decline in total revenue that is exacerbated by weak football additions. UVA/GT/UNC don’t have the non-athletic upside of DC and NYC.

          • zeek says:

            The other thing is, when you add Maryland/Rutgers relatively soon after adding Nebraska, you’re not looking at a decline in average football strength in going from 11 to 14.

            But beyond that, you are if you go past 14 with a group of non-football schools. Most people’s memory of the Big Ten is as a 10 or 11 team conference, not the 12 team conference that it’s been for two seasons. Expansion in terms of football strength won’t really be seen as dilutive in this generation.

            As far as demographics go, the Big Ten probably had to make an East Coast push eventually. The SEC already long ago got onto the East Coast (in the South), and obviously, the ACC has been incrementally locking up the East Coast in the North by taking all the Big East schools. The Big Ten probably had to make this move to get a significant piece of the action on the East Coast.

            But I agree with you that there are tons of red flags in going to 16 or beyond that. The dilutive nature of expansion will really start to kick in at 16 and 18 in terms of playing schools less, average football power declining, etc.

            I’ve come to the idea that we need a 20 year pause to see where things go and how schools develop themselves. Obviously, there will be huge changes to athletics over the next 20 years as things like pay for players start to take hold and changes to media distribution bring big challenges to everyone.

      • Richard says:

        Rich2:
        “It is posted here, that expansion is driven almost exclusively by football.”

        Maybe someone did post it here, but I daresay that I (and most others who have studied B10 expansion seriously) do not believe that the B10 presidents think that football is the end-all & be-all of expansion. Otherwise, OU would be a B10 member by now.

        I hope we can agree that there are roughly 4 possible futures:
        1. Status quo
        2. Delivery of games will change but football is still the king revenue-generator
        3. Football loses king status but other sports generate a lot more revenue.
        4. All college sports revenues decrease to the point where athletics don’t matter any more (possibly due to an O’Bannon decision).

        In the first scenario, PSU was a grand slam (brand + population), Nebraska was a king added, and RU & UMD bring a ton of TV sets. Adding various other ACC schools would also make sense.

        In the second scenario, PSU & UNL were kings added. The gambit for extra TV revenue by adding RU and UMD would have failed, and only FSU of the ACC schools would make sense as an addition going forward.

        In the third scenario, PSU, UNL, & RU would be “meh”, but adding UMD and the basketball powers in the ACC would make a ton of sense.

        In all scenarios, adding PSU, RU, UMD, and the schools in the populous states of the ACC adds research heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.

        In all scenarios, expanding from 10 made a bunch of sense for the B10. In all scenarios, worst case, adding RU, UMD, and potentially schools like UNC, Duke, UVa, and GTech adds heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.

        I’ve called you out on this before (and noted that you didn’t respond; because you couldn’t possibly have a good rejoinder), but you can’t say with a straight face that it was good for ND to join the ACC because it can associate with schools like UMD, Duke, UNC, UVa, & GTech and help ND’s recruiting in the SE on the one hand yet say that it is bad for the B10 to associate with schools like UMD, Duke, UNC, UVa, & GTech (helping out B10 recruiting in the SE) on the other hand.

        • rich2 says:

          A few responses:

          1. Straw men abound in your reply. Foootball drives expansion in the Big 10, first and foremost. It is not the only factor — but are you asserting that the decision model used by the Big 10 (Presidents, ADs and so on) is compensatory — that a candidate can be added to the Big 10 even if its addition is not projected to add to the BTN per member payout? That “research heft,” impact on CIC or fielding a top-flight non-football program can compensate for adding a football program to the conference that loses revenue for the current members? Really? This might be your implicit belief but it is most assuredly does not reflect the consensus on this board — else the board would be clamoring to add Duke, Kansas and Rice, for example. Clearly, it is a non-compensatory model — you must clear the football hurdle in order to be a candidate for expansion. Maybe OU was denied for other reasons, but other reasons do not lead to membership if the school can’t clear the football hurdle in the Big 10.

          2. Your statement

          “In all scenarios, adding PSU, RU, UMD, and the schools in the populous states of the ACC adds research heft to the CIC & increases the B10 brand to new students and companies in new populous parts of the country.”

          makes little sense for today’s world. The Big 10 does not have to add Georgia Tech for Coca-Cola to recruit undergraduates from the Kelley School of Business at IU. The Big 10 does not need to be on the Yes Network to entice Citibank to travel to Bloomington.

          Explain the scenarios in which you believe that a Big 10 university will attract a company or student to its campus if UVA is added to the Big Ten? What is the logical progression that starts at “GT is now a member of the Big 10 to I will now put X on my Top Tier Recruiting List for my Company”? Moreover, do you really think that the BTN “university spots” during a broadcast will lead a potential undergraduate with a 1510 SAT to say — I had never heard of Northwestern until I watched their women play lacrosse, maybe I will do a google search (“mom, was that Northwestern or Northeastern”) or a graduate student contemplating a doctoral program in nanotechnology sees the Illinois woman’s gymnastics team on BTN and wonders — I wonder how good is the program in Nano Research at Urbana-Champaign? I am confident that the right people in the right target markets will be aware of top flight schools and programs at Big 10 universities even if the Big 10 does not have a member school located within driving distance of his or her house. If not, then a truly undiscovered variable in recruiting has been identified on this board and I will urge Jim Delaney to petition the NCAA to make cricket an official sport. Then, the Big 10 should extend offers to IIT-Madras, Kanpur, Bombay and Hyderabad to become members of the newly-launched Big 10 Men’s Cricket league (think of the students? the companies (Tata?) and the cable revenues for the BTN?).

          Also, if GT is added as a member of the Big 10, why will the next top running back in Georgia spurn Alabama for a scholarship at Minnesota? How does the inclusion of a nearby university exert a significant positive effect on the decision to join a university in the Big 10 that you were not already inclined to join? Again, what is the chain of decisions that link expansion of the Big 10 into new geographies and recruiting of students, employers and football players to current members of the Big 10? This is a negligible effect — and it is not the rationale for Big 10 expansion — which is greater potential revenue for the BTN and not a reputational effect generated by adding members in new geographies.

          • Brian says:

            rich2,

            Clearly I’m not Richard nor do I speak for him. That said …

            “1. Straw men abound in your reply. Foootball drives expansion in the Big 10, first and foremost.”

            I’d actually say money is the primary factor. It happens that TV for FB is the biggest source of athletic money, but MBB can be a big source (Duke) and research money dwarfs athletic money (JHU). Clearly academics has been a fixed hurdle that any school had to clear before football could matter. The reverse isn’t true (RU and UMD football).

            “It is not the only factor — but are you asserting that the decision model used by the Big 10 (Presidents, ADs and so on) is compensatory — that a candidate can be added to the Big 10 even if its addition is not projected to add to the BTN per member payout?”

            I think they look at total money and don’t care how exactly you get there.

            “That “research heft,” impact on CIC or fielding a top-flight non-football program can compensate for adding a football program to the conference that loses revenue for the current members?”

            What is that hypothetical school? Duke and KU would both add a lot via hoops as well as increasing inventory in FB. A sizable number of BTN subscriptions would come from adding them, too.

            “Also, if GT is added as a member of the Big 10, why will the next top running back in Georgia spurn Alabama for a scholarship at Minnesota? How does the inclusion of a nearby university exert a significant positive effect on the decision to join a university in the Big 10 that you were not already inclined to join? Again, what is the chain of decisions that link expansion of the Big 10 into new geographies and recruiting of students, employers and football players to current members of the Big 10? This is a negligible effect — and it is not the rationale for Big 10 expansion — which is greater potential revenue for the BTN and not a reputational effect generated by adding members in new geographies.”

            To be clear, it’s your contention that the SEC doesn’t recruit better in TX now that TAMU has joined than it did before? Does the B10 not recruit better in PA since adding PSU?

          • bullet says:

            Based on 1 year, the SEC isn’t doing any better in Texas than before excluding Texas A&M. Alabama got 2 top prospects, but winning 3 out of 4 MNCs will do that for you. The rest of the SEC got fewer prospects than normal from Texas. Maybe the people they would have gotten are going to A&M.

            You can’t judge an impact from 1 year, but there isn’t any impact yet.

  49. Mike says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/22045063/mlb-creating-committee-to-study-decline-in-african-american-players

    I think at least part of the reason the number of African-Americans in baseball has declined has to do with the lack of baseball scholarships colleges can offer. NCAA Division I schools are allowed only 11.7 baseball scholarships, and many fund fewer. Other sports like football (85 scholarships in the FBS) and basketball (13 in Division I) can offer more, which may be luring young athletes — of all races, not just African-Americans — away from the diamond.

    I agree.

    • m (Ag) says:

      While I would like to add more scholarships to baseball (and men’s track & field, swimming, and probably some other sports), African-Americans are barely ‘under represented’ in MLB. I’m surprised noone in the media ever bothers to look at the numbers closely.

      The article you linked to says 8.5% of MLB players were African American. However, only 72% of players were US-born*.

      (8.5/72) * 100 = 11.8% of all US MLB players were African American. According to the 2010 census, Black/African American are 12.6% of US population. Very close to the MLB numbers.

      * http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2013/04/03/over-28-percent-players-were-foreign-born-in-mlb-opening-day/

      • Mike says:

        I’m sure the numbers are out there, but how does the percentage compare to males 18-40?

      • gfunk says:

        Say what you want about the ethnic-cultural differences between Black Americans & Afro Latin ball players, but I think it’s pretty obvious Afro Latin players share plenty of West African history with Black Americans – genetic similarities aside. The tragic Slave Trade struck Latin American and the Caribbean as well, in some cases the Black populations down there are much greater, per capita, than the U.S.

        A big reason why Afro Latin ball players continue to enter MLB in great numbers: historical legacy-ties with the Negro Leagues.

        Is there a legitimate decline of Black Americans in baseball? Sure. But there are plenty of non-Black Americans who are Black, just not American, playing baseball. Such differences are cultural & ethnic, not genetic. Thus, let’s separate the racial component of this debate – plenty of Black folks still playing baseball, just not of the American type.

    • ccrider55 says:

      I think it has more to do with the increased exposure to the NBA, and the crazy lottery money involved without years of achievement justifying(?) it. Does anyone think we’d see someone today make the choice Tony Gwynn did? First round draft in both NBA and MLB (good trivia: only one so drafted by teams in the same city), and chose baseball. What African American MLB “role models” can compete with LeBraun, Kobe, Durrant, Rose, etc?

      • Mike says:

        @cc – I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, but I think picking basketball over baseball isn’t a slam dunk. For one, MLB signing bonuses for first round draft picks are not exactly small. Secondly, careers in baseball for position players tend to be much longer and thus more lucrative than a career in the NBA.

        • bullet says:

          Well football and basketball are the “cool” sports these days. The best athletes tend to gravitate to them. They are also easier to do in pickup games. There aren’t as many kids these days as a % of the population and lots tend to be smaller, so you can’t just line up a bunch of neighborhood kids and play between houses. The kids are more spread out. So you tend to have to be in organized leagues very early. That can be expensive and tends to require transportation. So it isn’t as much a sport for poor kids. And poor kids of all ethnic groups are disproportionately represented among the top athletes in sports.

          Baseball was just a bigger deal is the 60s. The rise of the NFL and NBA and their own self-destructive behavior has bled the game of US athletes.

          • vandiver49 says:

            I argue with my family over this all the time. IMO, the reason for the decline of blacks in baseball is mostly about choice. But a small component can be attributed to high school athletics and focus on specialization.

            AAU basketball and Travel league baseball consume the entire summer and are the focus of most scouts these days. Both of these activities seek to maximize their talent pool by targeting specific demographics (AAU – Inner City; Summer Baseball – Suburbs)

            Thus, isn’t asking about a lack of blacks in baseball the equivalent of asking were are the whites in Basketball? Regardless, I think you will see a return of black to baseball as more info comes out about football and CTE.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Mike.
          I agree, baseball is a much safer physically, offers longer career, lucrative for not just the top few (how many farm teams for each MLB franchise average). But, you are assuming teenagers and younger are going to be thinking that out rather than, well, thinking like a kid.

          • Mike says:

            But, you are assuming teenagers and younger are going to be thinking that out rather than, well, thinking like a kid.

            @cc – that’s why I said you weren’t necessarily wrong. There are some kids who will choose basketball no matter what. However, to some, baseball will be a very attractive option. Just because someone is 18 doesn’t necessarily mean they are immature. There are a lot of kids who had more figured out at 18 than I did at 25.

          • Best sport to play for glory in high school and college:
            (1) Football
            (2) Basketball
            *BIG GAP*
            (3) Baseball

            Best sport to play for purely making money in the pros:
            (1) Baseball
            (2) Basketball
            *BIG GAP*
            (3) Football

            Best sport to play if you want to be a celebrity:
            (1) Basketball
            (2) Football
            *BIG GAP*
            (3) Baseball

          • ccrider55 says:

            Mike:

            By 18 the decision has long since been made, aside from the rare freak that can change sport/specialty at an age most have already been scouted and evaluated for years. Scillies offers to middle schoolers? Sports decisions are being made then, unless there are mentors that insist on broad experience at least through a couple years of HS.

          • Richard says:

            Best sport to play if you’re only one of the best 500 players in the world but not one of the top 100 players (and don’t play soccer):
            1. Baseball
            2. Basketball
            3. Football/Hockey

            I think kids generally play what they have fun at, but if they were rational, they’d realize that
            1. It’s pretty easy to tell fairly early on whether you have the potential to make a ton of money playing basketball (and if you’re not one of a handful of kids, the answer is likely “no”). Hint: It helps if you’re tall.
            2. There are sports like baseball (& maybe hockey) where some athletic ability & lots of hard work can net you millions as well as your health by age 40.

          • Mike says:

            @cc – weren’t we talking about someone who has the choice to pick sports like Tony Gwynn?

          • Mike says:

            @Frank – I’m curious how you came up with your celebrity rankings.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Mike:
            Perhaps I was unclear. I was talking about Gwynn as a role model for youth to look follow. Dave Winfield is another example, drafted in three sports, though I don’t believe he played FB in college. Role models that some might emulate by not limiting themselves to only one sport at a young age. They are/were examples, a proof that specialization isn’t absolutely required to reach the top level.

          • bullet says:

            @Frank
            What about Michael? He really wanted to play baseball. So did Bo.

          • Richard says:

            Jordan gave up baseball too early to ever be good at it.

            Bo Jackson could have been a 400-HR man, however, if he had given up that other sport and not gotten injured. Not quite HoF material, but a local legend.

      • frug says:

        Jeff Samardzija chose baseball over football even though he was considered a first round talent in both sports.

    • frug says:

      Of course what this article fails to mention is that one of the major reasons for the drop in the % African-Americans in MLB is because the explosion in international recruiting has caused the % of all Americans in MLB to drop…

      • ccrider55 says:

        Baseball has had foreigners/Latinos for a long time. The Asian player is new. As bullet said, the availabity of “sandlot” baseball has disappeared in the inner city. MLB has programs working to try to restore it there.

        • frug says:

          True… but it has only been since the 90′s that the Latino market has true exploded.

          That said, you are right that there are other factors also.

          • ccrider55 says:

            You may be right. I may be influenced by personal memory of Juan Marachel, Fernando Valenzuela, Tony Conigliaro, Roberto Clemente, etc (forgive misspellings, radio was not best way to learn the correct). I may have even attributed foreign status to US born Latino players.

          • bullet says:

            Probably true due to more extensive scouting. And the Cuban market has opened again. Tony Perez of the Reds was the last player out of Cuba for decades.

          • BruceMcF says:

            For example, the 90′s was when the big Dominican Republic production line started to really get into gear. There were obviously Dominican players before that, but AFAIU, the system that sees 95 out of 856 opening day roster spots filled by Dominican players was not as systematic before that.

  50. m (Ag) says:

    Base revenue from football playoff for group of 5 conferences may be $1 million per school capped at $12 million dollars in order to deter expansion.

    More money then split based on conference quality and playoff/bowl participation:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22045224/group-of-five-league-schools-could-see-1m-per-year-revenue-cap

  51. cutter says:

    Here’s an article from the Detroit News quoting Michigan AD David Brandon about the future division alignment and the nine-game conference schedule.

    There’s not much new here. Divisions based on geography with a nine-game conference schedule by 2016 is covered here.

    Brandon notes the following:

    “There are pros and cons to every structure you can imagine,” Brandon said. “There’s compromise in every structure you can come up with. What people have to understand is there are 14 teams, all of whom have preferences, all of whom have rivalries, all of whom have perspectives.

    “What we work hard to do is come up with consensus. What that means is everybody doesn’t get what they want, but everybody gets a lot of what they want. Everybody isn’t getting the perfect world, but we’re trying to give everybody as much as possible.”

    He also talks about how he wants a structure that protects UM’s games with Ohio State and Michigan State. Finally, Brandon says he’s pleased the Big Ten seems to be leaning toward fewer locked-in cross-over rivalry games, which gives teams more access to play other teams.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130410/SPORTS0201/304100415#ixzz2Q5ztBMVK

  52. Arch Stanton says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-spt-uic-missouri-valley-20130409,0,7692014.story

    Back to MVC expansion. 4 schools have emerged lately to become the leading candidates:
    Illinois-Chicago
    Belmont
    Oral Roberts
    UMKC

    Will the MVC choose just one to replace departing Creighton, or add multiple schools in order to get both markets and some recent basketball success? 2 of the above are private, 2 are public. Is that still a factor? I’m surprised that UW-Milwaukee is not one of the finalists.

    If I’m the MVC commissioner, I pretty much let Wichita State name their pick. If WSU were to leave the Valley for some other league at this point it would be a huge blow for the MVC.

    • SpaceTetra says:

      UW-Milwaukee would have been a great candidate a few years ago, but they brought in a goofy athletic department head (I think he had been at Ohio State) who changed the program. UW-Milwaukee is mostly a commuter school and the BB team was playing downtown in an arena formerly used by the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA. The new head tried to model them after OSU and focus on making it more like the non-commuter model. He moved the team back into an on campus court which is basically a large glorified high school gym (Klotche Center). Many of the alumni stopped going and the crowds dropped way off until they are dreaming of getting 1500 a game when they used to get a lot better in downtown Milwaukee. A lot of the players left the team. The team plunged to the bottom of the Horizon league. Now I don’t think anyone wants UW-M (at least until they repair their damaged program).

  53. ccrider55 says:

    Apparently the PAC CEO’s find the officiating “problems” a bit more disconcerting than it being an embarrassment. Per Wilner: “Reaction I: An independent review is one thing. An independent review ordered up by the CEO Executive Committee? That’s an entirely different matter, folks. I can’t remember the last time the CEOs got involved in athletic business that wasn’t 1) expansion, 2) billion-dollar TV deals or 3) the college football playoff. The fact that the presidents and chancellors are interested in an issue that’s typically considered day-to-day conference business tells you just how how far RefGate rippled through the conference, from the home office in Walnut Creek to every campus and into the halls of power.”
    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/04/11/actionreaction-pitino-into-the-hall-of-fame-the-pac-12-takes-a-closer-look-at-refgate-and-more/

    • m (Ag) says:

      FWIW the SEC is also in the market for a new coordinator of officials. No scandal, but they didn’t renew the contract of the last guy after a season of complaints about the quality of officiating.

  54. m (Ag) says:

    We’ve talked about the possibility of a new NCAA top division forming if the stipend for athletes is blocked by the current membership. Mrsec.com pointed out this article in the chronicle of Higher Education acknowledging the possibility:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/ncaa-faces-continuing-opposition-on-increasing-aid-to-players/32843

    Nothing new there, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it brought up publicly in awhile.

    • bullet says:

      Texas voted against the proposal because they thought it didn’t go far enough. They wanted to be able to provide proportional amounts to athletes on partial scholarships. The original proposal would only have applied to full scholarships. So it would be a benefit for football, M&W basketball, W volleyball and a handful of others, but not apply to most sports.

      • ccrider55 says:

        I’m conflicted. What good does this do for the walkons that are essential in many sports and at many schools that don’t/can’t fund the full allotment now? How will those essential walkons feel as their scollie teammates now get even more? Would a specific amount divided by the full roster limit, and disbursed to that roster, present an insurmountable problem?

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “I’m conflicted. What good does this do for the walkons that are essential in many sports and at many schools that don’t/can’t fund the full allotment now?”

          Absolutely nothing.

          “How will those essential walkons feel as their scollie teammates now get even more?”

          Considering a scholarship can be worth $50k+ per year and they also can’t eat at the training table and other things, I doubt it would matter much.

          “Would a specific amount divided by the full roster limit, and disbursed to that roster, present an insurmountable problem?”

          Probably, because then you are paying athletes to play. It’s one thing to say a “full” scholarship should really be a full scholarship, it’s another to say people not on scholarship should get $1500. That’s pure pay for play. If it wasn’t worth it to them, the walk-ons wouldn’t do it.

          • m (Ag) says:

            they could (for example) say a football team gets 85 full scholarships but can then give partial scholarships to other players. The team might get up to 3 extra scholarships to be divided, with the only provision that no single player can receive more than 1/3 of a full scholarship.

            Partial scholarships are what most players on the baseball, track and field, or swim teams get.

          • Brian says:

            They aren’t going to raise the limit. They could make it 80 full rides and partials that add up to 5 total (to split over the other 25) or 75 and 10 (for the other 30).

          • BruceMcF says:

            m(Ag): But football is a head-count sport ~ even if a school gave 20 full scholarships and 65 half scholarships, it counts under the 85. Basketball is also a head count sport. Its hard to see how you could be partially a Full Time Equivalent counting sport and partially a head-count sport.

          • m (Ag) says:

            ccrider was asking if some money could go to walk-ons instead of just benefiting the guys on full-scholarship. If you wanted to offer some resources specifically for them, you could amend the regulations to allow a certain amount of partial scholarships that couldn’t go to the full scholarship players.

          • BruceMcF says:

            But that seems to be assuming that there is not a *reason* that the revenue sports are headcount scholarship sports, that it just happened to be written that way. I’d expect it happened as a result of some issue with partial scholarships in revenue sports and the prospect it offers to increase the numbers of players on scholarship in revenue sports.

            Indeed, encouraging schools to sign players with promises of partial scholarships seems to run counter to the move to increase scholarships up to cover the full cost of attending school.

  55. bamatab says:

    Looks like there will be a formal announcement on the SEC Network on 8/14.

    quote:

    ——————————————————————————–
    The SEC and ESPN plan to formally announce the creation of an SEC channel on Tuesday. The two parties have begun to reach out to key constituents to let them know about the 12:00pm ET announcement at the Atlanta Hyatt. University presidents, ADs, SEC Commissioner Mike Slive, ESPN execs and the conference’s corporate sponsors are among those being invited to the news conference. The SEC and ESPN have been working on plans to form a channel since the fall of ’11, and the new channel is expected to launch in August ’14.

    The channel is expected to have its studio headquarters in Charlotte at the ESPN Regional Television offices, while the primary sales outlet will be based in Atlanta.
    ——————————————————————————–

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2013/04/12/SEC.aspx

    • bamatab says:

      Oops…I meant the announcement is set for this Tuesday, and the network is set to launch in August of 2014.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Is that when tier three content becomes (more) available?

        • bamatab says:

          Yep, that is when the contract ESPN has with the local stations runs out for the tier 3 content.

          • m (Ag) says:

            Well, technically the Comcast & FSN rights are tier 2 that ESPN re-sold to those networks.

            According to the article others posted below, the Comcast deal ends in time for the new network. The FSN deal lasts another year; apparently ESPN will be buying out the last year of that contract.

      • Quiet Storm says:

        Here is some more details around the SEC channel that compliments @bamatab’s link posted above: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/2013/04/SEC.aspx

        • bamatab says:

          I thought this was interesting when it comes to their strategy for gaining distribution:

          “Those live games will move to ESPN for the conference channel, which is an important development because it means that ESPN will control the entire inventory of SEC football games, with the exception of CBS’s single game each week. That gives ESPN a lot of flexibility to use specific games in markets where it’s having trouble gaining distribution. If, for example, one of Louisiana’s biggest distributors, Cox, is holding out and not agreeing to carry the channel, it will be easier for ESPN to place more LSU games on it to help it gain more leverage in those negotiations.

          Such leverage is important, as negotiations with distributors have been the most difficult part in the launch of college conference networks. The Big Ten Network went through bruising carriage battles, particularly with Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The Pac-12 Networks still has yet to cut a deal with the nation’s biggest satellite distributor, DirecTV.”

          • Andy says:

            Sounds like a winner.

          • bullet says:

            Another interesting comment-that Arkansas and Kentucky along with Florida generated the most revenue on the IMG 3rd tier. Kentucky is clearly basketball driven. As is North Carolina.

          • bamatab says:

            Actually it said that Arkansas, Florida and Kentucky were among the schools where third-tier TV rights generated the most revenue, not that they alone generated more than all of the other SEC schools. But yeah, your point still remains. I can understand UF and UK (with their basketball), but Arky being up there is a little surprising. But I guess we have to keep in mind that it also included eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner; not just the one football game. Arky does have an outstanding track & field team, plus their baseball team is pretty good. I’m not sure how much those sports draw for them on a pay-per-view type basis though.

          • bullet says:

            Arkansas had a long period where they were very good in basketball. And they own the state, like UK. LSU is the only other of the SEC-12 schools that doesn’t have serious competition for the casual fan. UGA is well ahead of GT, but GT does have some fans. And Tennessee is way off on one end of the state. The rest share the state.

      • Brian says:

        bamatab,

        “Oops…I meant the announcement is set for this Tuesday, and the network is set to launch in August of 2014.”

        I was wondering. This has dragged on long enough as it is. Waiting until August would be ridiculous.

    • duffman says:

      The channel is expected to have its studio headquarters in Charlotte at the ESPN Regional Television offices, while the primary sales outlet will be based in Atlanta.

      That ISP acquisition is getting more interesting by the day. Usually when you buy the smaller company they have to move where the bigger company is based. Makes me think 1 of 2 things will happen long term.

      a) UNC will be in the SEC before the new agreement expires
      b) ESPN controlling the SEC without SEC folks owning or working for ESPN means long term the SEC will move to own their content.

      I have a hard time thinking the B1G HQ would operate their media out of say Dallas where the B12 is the local conference footprint.

      • Brian says:

        On the other hand, it saves several million in start-up costs to use an existing facility and staff. ESPN may be “encouraged” to open a satellite studio in Atlanta once things are up and running.

        • duffman says:

          True, Atlanta makes the most sense for a new studio but what I was more surprised at was ESPN picking Charlotte over Orlando as Orlando is in the SEC footprint and the whole conference has been to Orlando more than Charlotte. The point still stands that if this is a billion dollar + deal spending a million in Atlanta or less in Orlando makes more sense. When ESPN did the LHN (for a single school and a substantially lower overall value) they built new facilities in Texas. Maybe I am reading too much into this but the announcement of Charlotte coupled with the UNC AD saying they need to grow revenues by 40% seems like the pump is primed to put the Tar Heels into the SEC pocketbook and keeping the office in NC was a trade for UNC to the SEC.

          • Brian says:

            ESPN has an extensive set-up in Charlotte already as it’s where they run their regional stuff from already. Why replicate it (and the relationships amongst the staff) when you already have it? Besides, this gives ESPN more reason to say no the ACC Network since the Charlotte facility will be otherwise occupied.

          • bamatab says:

            I don’t know if the location has anything to do with UNC, but I doubt it is a main reason. I guess it could be a background factor. Like it or not, even though ESPN already had a vested interest in the SEC, it now has an even greater interest since it will have some form of ownership in the new SECN. So it is definitely in ESPN’s interest for UNC (if they are going to leave the ACC) to go to the SEC as opposed to the B1G. But I don’t think the main reasoning for Charlotte is UNC.

            But I think UNC (and the other ACC schools that can get into the SEC or B1G) will end up having no choice but to jump due to the future revenue gap. I just think the gap will end up getting too big IMO.

  56. Nostradamus says:

    More details. The SEC schools have bought back their digital rights from their 3rd tier rights holders and will in turn sell it to ESPN has expected.

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/2013/04/SEC.aspx

    • ccrider55 says:

      No mention of ownership breakdown. Almost sounds like instead of coming up with a network name, the conference might consider remaining itself ES(EC)PN conference.
      Just kidding. But seriously, what level of control and for how long does the mothership now have? Will this be a straight rights payment contract? Or will it be a shared profit venture?

      • Mike says:

        Out of the three models we have:

        1. LHN – ESPN owned, flat rights fee
        2. BTN – Split ownership, flat rights fee with profit sharing
        3. PTN – Wholly owned

        I’m guessing it will look more like the LHN than then BTN. I just don’t see ESPN giving the SEC 49 or 51 percent ownership for the worst 15 football games on the schedule when they will be providing much more valuable content to the SECN.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Mike – I don’t know what model will be used, but the SECN won’t just be getting the “worst 15 football games”. The SECN will be getting the games currently sub-licensed to FSN and Comcast, and additional games due to the addition of Mizzou and A&M. Even with an ESPNU game, on any given weekend, the SECN will be broadcasting the 5th or 6th best game on down to the worst game. That sounds like a lot of inventory to me. The big question will be the exclusivity of the 3:30pm Eastern time slot with CBS. Last season, way too many good games were jammed into the noon slot, including LSU at A&M.

          • Mike says:

            Alan – Sorry for not being clear. I’m saying all the SEC is bringing to the table to get equity in the SECN is those 14 games*. The SECN will have those sub-licensed games and probably some games from ESPNU/ESPN2, but ESPN already owns those games. ESPN is contributing higher value content (i.e. conference games), production, and distribution to the SECN. The value of which is much higher than what the SEC is contributing. That’s why I don’t think the SEC will get 51/49% unless they contribute something else (like extend their ESPN contract).

            *15 was a typo. plus the inventory in my quote below http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/back-home-big-ten-division-thoughts-and-sweet-missouri-valley-conference-expansion/#comment-164220

          • bamatab says:

            If you read the snippets that I posted above, the SECN will be able to use all of the content except the content that CBS owns. ESPN was already forced to farm out some of the content they already owned to local stations because they had more than they could show on the ESPN family of networks. Now they will have that content back by 2014, plus the 1 game per team that the teams kept (not to mention any content that they normally would show on the ESPN family of networks). That is a lot of content.

        • m (Ag) says:

          The SEC is bringing 12 tier 3 football games,13-14 additional football games a year representing A&M and Missouri home games, a lot of men’s basketball games, and the majority of games in all other sports that will be placed on the network.

          • greg says:

            How was the additional Missouri/A&M inventory used this past season? Soaked up by the ESPN contract (minus one game per school) and sub-licensed? Or did the conference as a whole end up with additional content?

          • Mike says:

            @m (Ag) – I did forget those Mizzou and A&M games. Thanks for pointing that out. If you compare what the Big Ten brought to the table for its ownership share, the SEC still a little short. According to Matt Sarz (and if I counted right) the BTN showed 42 games last year. I’m sure in their negotiations ESPN was all too happy to point that out.

            I’m more than ok with being wrong on this. I actually hope the SEC gets their ownership percentage.

          • m (Ag) says:

            ESPN and CBS came to some sort of temporary agreement on what the SEC would get paid last year (I think the conference basically got paid the same amount per school).

            ESPN aired the extra inventory of football on its networks. ESPN or ESPN2 often had a 12 ET SEC game last year to handle the extra games.

          • bullet says:

            It isn’t clear who owned those A&M and Missouri games. It all depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN and CBS have to pay something for them, but may have “ownership” just as they do for the original 12′s games. But with everything being re-worked, that could just be semantics. The ESPN deal is going to look different now.

          • Nostradamus says:

            @M(Ag),

            I still don’t believe that. ESPN deliberately paid a premium in 2007 to buy the SEC content and prevent them from forming a network. If their Sun-belt conference contract foresaw expansion, surely their SEC deal did. Those are more than likely ESPN’s games by default.

            I have no doubt that CBS and ESPN owed the SEC money and the amount would likely be settled by arbitration if an agreement was reached. That said, this isn’t a Big Ten scenario where the 2nd and 3rd tier rights holder happened to be a conference joint venture and they could just tell ESPN that BTN will take the extra inventory.

          • Mike says:

            I have no doubt that CBS and ESPN owed the SEC money and the amount would likely be settled by arbitration if an agreement was reached.

            @Nostradamus – Why do you think CBS owed more money? Didn’t the CBS deal cover X games and that number wasn’t increased by expansion, was it?

          • Andy says:

            The great thing about your prognosticatoins this time, Nostradamus, is that we’ll find out just how right or wrong you are in 3 or 4 days.

          • m (Ag) says:

            I think you’re all overstating what ESPN’s giving up and understating what it will receive with just a 50% ownership stake.

            If you take the tier 3 games, the games brought by adding A&M and Missouri, and the games previously re-sold to FSN and Comcast, you have about 3 football games a week already; that’s enough to run a network. Under that scenario, ESPN would have provided only 1/3 of the football content, and will only have lost the revenue it got from re-selling games to FSN and Comcast. Once the start-up costs are recouped, a 50% stake in the SECN will earn far more than they got selling those games to competitors.

            ESPN could increase demand for the network by moving the syndicated over-the-air package to the new cable network; by moving 1 game a week from ESPNU or ESPN2 to the new network, or simply changing the selection order so that the SECN will get some better games at the expense of ESPNU.

            Any of these would mean ESPN would be contributing somewhat more, maybe even a whole 50% of the football programming! ESPN still would get more than it lost once the network gets going with just a 50% share.

            Furthermore, the rights-fees for any games ESPN transfers to the SECN will surely be charged to the SECN, which is half-owned by the conference itself. So the rights fees on the games it gives up will effectively drop 50% even as its potential for profit on those fees increases.

            A similar ratio of programming would be true for men’s basketball. With the possible exception of women’s basketball, ESPN probably won’t need to transfer a game of any other sport to the SECN; the SEC itself will provide all the content. And, of course, coaches shows and historical games that might be aired on the SECN will be provided by the conference and not ESPN.

            To summarize, ESPN really won’t be giving up much in terms of programming for its networks for a 50% share in a network all the analysts are saying will be profitable.

          • Nostradamus says:

            @Mike,

            I’ve been pretty adamant here that CBS shouldn’t be paying much more at all. Even without any additional games they still are getting access to two additional schools though. Missouri was on CBS twice last year, and A&M was on once. At the very least, the contract probably dictates that they pay an equal share for the two additions. I think that is fair and possibly a slight increase is warranted due to the access to potential addentional content. I am not saying CBS needed to open up the piggy bank.

            @ Andy,

            Mike pretty much summed up my thoughts above on the issue. “I’m more than ok with being wrong on this. I actually hope the SEC gets their ownership percentage.”

            I don’t have any ill will towards Mike Slive or the SEC. Given the circumstances though in my opinion, I’ve laid out my thinking over the past several years. I don’t pretend to be all knowing. I fully admit I could be wrong, and If I am… That is great for the SEC. I think any increased value the SEC gets here will benefit “my” conference the Big Ten in their 2017 negotiations as well.

          • bullet says:

            Without more games, CBS is basically getting two schools who would on average be in the middle of the SEC, so they wouldn’t be on the air much. Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn and LSU all have higher national profiles (and 5 have MNCs in the BCS era). South Carolina and Arkansas are equivalent in profile. SEC already got pretty good ratings in Texas. So CBS doesn’t gain much if any value.

          • Nostradamus says:

            @bullet,
            I agree. I’ve said from the start, from CBS’ perspective A&M and Missouri create value in one of the two following ways: 1) Adding the markets increases the average CBS broadcast 2) Missouri and A&M vs. SEC team X or Y increase the average CBS SEC ratings. On Point 1, that is a difficult path to pave as CBS is already a national network. Any viewership gains are minimal at best. On point 2, I agree with you as well… Two middle of the road SEC teams aren’t going to move the needle much there either. I still think CBS likely ended up or ends up paying an equal share for the additions and maybe slightly more. Nothing major, and nothing major was warranted from CBS’ perspective by the additions.

          • Nostradamus says:

            @m (Ag),
            “I think you’re all overstating what ESPN’s giving up and understating what it will receive with just a 50% ownership stake.”
            It is certainly possible, but I would turn this around and say try looking at this from ESPN’s perspective. Even if you could the games the “SEC is bringing to the table” as SEC controlled games, what could the conference do with those games on their own? From my perspective nothing… ESPN has a tremendous amount of leverage here.

            “If you take the tier 3 games”
            What could the SEC do with these 14 games alone? It obviously depends on the wording of the ESPN contract, but I’m not convinced they can do anything with these games on their own without ESPN. That alone would eliminate one of the SEC’s big trump cards.

            “the games brought by adding A&M and Missouri,”
            And again, I’m not convinced these are the conference’s games.

            “ and the games previously re-sold to FSN and Comcast,”
            This is flat out inventory ESPN already paid for and controls.

            “ you have about 3 football games a week already; that’s enough to run a network. Under that scenario, ESPN would have provided only 1/3 of the football content,”
            Again that is fairly debatable. If ESPN paid for the rights to every SEC football game except one game retained by the schools and had the option to purchase any additional inventory created by expansion, then no ESPN isn’t only providing 1/3 of the content. They are providing everything other than the 14 school retained games. And again, it is questionable what the conference could do with those 14 games banded together if anything under the existing contract.

            “To summarize, ESPN really won’t be giving up much in terms of programming for its networks for a 50% share in a network all the analysts are saying will be profitable.”
            To me, it still comes down to leverage. If you believe as I do, that everything other than the 1 school retained football game has already been paid for by ESPN… They have a significant amount of leverage here. I fully understand that even under a 50/50 split ESPN likely stands to make more on the content under an SEC network scenario than the current sublicense situation. If you believe the content is ESPN’s though, you are where Frank, myself, and others are at that ESPN is going to need something along the lines of an SEC extension on the present secondary rights contract to act here.

          • Mike says:

            I don’t pretend to be all knowing.

            I’m just teasing you, but I you did pick the name Nostradamus

        • GreatLakeState says:

          I agree. Slive hinted it could be a LHN type deal before the serious negotiations began. I think ESPN is going to be the owner. I realize many here disagree with that, but we’ll know soon enough.

      • Mike says:

        …and just to be clear, there are way’s the SEC could get to the 49 or 51% ownership. I just think they’ll have to kick in something else.

    • Mike says:

      Nostradamus’s article contains a valuation of the SEC’s third tier rights.

      Those third-tier TV rights represent one football game, eight men’s basketball games, baseball, women’s basketball and all other nonrevenue sports that are not picked up by ESPN or a syndicated partner.

      [snip]

      The value of the third-party rights the conference bought back is significant and comes after nine months of off-and-on negotiations. The rights holders agreed to give up TV rights valued at roughly $15 million a year. In return, those rights holders will lessen the guarantees to their schools by the same amount — a little more than $1 million a year for each school — for the next several years, industry sources said.

      • Nostradamus says:

        I noticed that too. It backs up my contention that the football game and assorted basketball and other sport contests were worth about $1-2 million per school on average. I know some of our SEC fans were convinced it was well higher than that.

        • Andy says:

          That’s what was worth when shown on local/regional third tier tv. But what is it worth when packaged nationally into an SECN?

          • Nostradamus says:

            No doubt more (and no one has ever questioned that). I was merely commenting about how for probably 10 years I’ve heard things like “comparisons between conference television contracts aren’t valid becuse the SEC is earning $5 million more than School X or Y in 3rd tier rights” or that extra football and basketball game is worth “5-7″ million per school, etc. I always thought that was high. Researching IMG/Learfield deals for schools backed that up. Knowing what schools were getting paid for PPV’s in the Big XII and the terms the schools had also backed that up.

          • bullet says:

            Its pretty commonly accepted that OU got in that $5-$7.5 million range from Fox. Now that “commonly accepted” doesn’t include an SBJ or ESPN article confirming it. And the rest of the schools don’t have those type of numbers. But it is known WVU got $9 million/year for the whole 3rd tier rights package. NCSU just a few months earlier without the TV rights only got $4.5 million.

          • bullet says:

            Well, I did find a link someone posted on OU. They got an extra $7-$8 million between Leerfield and Fox. Fox was $58 million over 10 years.

            http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/09/17/Media/Oklahoma.aspx

          • bullet says:

            Also note that $15 million was what got bought back. Some agreements may have expired and not required a buyback.

        • bullet says:

          Note that was not all that had to be bought back. There were additional rights IMG/Learfield/CBSSports had that are put in the package. That’s why IMG gets 15% of the payment for the LHN.

          • bullet says:

            From the article:
            “The conference also gained control of its digital and sponsorship rights that will be rolled over to ESPN as well. That will enable ESPN to have TV, digital and sponsorship rights for the conference under one umbrella. Being able to package TV and digital advertising in corporate sponsorship deals is considered a vital revenue component, and neither the conference nor ESPN wanted multiple partners selling those rights in the marketplace.

            Digital rights for the SEC are coming back from XOS Digital, the company that created the SEC Digital Network in 2009, for an undisclosed sum. The SEC’s corporate sponsorship program has been sold and managed by IMG College in the past.

            ESPN Regional will oversee the corporate sponsorship program. ESPN Regional also runs the Big 12’s sponsorship program. Ben May, general manager for IMG College’s SEC property, is considered a leading candidate to move with the sponsorship program over to ESPN Regional.”

  57. Mike says:

    Lets say the SEC doesn’t get at least 49% ownership in the SECN. How do you think SEC fans and media (i.e. Clay Travis, Mr SEC) will react? Is it ok to just get a flat rights fee?

    • @Mike – I’ll be interested to see how the ownership is dealt with. You’re right that just handing over 15 or so tier 3 games isn’t going to result in a high level of ownership by the SEC. Now, extending the contract long-term (10 or even 20 years beyond the original contract end date) could do the trick in theory.

      • Nostradamus says:

        That has been my thinking for the past two or so years as well.

        • ccrider55 says:

          Does anyone else feel that we really will only have one “conference” network? These are basically commercial, specialty channels like TMC, Nickelodium, Speed, etc with a different marketing strategy. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think you should own at least 51% to legitimately claim something as your own. Otherwise you are just joining someone else’s venture as an investor/supplier.

          • frug says:

            I don’t know. The Big Ten owned 51% of the BTN for the networks first 5 years and put in place the infrastructure and standard operating procedures the network has continued to use even with Fox taking the majority stake this year.

  58. ccrider55 says:

    Marv Harshman has passed.

    Dick Harter take no prisoners, the most important thing, super serious attitude, partially expressed by having the team stand at mid court and stare down the opposition during pregame layup drills. Harshman, and the team came out and went through normal pregame war ups, but wearing Groucho glasses. The ducks didn’t dare react or face Harters wrath. Huskies won the game in Eugene.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/photogalleries/huskies2015194257/10.html?sports=/html/photogalleries/sports2020537132

  59. GreatLakeState says:

    For those in need of a Dude-like fantasy fix, here’s a classic from a Longhorns fan who sees Bevo as B1G bound within five years. The gravy of the post, however, are the comments. Priceless.

      • marmutia says:

        The B1G is clamoring for Texas Tech? I guess it is to lock that coveted Lubbock market down.
        You’re right, the comments were well worth the read.

        • m (Ag) says:

          Finally, we know what they really meant when they spoke of the ‘Tech problem’; the Big Ten was looking to find a way to get Texas Tech without any of the other universities in the state!

      • ccrider55 says:

        My eyes are bleeding. Not so much from the nonsense of the writer, but the “understanding” of the responses is…Hey, is this a late April fools joke?

    • Brian says:

      Wow, even the Dude might look askance at some of his claims.

      “Physics is impossible to resist, and consistent gravity drawing the University of Texas to the Big Ten.”

      It is? I haven’t noticed that, but I’m not in TX so I’ll reserve judgment.

      “Commissioner Jim Delany will announce the expansion of the conference to 16 teams within the next three years,”

      Sounds reasonable so far.

      “and Texas will be the 15th member.”

      Say what now? Was all this ACC talk just a misdirect? I have a really hard time seeing UT moving that soon with the LHN even if they wanted to move.

      “What will happen eventually is that four conferences will amass 16 members each, abandon their NCAA membership, and form their own oversight organization that will allow them to self-govern in ways that suit them.”

      This again?

      “For the same group to enforce rules to regulate the athletic endeavors of operators as disparate as Alabama and Loyola of Chicago is lunacy. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, human beings demand logic. Logic requires that members of the SEC and Horizon League use separate business models and a much different legislative body to separate right from wrong.”

      The NCAA has divisions for a reason. This sounds like an argument for a division split more than leaving the NCAA just to form NCAA v2.

      “The race for the Pac 12, SEC, Big Ten, and ACC to reach 16 members each will run through Texas, and the Big Ten is the partner that fits best because it’s the conference that is the most profitable. The SEC is a superior brand, but when Texas A&M joined, Texas was effectively locked out.”

      The ACC is going to make it to 16 and the B12 is going to disappear? Why? Also, the P12 makes a lot of money too with their new deal and UT and friends might feel more comfortable with some fellow baseball schools.

      As for the gentlemen’s agreement, I’m not sure it applies to TX. If UT wanted in, I think they’d have the votes. Everyone else has too much to gain from adding them to support TAMU in keeping them out (if TAMU wants them out – they may prefer to rekindle the rivalry).

      “Texas is currently a member of the Big 12, which continues to degrade under the weight of the deal designed to save the conference that allowed Texas to form the Longhorn Network.”

      The degradation isn’t that apparent to me.

      “So Missouri, Texas A&M, and Colorado joined Nebraska in vacating the Big 12,”

      True.

      ” and several of the other schools would bail if a superior option existed.”

      But they don’t have a superior option AFAIK. The B10, SEC and P12 don’t want most of them. Ignoring UT, OU and KU are the only other schools with tangible value to most leagues. Some will take a few others as part of a package deal, but that’s about it.

      “The game for the conferences is in gathering TV markets,”

      That’s for conferences with networks, meaning not the ACC.

      ” and the monster in the realignment is Texas because the brand for the Longhorns is statewide, and that state has the fifth largest market (Dallas), #10 (Houston), #37 (San Antonio), #49 (Austin), and #94 (Waco). That level of tonnage demands attention,”

      Sure it does. TAMU brings some/much of that to the SEC already, though, so the math is different for them.

      “and the Big Ten would become the unquestioned kings by coming to agreement with Texas.”

      In money, probably. Not on the field unless they actually prove it.

      “The motivation for Texas to leave the Big 12 is to maximize its negotiating position before the rest of the conference’s important members leaves. Waiting until Oklahoma and Oklahoma State bounce to the Pac 12 would change the dynamic entirely.”

      You mean the OU/OkSU deal that the B10 and P12 have both already rejected conceptually?

      “Texas would move immediately from buyer to seller, and they would run the risk of being the tallest midget along with Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State, and the other bottom feeders among those that might not be invited to play with the big boys when the final deal goes down.”

      UT will always have great options because of their value. OU is highly unlikely to leave without UT anyway.

      What of the GOR?
      What of the LHN?
      What of the lack of a cultural bridge to the B10? Would KU be coming, too? Another 1-3 TX schools (Would the B10 accept any of them?)?

      • zeek says:

        I’ll save you the time Brian.

        Any discussion of Texas to the Big Ten is a waste of time right now.

        It’s not possible for another 10 years at least (if the road hasn’t been foreclosed by Missouri going to the SEC – was one of the possible bridges to Texas in theory in the old plans).

        1) Dodds and Powers have their own philosophy about what Texas needs; they’ve decided it’s better for Texas to have its own localized conference where travel needs are the top priority along with possession of their own solo network. In the future, Texas may have leaders who see things differently, but it’s clearly not the case right now.

        2) All of these crazy scenarios that keep getting cooked up where Texas leaves the Big 12 seem to completely ignore the Grant of Rights. I’ll say it again; the Big Ten has no incentive to try to rock the boat on the Grant of Rights issue since the Big Ten itself has one (same story for Pac-12).

        • ccrider55 says:

          I agree, except you should have ended the justification at “…they’ve decided it’s better for Texas to have its own localized conference…”.
          The LHN is merely the label of another ESPN channel. It’s theirs, not UT’s.
          Travel issues are BS. Prior to air travel and interstate highways there were cross continent competitions, but keeping conferences regional was much more important.
          Control is what the B12 affords UT, and what UT craves.

        • Brian says:

          zeek,

          “I’ll save you the time Brian.

          Any discussion of Texas to the Big Ten is a waste of time right now.”

          I know. I just give everyone a chance to show if they have some new line of thought that might justify a new scenario. As expected, he didn’t.

          It’s more interesting to me than talking about the MVC.

    • bullet says:

      This is an Indiana guy, not a Longhorn. Didn’t think any Longhorn would be so ignorant about Texas. Look at the links on the side and the Chicago Cubs stuff in the archive.

  60. ccrider55 says:

    So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.
    Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.

    • zeek says:

      Definitely a real problem that it would have been a disqualification if it had been anyone but Tiger.

      Clearly a situation where the ratings needs overruled the actual rules themselves…

      • ccrider55 says:

        So much for the “above any outside influence” of the Masters. It’s now just one of the four majors, at least for me. (And the honor of the self policing sport is gone)

        • ccrider55 says:

          A golf tournament, like any other…
          (Tweet, tweet, chirp, chirp…)

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Exactly. Why would they risk everything (they believe) they represent and what (supposedly) sets them apart on an aging anti-hero whose marketing campaign is ‘Winning takes care of Everything”. If Tiger pulls this off, that tag line will become synonymous with the Masters.
          “I present to you your money green jacket, sir.”

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “So much for the “above any outside influence” of the Masters. It’s now just one of the four majors, at least for me. (And the honor of the self policing sport is gone)”

          Yeah, it was so much better when it was a bastion of honor that barred minorities and women from being members. I can totally understand why you’d venerate the good ole days at Augusta.

          WTF?

          • largeR says:

            It’s Sunday and this deserves an Amen!!!

          • ccrider55 says:

            I wasn’t defending their positions, just pointing out that holding to their principals (good or bad) no mater what seems no longer to apply. Perhaps standing against Martha Burke cost so much in covering lost ad revenue that they had to cave to media demands? Pockets not as deep as had been thought?

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “I wasn’t defending their positions,”

            No, you were just saying how much better things were back then as if the blatant racism and sexism were less important than your interpretation of the rules of golf. I think it’s really tough to apply the word honor to a tournament at a club that only allowed minorities to play in the tournament because they had to and still wouldn’t let them be members.

            Your version of honor sucks.

          • ccrider55 says:

            The single thing about Augusta that I have begrudgingly admired, even though I think they are racist male chauvinist pigs who answer only to themselves, is that they had been consistent is their despicable prejudice. I’m not sure admitting Condi Rice absolves them of much. Fact is I would have admired Tiger more had he chosen to never play there. That has no relation to how I feel about following the rules, and the spirit of games that are self policing.

            Where is the ambiguity? “A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.”

          • Brian says:

            TPTB say you’re reading the rule wrong. Since it’s their rule, that makes you wrong.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            Well, it means I lose the argument. It doesn’t mean I am wrong :) .

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        “Definitely a real problem that it would have been a disqualification if it had been anyone but Tiger.”

        Based on what? The new rule clearly applies to this situation.

        • ccrider55 says:

          It doesn’t prohibit withdrawing. He intentionally took a bad drop to improve his reshot. He signed the card. This isn’t a case of slo mo replay detecting a double contact that night. The rule specifically is not to protect from “ignorance” of the rules. “A Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty prescribed in Rule 6-6d if the player’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the player could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his score card.”

          • Brian says:

            The whole field could withdraw. What’s your point? He has no reason to withdraw since the rules don’t call for it. It isn’t 1895 anymore.

            They know the rules better than you do. They say the rule applies. You saying otherwise is meaningless. Get back to me when the USGA and/or R&A say the were wrong.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Quoting the rule not persuasive? Hum…

          • Brian says:

            Not when the same people who wrote the rules disagree with you about their interpretation. I often disagree with the Supreme Court about what is constitutional, yet for some silly reason everyone takes their opinion over mine even if I quote the Constitution.

          • ccrider55 says:

            We can certainly agree there. My point about WDing is that players often have defended the game above what a rule committee might decide. I’m disappointed. I think Tiger just missed an opportunity to almost completely rehabilitate his image, and Nike a marketing opportunity to offset the winning fixes anything campaign.

          • Brian says:

            I really don’t see how being a quitter would rehabilitate his reputation as a serial philanderer. People with moral objections to his sex life won’t forgive him because he quit the Master’s. Instead, he’d probably get pilloried for quitting rather than trying to overcome the penalty and actually earn a come from behind win.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Must be a flat lander. Don’t get the “taking the high road” thing?

          • Brian says:

            1. I don’t believe it is a high road.
            2. I don’t believe his critics would see it as one, either. Quitting would be a self-aggrandizing move to show up the tournament officials, or pouting, or being afraid of his deficit.
            3. I don’t believe it cross-applies like that, anyway. People mad about infidelity aren’t going to forgive him because he quit a tournament.

          • ccrider55 says:

            1: we disagree, obviously.
            2: all those who feel he is benefiting, or think he MAY be benefiting from a misapplied waiving of a rule wouldn’t. It would be seen as holding the spirit of the game above himself.
            3: very probable.
            But a #4: he might be seen by non-cynics as actually not looking to his self interest at all times. It would be a behavioral change.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I think it’s a case of the media being far more invested in Tiger winning than the general public. To the point of losing all objectivity, and now credibility. Now that they’ve decided to allow him to remain for ratings sake, you can bet those same people are praying he doesn’t win.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I couldn’t agree more. That would be the best thing for everyone involved. Both Tiger and the Masters would benefit from doing the right thing. Sadly, that will probably be contingent on whether he has a good or bad day today.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Oops. This was supposed to be in response to
        ccriders comment:

        So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.
        Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.

        • Andy says:

          I don’t think the Masters has a choice. The rules were changed back in 2011. You can’t disqualify someone for that anymore.

          • bullet says:

            According to this article, he still should have been disqualified.
            http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-may-be-disqualfied-at-masters-after-penalty-drop/

            “Rule 33 states that disqualification can be waived at the committee’s discretion. However, a decision that accompanies this rule says that the committee would not be justified to waive the DQ if it was a result of the player’s ignorance of the rules or if he could have reasonably discovered his mistake before signing his scorecard.

            “There is some leeway with the signing the incorrect card. Not with intentionally not dropping as near as possible,” David Duval said on Twitter.”

            Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/04/13/tiger-woods-may-be-disqualified-at-masters-after-penalty-drop/#ixzz2QMyZVzwa

          • ccrider55 says:

            The point is you disqualify yourself. Withdraw. Had he discovered the error during the round and signed a card with the additional 2 stroke penalty, I might grouse but accept it. He signed an inaccurate scorecard that wouldn’t have been changed without external input. We now have a sport that you benefit by not self policing and hope things go undetected. The honor system is gone.

          • Andy says:

            bullet, a 2011 ruling said that players can no longer be disqualified for this sort of thing. The Masters had no choice.

            http://onpar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/with-rule-revision-golf-gives-back-what-cameras-take-away/

            cc, you’re basically saying that Tiger needed to go above and beyond the rules and quit the tournament because that is the honorable thing to do. You are of course welcome to have that opinion, but it’s a little extreme I’d say. Also, he’s in 17th place right now so it’s not like it’s going to affect the outcome of the tournament.

          • Andy says:

            I guess I’m just not a fan of a sport where players are expected to disqualify themselves. Seems like it should be done by the officials. If he broke the rules, penalize him according to the rules. What a dumb system where he’s expected by many to go above and beyond the standard punishment of the rules and hand himself additional (severe) punishment. I mean, what the hell is that?

          • I actually have to agree with Andy here. Expecting Tiger to withdraw on his own would be like a basketball or football player kicking himself out of game for a foul/penalty when the officials didn’t hand out that punishment.

            Also, there’s an inequity problem here. The only reason Masters officials reviewed Tiger’s drop initially (this was before his round was even finished) was that a TV viewer apparently informed them. (Oh, what I would give to be able to officially challenge Big Ten, NFL and NBA referee decisions from my couch!) It’s incredible that Augusta actually acknowledged that in its official statement. Well, Augusta, due to its Bill Wirtz-like TV restrictions, doesn’t allow any Masters TV coverage prior to 3 pm ET. So, another golfer could have had the exact same drop as Tiger earlier in the day, yet it would not have been noticed because it wasn’t televised. Why should a golfer whose shots are televised be more heavily scrutinized than one who isn’t in the exact same tournament? I don’t find that equitable. Everyone should have the same review standard applied to them.

            Also, should Tiger’s intent matter here? Once again, Masters officials reviewed the shot prior to his round ending (when he could have been informed of a penalty assessment at that time and then adjusted his scorecard to be in compliance). However, they deemed the drop to be within the rules at that time. It was only after Tiger was interviewed on TV and explained his rationale for where he dropped the ball that Masters officials went back and reviewed it again. If Masters officials thought the drop was OK when looking at the video initially, why should Tiger’s subsequent comments have mattered? Once again, Tiger gets interviewed with a frequency of many magnitudes higher than any other golfer, so why should his public comments get used when officials independently determined that the drop was acceptable strictly looking at the video evidence (which would have been the review for every single other golfer that didn’t get interviewed)?

            I have no problem at all with Tiger playing today based on how this went down. It would have been a disappointment for him or any other golfer to be disqualified under those circumstances.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Not a fan of honor? Of winning a competition, which to me can only be done within the rules? If you are cheating you are not trying to win, only steal the accolades of a champion. This is honor:
            http://m.espn.go.com/extra/ncaa/story?storyId=3372631&src=desktop

            The infraction was not discovered by replay. Tiger discribed it himself as going further back two yards from the original shot. The rule change shouldn’t apply.

            “At issue is the occasion when a player is not aware he has breached a rule and could not reasonably be expected to have known. ”
            Exactly which rules shouldn’t a professional in that sport not reasonably be expected to know? And if there is a question, the course marshals are there to assist. Only if he was given incorrect instruction from a marshal could I accept this.

          • ccrider55 says:

            FtT:

            So you think the golfer a couple years ago that DQ’d himself when his wife informed he used the wrong balls was not right to do so? No body else knew. He just withdrew and announced the reason. He did not expect relief.

            What would Ben, Arnold, or Jack have done?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frank:

            If the inaccurate drop was inadvertent that’s one thing. Tiger said it was to improve his second attempt. The intent creates the violation.

            How does a professional as experienced as he is not know the drop rules? Haven’t heard a chorus of “wow, I didn’t know that” from other golfers.

          • Andy says:

            Yeah but if he knew he was cheating why would he admit it to tv reporters? He’s not that dumb.

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “I actually have to agree with Andy here. Expecting Tiger to withdraw on his own would be like a basketball or football player kicking himself out of game for a foul/penalty when the officials didn’t hand out that punishment.”

            Especially since all these pious talking heads never DQed themselves from a tournament with a multi-million dollar prize at stake.

            I’m with you on the inequity issue, too.

          • ccrider55 says:

            I have DQ’d myself, and made decisions for teams and competitors I’ve coached that gave victory to the opponent, when it was the right thing to do. Was there piles of money on the line? No. Something money can’t buy was, though. Something golf may have just lost.

          • Brian says:

            Tiger and the tournament are following the rules. Last I checked, that fits under doing the right thing. But maybe they should stand by their principals and kick him out for not being white and polluting their course with his very presence. That would be honorable. They could teach that lesson to lots of kids, too.

          • bullet says:

            @Andy
            Read the link I attached. If you deliberately drop it in a better position being ignorant of the rules is not an excuse. You are disqualified. And Tiger is paid enough and has played enough, he should know the rules. The new rule is if a TV viewer discovers the error on an inadvertent rule violation.

            While I think the rules are pretty strict (a 2 stroke penalty s/b enough), its like the NBA giving advantages to Michael and Magic. Its just distasteful and unnecessary.

    • Brian says:

      ccrider55,

      “So, golf joins the rest of the sports. If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying. And if you don’t get caught in the act…it’s cool.”

      Not true. He got penalized after the fact.

      “Tiger could give his reputation, and golfs, a huge boost if he were to withdraw.”

      That’s crap. The new rule specifically was designed for cases like this where the player’s score is changed after his card was signed. He’s following the rules of golf by playing.

      The bigger question is why it wasn’t caught during the round. Apparently their officials don’t know the rules either.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Two huge assumptions. First, that Tiger and the marshals didn’t know the rules (riiight). And second, that there wasn’t notice taken and intentionally “overlooked” during the round. It certainly was being talked about prior to the rounds end. And neither of those are my concern. A self policed sport of honor has to depend on the integrity of the players. Name another player who signed a card with an admitted infraction that didn’t get DQed or withdraw in the last 150 years.

        “David Duval, who once supplanted Woods as the world’s top-ranked player but is no longer a regular on the PGA Tour, went in Twitter to say his former rival should pull out of the year’s first major to make things right.

        “Was there intent to break the rule is the question?” Duval wrote. “I think he should WD (withdraw). He took a drop to gain an advantage.”

        Kyle Thompson, who plays on a lower-tier tour, felt Woods was getting preferential treatment – a perception that Augusta National strongly denied.

        “I guess Tiger is BIGGER than golf,” Thompson tweeted. “Any other person in the world gets DQ’d. Gotta keep those TV ratings going right?””

        As with other sports before it has become about the entertainment, to the point of fundamentally altering the rules governing the competition. How is this not a 180 degree shift in how you play, try to win in a gentlemen’s sport?

        • Brian says:

          ccrider55,

          “First, that Tiger and the marshals didn’t know the rules (riiight).”

          If they knew, this scenario wouldn’t exist. Tiger certainly wouldn’t have made that statement in his interview if he thought he was cheating. The marshals would have called him on it right away, too. But no, they even reviewed the video afterwards and determined it was OK.

          “And second, that there wasn’t notice taken and intentionally “overlooked” during the round.”

          Show that it was.

          “It certainly was being talked about prior to the rounds end.”

          And it was reviewed. And they decided it was OK.

          “A self policed sport of honor has to depend on the integrity of the players. Name another player who signed a card with an admitted infraction that didn’t get DQed or withdraw in the last 150 years.”

          The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “And it was reviewed. And they decided it was OK.”

            And then when light was shined on it, it suddenly wasn’t?

            “The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?”

            See bullet’s posts and my previous quotes. This is a misapplication of that 2011 rule covering late discovery of inadvertent and unintentional violations. Here are two rule book examples:
            “For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:
            As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.

            A player’s ball lies in a water hazard. In making his backswing for the stroke, the player is aware that his club touched a branch in the hazard. Not realizing at the time that the branch was detached, the player did not include the two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4 in his score for the hole. As the player could have reasonably determined the status of the branch prior to signing and returning his score card, the player should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4. (Revised)”

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “And then when light was shined on it, it suddenly wasn’t?”

            Yes. But as the new rule allows, they didn’t hold them changing their minds against him.

            “The rules were different until 2011 IIRC. The previous 148 years are meaningless to the discussion. How many players since the new rule was passed have been DQed for an action that was deemed acceptable prior to signing their card but later deemed a violation?”

            See bullet’s posts and my previous quotes.

            I read them and discarded them. Why should I take either of you or your sources as a greater authority than the people actually in charge of golf? Has the USGA protested the decision? Is the R&A up in arms? I can quote laws and the common man will misinterpret them. That doesn’t make the common man correct.

            Now answer the question. You’re alleging they treated Tiger specially in violation of their rules, so please list all the counterexamples of players that were DQed under the same or similar circumstances. If there are no counterexamples, then it’s your opinion against those who write and apply the rules. The experts get the benefit of the doubt.

          • ccrider55 says:

            The rule book, including included examples as to how/when the new rule shouldn’t apply, isn’t an acceptable source?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Show me any exception ever, including the last two years, of a player clearly breaking a rule, not self assessing the penalty, signing the card, which is specifically EXCLUDED from being subject to waiving or modifying the requirement to DQ introduced in 2011.

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Show me any exception ever, including the last two years, of a player clearly breaking a rule, not self assessing the penalty, signing the card, which is specifically EXCLUDED from being subject to waiving or modifying the requirement to DQ introduced in 2011.”

            1. You’re the one making the claim that TPTB erred (intentionally or not), so you’re the one that needs proof.
            2. He didn’t “clearly” break a rule. If he had, it would’ve been caught before he left. Instead, it was specifically review and deemed OK. That’s the opposite of clearly breaking a rule.
            3. It’s hard to untangle the end of that sentence, but I’ll say that it clearly isn’t EXCLUDED from from being waived since they waived it.

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “The rule book, including included examples as to how/when the new rule shouldn’t apply, isn’t an acceptable source?”

            Not when the people that wrote the rules say you aren’t interpreting them correctly, no. Lots of people quote the Constitution or Bible and yet are horribly wrong.

          • Brian says:

            And before you bother replying, I’m done with this topic. Neither of us is saying anything new at this point. Until the USGA or R&A have something to say on the topic, there’s nothing to discuss.

          • bullet says:

            Golf is definitely a different mentality than other sports. You have all the flops in basketball, the kickers faking a fall in football and the endless spitters/leaning into pitches/steroids/etc. in baseball.

            Rule 33 seems pretty clear from a lay interpretation and your article with the “ignorance is not a defense” comment supports that. Yet no one addresses rule 33 or how he deliberately (even if ignorantly) violated the rules.

            Personally, I think DQ is excessive (unless its flagrant cheating), but they should apply it consistently. I’d like to see some technical fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties for the floppers in basketball and football.

        • acaffrey says:

          Some people paid money to see Tiger win. Other people paid money to see Tiger lose. That is a lot of people caring about whether he participates. This is not basketball, where there is the risk of fouling out. Tiger transcends golf in a way that few people in any sport have ever done.

          Moreover, where is the outrage among other participants? I would think most of them would rather BEAT Tiger than have a placement that is only such because Tiger did not finish. Not to mention the asterisk that would come with the win: “* Tiger Woods was DQ’d.” Why do that to this year’s winner?

          This is not Anna Kournikova. Tiger Woods got to the pinnacle of golf by playing it so much better than everyone else. He, frankly, deserves special treatment.

          But that assumes it even happened, which Brian has adeptly pointed out is unclear.

          Yet even if he did receive special treatment, he deserves it. A lot of golfers make a lot more money than they would otherwise because of what Tiger Woods did for golf. This “special treatment” is not giving Tiger Woods special treatment in terms of score or ability to win.

          The only real issue here is dislike of Tiger Woods. Mostly by people who are jealous.

          • bullet says:

            The issue is special treatment. Brian’s argument is, “They know the rules better than us so we shouldn’t question their interpretation.” Kind of a strange argument coming from Brian who is not prone to follow orthodoxy or authorities as knowing what they are doing. Just reading the rules as a layman, it looks pretty clear that he should have been DQ’d.

          • ccrider55 says:

            One final thought (after my previous final thought :) ). Feherty had a plausible scenario explaining why he wasn’t DQ’d. Having reviewed and having decided it may have been grey enough to waive the DQ, prior to the admission of intent and violation, they couldn’t revisit it. Sort of a double jeopardy deal. Had there not been a ruling until after the statement, Feherty thinks DQ probably would have happened.

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Kind of a strange argument coming from Brian who is not prone to follow orthodoxy or authorities as knowing what they are doing.”

            I’m also a bigger traditionalist than most, and I still think you’re wrong. People refuse to get out of the pre-2011 mindset when evaluating this.

            “Just reading the rules as a layman, it looks pretty clear that he should have been DQ’d.”

            Just reading the [blank] as a layman, it looks pretty clear that [result] should have occurred is a common sentence in many areas. As it turns out, though, laymen are often wrong.

          • bullet says:

            @Brian
            Fair enough, but they haven’t addressed the contradiction that several people have pointed out.

          • Brian says:

            I think they feel they did address it in their announcement of the penalty and how it happened. Rewatch the video or read a transcript and see.

  61. Richard says:

    OK, the MVC choosing Loyola over UIC (likely for political reasons) is short-sighted and stupid.

    Just wanted to get that out there.

    • @Richard – I hear it’s going to be Loyola *and* UIC plus a likely 12th school (maybe Valpo).

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Poor Horizon League. I lived in Indianapolis, where HL headquarters are located, during Butler’s back-to-back runs to the national championship game. It’s a shame to see it fall apart like this. I guess they’ll fill in with Summit League squads (Oakland, IUPUI, maybe Western Illinois) and someone like Murray State. Then again, Murray State may be better off in the OVC than in the severely depleted Horizon League.

        But at least the Horizon isn’t at the very bottom of the barrell. The Summit League, once it gets its inevitable raid from the Horizon League, has no other D1 league to draw members from besides the WAC. It’s geographic tilt is towards the Great Plains, a slow-growing and sparsely populated region where few recruits aspire to play and few schools aspire to join. The WAC, in turn, has no other D 1 league to draw members from besides the Summit. Its geographic tilt is toward anywhere in the United States desperate enough to join Division 1 bad enough to travel literally all over the country for every single road game. End game is really looking like one of these conferences will disband. We’ll be back to 31 Division 1 conferences within a few years.The new Big East will come on board, and the Summit or WAC will hop off. Only thing that will prevent this is more schools leaving Division 2.

        • bullet says:

          Horizon and Summit have the two worst names. Hopefully at least one of those names go away.

          • BruceMcF says:

            The Summit would not be a bad name for a conference in mountain country, or for a conference which regularly has schools challenging to win it all.

            For a conference dominated by Great Plains schools, and which has AMBITIONS of being in the middle of the pack, its a bit … off.

        • ZSchroeder says:

          Early on it sounded like the MVC was interested in the U of Denver, but Denver was not interested. It looks like the Summit may lose several teams to the horizon leaving a not so great conference for Denver… So maybe Denver could be number 12 in the MVC.

        • Quiet Storm says:

          You might end up with a consolidation of basketball conferences in the Northeast as well, depending on how the next wave of expansion goes. The A-10 may still lose St. Louis and Dayton to the Big East. They are currently at 11 members after inviting George Mason. There are rumors that their next move will include either Siena and/or Davidson (Davidson is a long shot. They tried to get them when they invited VCU and Butler). The Colonial is losing Old Dominion, Georgia State and George Mason so they are down to 8 teams with James Madison possibly leaving to join an all sports conference with D1 football.

          It’s going to come down to how many members the A-10 and the Colonial want to have. The two conferences that are the most vulnerable are the Northeast Conference (which is already losing Monmouth and Quinnipiac to the MAAC) and the American East Conference (losing Boston U to the Patriot League). I would not be surprised to see them merge if the magic number is 12.

      • Richard says:

        OK, adding Loyola along with UIC makes sense, though I don’t get Valpo if you can add a good basketball school in a big city (OR or Belmont) unless the IN schools are calling in chits.

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Travel costs are a concern in lower revenue generating conferences like the MVC. Belmont may be thought of as too far from the core of the league. They’d be the southeastern outlier, though Nashville isn’t as far from the downstate Illinois and Indiana schools as one might think.

          • Quiet Storm says:

            @Michael in Raleigh: I did know about the talks between the A-10 and Davidson before that article came out. The A-10 really wanted them when they invited VCU and Butler but Davidson said no at that time. As a result George Mason didn’t get invited last year. I was told it was a long shot because Davidson said no last year and they really liked the Southern Conference. The A-10 to its credit kept conversations going with Davidson and it paid off in the end.

            This is just my two cents but I think Appalachian State and Georgia Southern jumping to D1, along with the success the A-10 had last season made Davidson re-think their decision.

            I think it’s a great move for both Davidson and the A-10.

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            @Quiet Storm,

            I think it was a good move for Davidson as well. A future in the SoCon without College of Charleston, App State, or Ga. Southern, with replacements from the Big South, Atlantic Sun, and/or recent move-ups from Division 2, was no longer something for Davidson to look forward to. A move to the Patriot League, given Davidson’s status as an elite liberal arts college, would not have surprised me, either. The A-10, though, provides better competition, still good company academically, and similarly long-distant travel but with a better paycheck from the conference to supplement that travel.

            I have to say that while I’m glad my App State Mountaineers are finally moving up to the FBS level, albeit to the worst FBS conference, I do feel sad about the SoCon. Growing up in Greenville, SC, the SoCon was treated with a lot of respect. I’d even go as far as saying that the schools had pride to be in the league–they despised being mistaken as “Division 2 football” or getting mixed up with the Big South, a relatively new league comprised mostly of former D-2 schools and/or schools that didn’t start football until the 90′s. Personally, I have family members who went to Elon, UNCG, and CofC, and I have good friends who went to all the schools except Samford and Chattanooga.

            The SoCon has also been very much a bus league, too, which has lent itself to natural rivalries where co-workers from different SoCon schools worked together. Furman University in Greenville is 35 minutes from Wofford (Spartanburg), about 2 hours from Davidson and Western Carolina, 2.5 hours from App State, 3 hours from UNC-Greensboro, CofC, and The Citadel, 3.5 hours from Georgia Southern and Elon, and about 4-5 hours from Samford (Birmingham) and Chattanooga.

  62. Spydey14 says:

    Go Blue!

  63. Radi says:

    Stumbled across this Post yesterday:

    http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/pod-scheduling-alignment-big-ten

    From this Post is a most attractive idea:

    “Finally, the conference could align in pods, as follows:

    A) Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio

    B) Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

    C) Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern

    D) Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue

    One of the three-team pods would be divisionally aligned with one of the four-team pods, and they’d swap every two years. In any given year, you’d play your entire division, and either two or three of the teams in the opposite division (depending on whether there’s 8 or 9 conference games).

    These divisions wouldn’t be static (they’d change every two years), but over a four-year period everyone would play everyone in the conference at least twice. My guess is the league won’t do something this radical, but as an out-of-the-box idea it’s worth considering.”

    For a 9-game conference schedule, this idea works perfectly:

    (1) Pod A and Pod B are locked cross-overs; and
    (2) Pairs of Pod C and Pod D as sequenced are locked cross-overs, and rotate through the schools of the other pairs two times every four years.

    This Post was orginally posted on November 21, 2012, so hoping here that the Big Ten has had time to consider this most attractive idea.

    By the way: UNC finally got around to choosing a new chancellor. Most of the new chancellor’s credentials suggest a “change agent” regarding athletics.

    Equally interesting is this news:

    http://www.unc.edu/campus-updates/role-of-athletics-at-unc-subject-of-april-19-rawlings-panel/

    (OK, Jim Delany is an UNC graduate, but so is John Swofford.)

    PEACE, DUDES

  64. Brian says:

    http://thegazette.com/2013/04/13/major-disparity-in-big-ten-football-ticket-revenue/

    All the usual accounting caveats apply, but this article has a chart of FB ticket revenue for the B10 schools (+ UMD, +RU, -NW since they’re private and refuse to provide info) for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

    1. MI – $46.4M
    2. OSU – $41.0M
    3. PSU – $33.4M

    11. RU – $7.87M
    12. UMD – $6.62M
    13. IN – $4.35M

    • Ross says:

      Interesting stuff, there. The UMD and Rutgers numbers are pretty terrible, at 6.615 and 7.868 million each. I am sure they look at having Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division as a massive boon to their athletic departments.

      I haven’t followed discussions over the divisions too much, but I have to think that divisional alignment is one they probably highlighted to UMD when they were initially in talks to join the Big Ten.

      I wonder how much we’ll see those numbers jump in their first two seasons. Obviously, the numbers should drop back down a bit after that as the novelty of being in the Big Ten wears off, but I have to think they’ll both manage at least Purdue/Minnesota levels, probably higher given the Big Ten alumni in the region.

      • Ross says:

        I also didn’t realize Rutgers had a better football revenue than Maryland. The ticket revenue doesn’t really explain the revenue difference either.

      • Brian says:

        Ross,

        “The UMD and Rutgers numbers are pretty terrible, at 6.615 and 7.868 million each.”

        Yep, but they’re still way above IN.

        “I am sure they look at having Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division as a massive boon to their athletic departments.”

        Probably. But almost any realistic division for them would be a boon.

        ACC Atlantic:
        UMD
        FSU – 650 miles further away than PSU and with many fewer alumni near DC
        Clemson – 150 miles further than OSU and a lesser brand with fewer alumni near DC
        NCSU – no comparison to MI
        BC – MSU is a better brand but farther away
        Syracuse – fair trade with RU
        WF – a fair trade with IN

        Even with balanced B10 divisions, the ACC didn’t offer them a comparable division.

        “I haven’t followed discussions over the divisions too much, but I have to think that divisional alignment is one they probably highlighted to UMD when they were initially in talks to join the Big Ten.”

        Actually, I doubt it. They really had no idea of what the divisions would be back then. I think they just pointed out that UMD would be in a division with at least 2 kings (most likely PSU), plus at least 1 prince.

        “I wonder how much we’ll see those numbers jump in their first two seasons.”

        The jump should be big. You know the B10 will load them with desirable games at first, and UMD didn’t really have any FB rivals in the ACC anyway so the fans won’t be mad.

        UMD averaged 42,355 over 7 games in 2011. Their capacity is 54,000, so that leaves a lot of room for growth. They need to start winning, though, or nobody may care.

  65. bullet says:

    They had a UNC guy investigating UNC. I wonder if this former and future Auburn employee investigated Auburn? There’s sure been a lot of smoke around Auburn with these 30/30 stories and yet no findings.
    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_id/9168739/ncaa-director-enforcement-david-didion-takes-job-auburn

  66. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    In addition to Tax Day, its also Jackie Robinson Day. Here’s a great article about the first black pitcher in organized baseball.

    http://theadvocate.com/sports/5701696-123/on-jackie-robinson-day-remembering

  67. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    I noticed over the weekend that Yale defeated Quinnipiac for the college hockey championship. What happened to the B1G teams this season?

    • Mike says:

      Odd season for college hockey. None of the traditional powers (UND, B1G teams, etc) made the Frozen four.

    • zeek says:

      I actually was going to comment on this; the NCAA hockey tournament was rife with big names getting knocked out in the first round.

      BC, ND, Denver, Minnesota, Wisconsin. That’s 5 of the 8 first round matchups involving big name schools ousted. Only Wisconsin was probably an underdog among those.

      • zeek says:

        It should put it into perspective that the Frozen Four schools doubled their combined Frozen Four appearances as a result of this tournament from 4 to 8 (Yale had 2, Quinnipiac had 1, St. Cloud State had 1, UMass Lowell had 0 before this tournament).

        Only North Dakota among the traditional hockey schools even made it to the 2nd round.

        • zeek says:

          Just a very weird year for a sport in which you expect most of the schools that reach the final rounds of the tournament to come from one of a dozen or so traditional schools (the ones that have appeared in the Frozen Four between 10 and 25 times).

  68. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    College Baseball Update.

    Indiana took a tumble in the polls after getting swept by Sparty this weekend, falling to #20 in USAToday Coaches, #19 in Baseball America, and unranked in Collegiate Baseball. The NCBWA poll isn’t out yet.

    Notre took its lumps as well, losing to Michigan in a mid-week game and getting swept by Pitt this weekend. Notre Dame dropped out of all the polls so far.

    After sweeping the Irish, Pitt climbed back into the Collegiate Baseball rankings at #25. Rhode Island’s Byant University jumped into the Collegiate Baseball rankings at #30.

    North Carolina is #1 in all the polls. LSU is #2 in two polls and #3 in another. Vandy is #2 in one poll and #3 in two others. Cal State Fullerton, Oregon State, and Florida State are all unanimous at #4, #5, and #6, respectively.

    LSU took 2 of 3 in Fayetteville this weekend in front of over 30,000 fans. Vandy swept Mizzou, and the Tar Heels swept VA Tech.

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      NCBWA poll is out with no real surprises. Indiana at #19.

      The attendance report did have some surprises, though, although none at the top.

      1. LSU ave. 10,754
      2. Arkansas 8,061
      3. Ole Miss 7,853
      4. South Carolina 7,251
      5. Miss State 6,946

      Jumping into the average attendance rankings are two B1G schools: #22 Nebraska (ave. 2,524) and #38 Indiana (1,625) to go along with two other northern schools – #26 Wichita State and #30 Creighton.

  69. Transic says:

    Not jumping the gun, mind you, but an article about the UNC AD wanting to increase revenues for the athletic programs by 40%.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/04/unc-ad-i-want-to-increase-athletic.html

    • cutter says:

      Well, there’s one pretty quick way for North Carolina to put itself on that path–join the Big Ten or the SEC. The latest reports on ACC revenue distributions had the figure around $17M per school.

      The Big Ten is in the $24M – $25M range for the last two fiscal years with expectations going up to around $43M per school with the new conference deal a few years down the road with the inclusion of Maryland and Rutgers. If those figures hold with a larger conference (16 to 18 members), then UNC could be looking at a budget in the mid-$90M range with no other revenue growth in place in a little over four years’ time. I suspect the SEC could make a similar case to UNC.

      Of course, that would mean UNC turning back on its ACC roots, but they wouldn’t be the first school to move away from its traditional moorings to head elsewhere. Besides, if the B1G and the SEC continue to expand as expected, then North Carolina could find itself in familiar company with such a move.

      There’s also the academic/research angle to consider as well. 71% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s research funding came from the federal government (which means sequestration is going to take a bite, UNC is #9 in federal research funding with most of it from the National Institutes of Health)–see http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/04/unc-system-lobbyists-fight-to-preserve-federal-research-money

      If UNC feels that being part of the B1G/CIC will help their research funding, then that’s another reason to make the move. UNC has actually seen a drop in its grants, etc. from a high of $803M in 2010 (with a large amount coming from the stimulus bill) to $767M in 2012. See http://research.unc.edu/about/facts-rankings/research-funding/

      • Radi says:

        Add to this cocktail the fact that: (1) Delany is on the Rawlings panel to consider the future of UNC athletics, and (2) the new UNC chancellor is a woman (can schmooze with Mary Sue Coleman at AAU meetings), 61 years old (perfect age as a “change agent”) and current interim president of Dartmouth College (zero UNC background).

        • Transic says:

          And guess where Mary Sue Coleman got her doctorate degree from? These people really run tight in their circle.

      • Psuhockey says:

        It still funny to me that research money is still a barely mentioned issue when it comes to conference affiliation. Federal funding for research is declining. Individual schools will have a harder time lobbying for grants. That is why the AAU and CIC is so important. One school in one state going against 14 schools in 11 states is no competition. The SEC research consortium is just getting off the ground. The BIG’s is already fully operational. The BIG’s voting block in the AAU is at 14 now out of 62 (60 u.s.). They are already the dominant entity in the organization. Add a few more votes and AAU policy would have to go thru the BIG.

        UNC fans often clammor about if UNC went to the BIG and NC State went to the SEC, that State would overtake them athletically. But what would be more devastating to the school is if that situation was reversed and NC State got voted into the AAU, for which they are on the path for, and had the full weight of the CIC lobbying to take a chunk out of UNC research funds.

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Yeah, the way he rattled off five B1G schools (along with Virginia) as his examples was striking.
      No doubt a few ears perked up when they read that.

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      so, UNC insists that Duke comes along; add UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & FSU in the B1GE; add Kansas to mollify the B1GW.

      B1GE is 10 teams: 6 former ACC, Rutgers, OSU, PSU & Indiana
      B1GW is: Old Big Ten minus OSU & Indiana, plus Neb. and Kansas.
      Two locked x-div. games (The Game and Oaken Bucket)

      That is a hell of a conference, world-dominating research consortium and the divisions are balanced. Add in Johns Hopkins for the hell of it.

      UNC (and the other ACC schools) can “sell” their fans, alumni and boosters by virtue of so many ACC teams moving.

      • Blapples says:

        Eff that. If they go to 20, pods of 5 or 2-3 protected games only are the only way to go in my opinion. I wouldn’t even want go to 16 without doing pods.

        I wouldn’t mind having the “ACC pod” on the schedule 1 year out of every 3 or 2 years out of every 6, but your division basically has Ohio State joining the ACC with what amounts to a yearly OOC game against Michigan.

        I know I’ve said my piece about the B1G being down and wanting OSU’s SoS to increase, but this would be even worse.

      • Brian says:

        BuckeyeBeau,

        “so, UNC insists that Duke comes along; add UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & FSU in the B1GE; add Kansas to mollify the B1GW.

        B1GE is 10 teams: 6 former ACC, Rutgers, OSU, PSU & Indiana
        B1GW is: Old Big Ten minus OSU & Indiana, plus Neb. and Kansas.
        Two locked x-div. games (The Game and Oaken Bucket)

        That is a hell of a conference, world-dominating research consortium and the divisions are balanced. Add in Johns Hopkins for the hell of it.

        UNC (and the other ACC schools) can “sell” their fans, alumni and boosters by virtue of so many ACC teams moving.”

        Umm, I think most OSU fans would agree with me in saying NO! to that alignment. You have to spread the pain around, not condemn OSU and IN to joining the ACC.

        If they had to do divisions, then the new schools need to be split. You can’t stick with geography.

        20 Teams – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, MI, MSU, IL, NW
        Stinks – NE, KU, GT, FSU, OSU, PU, IN, WI, IA, MN

      • cutter says:

        A couple of comments regarding your scenario.

        The first is that if the Big Ten were to get to 20 teams, it might well be done in concert with a reorganization of major college athletics outside the NCAA. Heck, that could happen at 16 or even 18 teams in the B1G, but with the way things are trending in terms of revenue, possible payments to athletes, how the NCAA enforces its rules and the vast array of schools that are in that organization points to some sort of organizational change.

        The second point I have if if the B1G were to get to 18, they won’t be trying to get Kansas into the conference as one of the last two members. That spot will be set aside for Notre Dame. While we don’t know what the other conferences will look like if the B1G were at that number, it’s a pretty fair bet that the ACC will be markedly different because it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario where the SEC and Big XII sit tight. That means every major program in the ACC is in play for more conference movement.

        The idea of Johns Hopkins being an associate member that has its lacrosse team in the Division 1-A level is great. I frankly don’t know what would happen to JHU if the NCAA were to shrink in size or be replaced by some other entity though. But put them and the ACC lacrosse schools into the B1G (Virginia, UNC, Duke, etc.) and that’d be a pretty awesome league.

        Also at 20 schools, the possibility of two fixed divisions with ten programs apiece in football is probably very low. Even with ten conference games, that’s a 9-1 split and it means very little play between those two divisions. Four 5-team pods with teams playing nine conference games per year and with the pods rotating every two years is a more likely scenario. We’ve all put together possible pod lineups given a 20-team conference. Here’s my two cents:

        Pod A – Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia
        Pod B – Maryland, Penn State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Rutgers
        Pod C – Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana
        Pod D – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State

        With this many teams, any pod setup is a compromise and it means that some annual games (such as Michigan-Michigan State and Purdue-Indiana) in this setup will only be played two years out of six (unless you opt to play ten conference games and come up with some creative way to have some locked in annual games between teams in two different pods). With nine conference games, each team plays the other in its division. The two division winners play one another in the conference championship game.

        Years 1 & 2

        Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia

        Division 2 – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

        Years 3 & 4

        Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Northwestern, Ohio State, Virginia

        Division 2 – Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin

        Years 5 & 6

        Division 1 – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin

        Division 2 – Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

        • Transic says:

          I’ll say this about UNC: it’s nice to have choices. Schools like RU, UMd, SU, UConn and Pitt can’t say NO the first time. Even a school like Duke don’t have that many options outside of the ACC, as crazy as that sounds.

          A school like ND can say NO to just about everyone and get away with it up to now, even despite the best efforts of a certain conference to change that reality.

          • cutter says:

            Well, UNC does have choices, but you also have to rate them as well since some can be considered better than others both on the academic and athletic side.

            For example, North Carolina could opt to stay in the ACC, but it’ll be hard pressed to support 28 sports to the same degree that other schools outside the ACC can do it. Right now, the athletic department is barely breaking even, which means they get more revenue somewhere outside the conference (fees to students, greater alumni contributions) or look for another conference, i.e. B1G or SEC.

            As far as Notre Dame is concerned, their choices are narrowing as well. The Big East it was long an associate member imploded and now they’re headed to the ACC. But the one major difference here is that ND is committed by their agreement to play five ACC teams on an annual basis.

            That makes them a semi-independent in football, but also they’re also acting as a de facto conference team in terms of scheduling because of their long term commitments with USC, Navy and Stanford. At that point, the Irish are essentially locked into eight football games per year and have the flexibility to perhaps schedule four each season. At least one or maybe two will go to Big Ten teams (ND also has a long-term commitment with Purdue), so that just leaves two or three schedule slots for Big XII or SEC teams, not to mention the minor conferences.

            Of course, if the status quo remains in place, then Notre Dame can stay in the ACC for as long as they desire. But if the ACC starts losing members to the Big Ten, SEC or Big XII, then it’s the Big East all over again. Also, of course, if major college athletic programs break away from the NCAA and start their own organization, I rather imagine there wouldn’t be much room for Notre Dame as an independent.

            Perhaps the one scenario that could happen is that, for example, 64 programs break off from the NCAA and form four 16-team conference with ND being #65. Maybe ND could swing a deal to play 2-4 games each year with teams from those four conferences and have one of them be the home for their non-football teams. But does that work for the majority and how does that effect the post-season?

          • ccrider55 says:

            If the B1G was going to do a partial deal to facilitate ND remaining “independent” it would have happened long ago.

        • Horatio says:

          I have to agree with @Cutter on one very important point: The only way the B1G goes to 18 teams is with Notre Dame. Otherwise, I see the conference going to no more than 16.

          Moreover, the rumored division split is perfect for two more eastern based teams to join, in that Michigan State moves over to the Western Division (some reports noted that MSU would actually prefer to be in the west).

          Assuming the above is actually true, with a cap on 16 teams, which would be the best schools for the B1G? I assume UVa is #15, and I would have to believe that UNC would win out over GT (in a close call) based on the the MBB content for the BTN, (relative) closer geographical proximity to other schools, and overall success in athletics of the school’s non-revenue programs (soccer, lacrosse, etc…).

          I would imagine that GT would be the #18 to pair with ND at #17. But I believe that the only school who would be #17 would be ND (which isn’t happening anytime soon, if ever.)

  70. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Mr. SEC’s predictions on the ESPN/SEC announcement tomorrow.

    http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/so-what-will-the-secs-new-network-mean-for-you/#more-268626

    • Brian says:

      Some key points:

      Who will own it?

      ESPN and the SEC together are expected to own it. Just as the Big Ten Network belongs 51% to the Big Ten and 49% to FOX, the SEC Network will likely be split down the middle, too. Most believe the league will control 51% and ESPN the remaining 49%.

      When factoring in the amount of money the network will be worth to SEC schools, many are forgetting that ESPN will be taking home an enormous chunk of the profits, too. The folks in Bristol, Connecticut aren’t doing this as charity work.”

      I think that is one of the major questions of interest here.

      “You can expect changes, however, when it comes to some of the league’s less-attractive football matchups. In past years, ESPN has brokered out a small number of games to FOXSportsSouth and CSS (Comcast Sports Southeast). Those games will probably find their way to the SEC Network moving forward.

      As for the weekly noon ET game that’s carried on what’s now called the “SEC Network,” it remains to be seen what happens with that syndicated package. With contracts cut, it probably won’t be changing content-wise, but it could be in store for a name change. It would be confusing for viewers if the league had an actual channel called the SEC Network as well as a syndicated package of games running under the same moniker. We expect something like “SEC Plus” or the “SEC Network Plus” to be adopted. But we’ll see.”

      What about pay-per-view games?

      As part of the SEC’s third-tier rights buy-back, the television rights owned by each of the league’s 14 schools to one football game per season will now be turned over to the conference. Usually the true dregs on the schedule, those games will most likely be turned over to the SEC Network rather than airing as pay-per-view contests that benefit each school separately.

      There is a caveat, however — what happens on Saturdays like last November 16th will be interesting to watch. On that day, there were five pay-per-view games (Jacksonville State at Florida, Wofford at South Carolina, Alabama A&M at Auburn, Georgia Southern at Georgia, Sam Houston State at Texas A&M) and one game on CSS (Samford at Kentucky). It would be quite a stretch to fit six football games into one channel’s broadcast schedule for a single day.

      It’s possible, then, that the SEC and ESPN could trot out a pay-per-view plan on occasion in a state-by-state basis. It’s also possible that the SEC Network could create its own Thursday night football package as the NFL has done on its channel. A number of SEC squads have frequented ESPN’s Thursday night lineup in recent years. But how valuable would a Thursday night package featuring games with Wofford and Samford truly be?

      It seems more likely that the league will simply try to get more involved with the scheduling plans of its institutions in order to make sure everyone isn’t scheduling their patsies for the same weekend.”

      Ah yes, the joys of September conference games – MACtion weekend moves to mid-November.

      Will the SEC Network force the league to go from eight conference games to nine?

      No. Well, not yet anyway. We’ve been down this road before so we won’t bore you with our long list of reasons why the Southeastern Conference should add one more league game per season. Instead, we’ll just look at it from a content standpoint.

      If the SEC and ESPN want to make maximum coin off this venture — and they do — a move to a nine-game slate makes sense. Which do you think would be easier to sell: Sam Houston State at Texas A&M or Tennessee at Texas A&M? Jacksonville State at Florida or Auburn at Florida?

      Money talks. Sooner or later the SEC will take the money and move to a nine-game conference schedule.”

      Good. If everyone else is headed that way, the SEC should, too.

      Will I have to subscribe specifically to this channel?

      No, but this is where things will get tricky. The SEC and ESPN and all the various cable and satellite providers across the country will have to reach agreements on what those providers pay SEC/ESPN for the SEC Network. Those carriage negotiations usually don’t go too smoothly, a cross between going across the aisle in Congress and trying to reason with Kim Jung Un.

      You will be caught in the middle of all these negotiations. You will be the rope that gets tugged back and forth. This is also another reason the league is giving itself a pre-launch countdown of more than a year.

      Down South we tend to view the SEC as the biggest dog in the pack, but if the NFL has had trouble with its network and if the University of Texas has had trouble with its network — inside the state of Texas, for gosh sake — the SEC is in for some bumps and bruises as well.”

      A reasonable answer.

      Who will have to pay for this channel?

      Every cable and satellite subscriber in the SEC’s 11 state region (depending on which providers pick the network up).

      Whether you watch the SEC Network or not, inside the SEC’s geographic footprint most outlets will eventually be forced to carry the network, regardless of what the SEC and ESPN charge them. Then those fees will be passed along to you as part of an increased cable or satellite bill.

      More than likely, the SEC and ESPN will try to charge around a dollar per month for the channel, which falls in line with the Big Ten’s 97-cent fee from a year ago.”

      Is there a source for that $0.97 number?

      If I live outside the SEC footprint will I get the network?

      Yes, eventually. It again depends on which cable and satellite providers cut deals with SEC/ESPN and how quickly they do it. Outside the SEC’s 11-state region, the impact on a viewer’s monthly television bill will be smaller.”

      He probably should have pointed out that it’ll be on a higher tier out of the footprint.

    • bamatab says:

      It looks like we’ll have to wait a little while longer. Cecil Hurt from the Tuscaloosa News is tweeting that the SEC & ESPN will postpone the announcement due to the Boston tragedy. Can’t say that I blame them.

      @CecilHurt SEC postpones Tuesday’s SEC Network/ESPN announcement in Atlanta in wake of Boston explosions.

      https://twitter.com/CecilHurt

      • Brian says:

        Bamatab,

        No, that makes good sense. You want to be the main story (thus why they waited for hoops to end), and clearly the bombings would be center stage. I’m guessing they may wait a week and do it next Tuesday.

        What sort of ownership split and money do you expect in the announcement? Alan? Other SEC fans?

        • bamatab says:

          I personally have no idea how the ownership will be done. I know all of the SEC writers, blogs and forums seem to think it’ll be a BTN type split. But I guess I’ve been reading this board too much, because I also wonder what leverage the SEC has to get a 51% share. Maybe the SEC starts out with a 49% share, with a chance to get a 51% later. Or maybe ESPN has full ownership, with the SEC gaining a percentage later down the road.

          All I know is that the rumors coming from the SEC “sources” seem to think it’ll be a 51/49 split with the SEC having the majority. It’ll be interesting to see how it is setup. I know that ESPN is going all in on it. So I think they will definitely have a large portion of the ownership to start with at the least. If I had to guess, I would say ESPN starts out with at least 51%, with the SEC being able to take majority ownership later down the road. Just a guess on my part though.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Brian – I’m not sure about the ownership split either. Based on the last contract, the SEC’s #1 priority was exposure and #2 was money. After its LHN experience, ESPN may want to give up some ownership in order to keep the guaranteed payments down. Having the station based based in Charlotte (home of ESPNU and ESPN Regional) is an effort to keep costs down.

          Regarding money, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the SEC schools receive checks north of $30mm in June, 2015.

          • bullet says:

            $30 million is not really more than break-even from before expansion. SEC distributed $20 million last year to each of the 12 schools. Playoffs and Sugar Bowl add about $8 million and the schools are giving up their TV Tier 3 to the conference along with some sponsorship rights.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            bullet – I forgot to factor the Sugar/Playoff money in when I made my guess.

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            New Mr. SEC take on the new SEC/ESPN network. One word summary of the article – BUNDLING.

            One thing that is being lost in the upcoming deal is that the SEC is throwing in their digital rights. Those rights were retained by the SEC in the current CBS/ESPN deal. Digital rights may be small right now, but they continue to grow. Its not inconceivable that 20 years from now, the digital rights may be more valuable than the broadcast rights.

            http://www.mrsec.com/2013/04/the-new-sec-espn-partnership-is-about-much-more-than-a-tv-network/#more-268651

          • bamatab says:

            Here is an article on CBSsports that quotes a sports television source not directly affiliated with the SEC or the deal, who estimates an eventual worth of around $400 million per year in SEC television revenue from ESPN and CBS (which pays $55 million per year). That’d be $28.5 million per team before factoring in bowl game earnings or NCAA credits:

            http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22083904/secs-network-with-espn-a-fans-primer

          • Nostradamus says:

            The for how long will it go is fairly interesting.

            “For how long will you get it: The SEC’s deal with ESPN is expected to go for 15 to 20 years.”

            If ESPN gets the SEC network for 15 to 20 years, and presumably an equal extension for their current second tier SEC contract, I can see just about anything. But that is what many here have been saying all along. ESPN will play ball if they get something in return.

          • bullet says:

            That’s the interesting question. Will CBS and ESPN contracts be extended beyond 2024? But there’s no necessity for the network to have the same contract length as the basic contracts. The network needs a longer term to get to profitability.

          • ccrider55 says:

            It’ll be profitable out of the gate. P12N supposedly is, in spite of footing the startup costs and building the infrastructure.

          • Brian says:

            Basically, he now thinks they will go with the LHN model but might do the B10 model.

  71. Brian says:

    http://www.sportsmancave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/unc_newnikes.jpg

    Nike strikes again. UNC’s new colors are powder blue and black apparently, with white going away. Yuck. I say let’s not add them just because of this.

  72. Mike says:

    University of Cal system looking for a new President

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uc-president-20130415,0,4486313.story

    Educators inside and outside UC are compiling lists of people from other states who they believe could do the job. Among those mentioned are: Mary Sue Coleman, a fundraising dynamo as president of the University of Michigan; Francisco Cigarroa, a transplant surgeon who succeeded Yudof as chancellor of the University of Texas system; James Milliken, a former Wall Street attorney who is president of the University of Nebraska; Kevin Reilly, president of the University of Wisconsin system and an expert in online education; and legal scholar William Powers, who is president of the University of Texas at Austin and is a UC Berkeley alumnus.

    • bullet says:

      One of Powers predecessors, Robert Berdahl (president when Big 12 was formed) went to Cal-Berkeley.

      • Mike says:

        from the article:

        Matthew Haney, executive director of the UC Student Assn., said he expected the next UC president to come from outside the state, as did Yudof, who previously led state university systems in Texas and Minnesota. (Yudof is retiring in late August after five years in the UC job.)

  73. Hank says:

    I imagine William Powers would jump at the chance. Governor Perry has been trying to mess with him and UT for the last couple of years. Cigarrao might, too.

    • Mike says:

      I guess that depends on how much time Perry has left? I don’t know too much about Texas politics.

      • frug says:

        He’s allowed to run for a fourth term, but he hasn’t announced whether he will seek reelection.

        His approval ratings are pretty poor, but Texas still leans right and if Perry still has political aspirations beyond Texas another term as governor is probably necessary to rebuild his national image after his disastrous presidential campaign.

  74. frug says:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2013/04/oregon_ncaa_agreed_ducks_commi.html

    Oregon agrees that it committed at least one major violation in its use of a recruiting service and “the university has proposed to self-impose a two-year probation for the football program and a reduction of one scholarship for each of the next three seasons.”

    • ccrider55 says:

      Wonder if this would have been avoided had Nike, err… U of O not pushed Bill Moos out and installed Kilkenny as athletic director. I think his tenure had much to do with their problems. Kilkenny had no experience with college athletics, other than as a supporter (that didn’t graduate), no understanding of the actual job.

  75. Mike says:

    Nebraska baseball just no-hit No 16 Arkansas in game one of a double header to win 3-0.

  76. Transic says:

    More interesting news out of ACC-land. The president of Clemson announced that he is retiring. He will remain at the helm until a replacement is named.

    http://www.clemson.edu/media-relations/4848/barker-to-retire-as-clemson-president-return-to-architecture-faculty/

    He is considered one of the more pro-ACC presidents.

  77. joe4psu says:

    Bowlsby raises red herring that 16 schools could mean UT and OU wouldn’t play every year. He says they will address geographic challenges with “strategic” scheduling. Apparently they haven’t totally adjusted to the addition of WVU. The travel challenges of such an outlier is a much more reasonable argument against expansion. I wonder if they regret adding WVU now.

    Current and former commissioners talk Big 12 rumors, changes at Tuesday panel discussion – Rachel Thompson, The Daily Texan

    http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2013/04/16/current-and-former-commissioners-talk-big-12-rumors-changes-at-tuesday-panel-discussion

    Bowlsby said the conference will tend to geographic challenges in the upcoming season by strategically scheduling games to accommodate teams that may have to travel further.

    “Geography still matters and one of the things that’s gone by the wayside during the course of this expansion is a lot of the traditional rivalries,” Bowlsby said. “You can imagine how people would feel if we went to 16 teams if it meant Texas and OU wouldn’t play each other one year.”

    Weiser, who took on his current role after seven years as athletics director at Kansas State University, said missed classes for student athletes and tough travel times are issues that continue to be smoothed out.

    “With TCU, integration has been fairly predictable and fairly smooth,” Weiser said. “With West Virginia, I’m not sure we’ve gotten to a place that we’ve successfully answered those challenges.”