The main question that I’ve been getting over the past few weeks is the following: “Is conference realignment really done? Seriously? Isn’t everyone still lying?” Well, from my perspective, power conference realignment is finished for the foreseeable future with one possible exception (which I’ll get to in a moment). The fact that the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12 and now ACC all have grant of rights arrangements in place really puts a damper on any further movement. Even if grant of rights agreements could be challenged and struck down, the issue is that none of the 4 conferences that have them in place have any incentive to test that (or else they’d be challenging the strength of their own protections). It’s simply slim pickings in terms of expansion candidates that are outside of the 5 power conferences for the healthiest leagues. Let’s take a look at where everyone stands:
(1) Big Ten – The Big Ten certainly has no need to expand at this point without a school from the ACC or Big 12. A school such as UConn might provide a nice market in theory with elite basketball, but that was already a massive stretch candidate with its lack of AAU status and FBS football history. Plus, even if the Big Ten wanted UConn, who the heck else would the conference add with them? Let’s disregard any notion that an odd number of football schools can be workable from this point forward – what was acceptable with the 11-team Big Ten without divisions and a conference championship game is simply not acceptable in the new larger Big Ten. There has to be a Noah’s Ark expansion approach for any conference that has more than 12 members. As much as I’m a Big Ten fan, I’m also not delusional enough to trick myself into thinking that they could raid the SEC since that’s the only power league doesn’t have a grant of rights arrangement as of yet. Note that the Big Ten passed on Missouri (the most oft-referenced school that would plausibly defect) multiple times when the school was a Big 12 member, so it makes little sense that Jim Delany and the university presidents would even target them now, while a school like Vanderbilt might make the ivory tower-types happy but does little for the financial football goals of the conference (and believe me, as much as I enjoy talking about the CIC and academic status of the Big Ten, the “football” part of the equation still needs to be met). After adding Penn State, the Big Ten was more than willing to wait for two decades to find the correct non-Notre Dame expansion candidates, so I find it to be entirely consistent that they’d be fine with waiting another decade to see if schools like Texas, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Kansas and/or Oklahoma are willing to test the free agent market at that point.
(2) SEC – Meanwhile, the SEC is essentially in the same boat as the Big Ten: all of the candidates that it would realistically want are sitting in the ACC or Big 12. The new SEC Network being formed with ESPN isn’t going to gain anything without a UNC-level addition, which means that expansion is pointless for Mike Slive’s group for the next decade. I don’t subscribe to the Clay Travis bloviations that the SEC Network will blow everyone else out of the water (there are some basic concrete reasons why the Big Ten will very likely continue its current TV revenue dominance for quite awhile, not the least of which is that Jim Delany will get to send the Big Ten’s first tier rights out for open market bidding in a couple of years and that would result in a massive windfall even if Maryland and Rutgers don’t add another dime of revenue to the BTN), but the league will certainly make enough to make it rain in the clubs.
(Note that the key market to watch for SEC Network carriage is the state of Texas. To be clear, I believe that Texas A&M has significantly more pull in its home state than, say, Rutgers has in New Jersey. However, the state of Texas is already home to two of the most high profile ongoing sports network carriage disputes in the country with the ESPN-owned sister channel Longhorn Network not being able to strike a deal with any major cable or satellite carrier other than AT&T U-Verse and Comcast SportsNet Houston, which carries Astros and Rockets games and is co-owned by those teams, still not having anything in place with DirecTV and DISH Network (which is particularly problematic in the Texas market that has higher satellite penetration compared to Northeastern markets such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, DC that have larger percentages of traditional wired cable customers). Now, the SEC Network is going to provide significantly better content than the Longhorn Network, but the fact that such a large portion of the Houston market hasn’t had access to the Rockets led by James Harden, Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik (I still can’t believe that my battered but still fighting Bulls let that guy get away for nothing in return) for an entire season and currently the Astros (as horrible as they might be on-the-field these days) is an indicator that the SEC Network isn’t just going to get Texas cable and satellite operators to roll over. I fully acknowledge that no cable operator will be able to last a day within the state of Alabama if they’re not carrying Crimson Tide football, so I’m just pointing out the Texas market specifically here as a place to focus upon.)
(3) ACC (plus Notre Dame) – At the same time, the ACC is likely going to spend the next decade in the same mode that the Big Ten was during the 1990s: reserving a spot for Notre Dame. Now, that doesn’t mean that Notre Dame has any intention of joining the ACC as a full football member. Quite to the contrary, I believe that Notre Dame’s ability to stay independent is stronger today than it was 10 years ago when the ACC began its multiple raids of the Big East. Notre Dame has secured an long-term extension of its NBC deal, isn’t subject to any conference championship requirement to have access to the new College Football Playoff, will have access to the Orange Bowl and all secondary ACC bowl tie-ins, and will be in a great power league for basketball and non-revenue sports. There’s less logic in Notre Dame giving up independence today than when it appeared that the Big East was going to collapse without a home for non-football Irish sports in 2003. However, never underestimate how much university administrators delude themselves into thinking that they’re going to be the ones that change the hearts and minds in South Bend. Jim Delany, Deloss Dodds and John Swofford, who I consider to be smart men (whether or not you agree with their actions), have all been fooled on this front. With a grant of rights in place, the ACC doesn’t need to proactively grow at this point and can use the “We’ll wait for Notre Dame to come around” retort to further expansion for awhile (even though anyone that has any clue about how single-mindedly focused the Notre Dame alumni base will fight any hint of giving up football independence knows that they’ll never come around). There’s really no need for the ACC to act unless (until?) it gets poached again by another power conference.
(4) Pac-12 – The Pac-12 is an interesting case since it could conceivably benefit from further expansion with schools that are outside of the 5 power conferences (particularly the Mountain West) from a pure financial standpoint, but none of the realistic candidates for that league fit the requirements for markets and/or academics. BYU has a great brand name with a national following and solid academics, but the political viewpoints of the LDS make that school into a non-starter at places like Berkeley. UNLV provides a great market with potentially a gleaming new football palace in Las Vegas, yet the school is far off from what the Pac-12 wants for academics and even worse on the actual on-the-field football front. New Mexico has a similar decent market/horrific football combo. Hawaii could possibly pass muster in terms of academics and football, but this is one case where geography is likely untenable. (It’s still a quicker flight from Los Angeles to Miami than it is from LA to Honolulu.) Boise State’s football prowess and national TV appeal can’t overcome its academic standards that the Pac-12 won’t accept. So, the Pac-12 seems to be boxed in even if it wanted to expand.
(5) Big 12 – As a result, any realistic chance for further power conference expansion in the near future rests with the Big 12. When Jim Delany, Mike Slive, John Swofford and Larry Scott tell reporters that their respective conferences are happy with their current membership levels, I believe them. All 4 of those conferences are at natural stopping points. In contrast, the Bob Bowlsby and the Big 12 seem to have unfinished business – being at 10 members in this environment of larger conferences is much more tenuous than it was 3 years ago, so there’s going to be a lingering feeling of instability with the Big 12 until it gets back up to at least 12 schools in the same way that no one could rest easy when the Big Ten sat at 11 members. While the Big 12 doesn’t have any truly obvious expansion options, they have a bit more leeway compared to the Pac-12 geographically, academically and culturally. For instance, what bothers the Pac-12 about BYU isn’t going to fluster a conference that has a member that didn’t allow any dancing on campus until the Tupac/Biggie feud was at its zenith. The Big 12 could also conceivably expand in virtually any direction within the continental United States, so it’s not implausible that the conference could consider any of UConn, Cincinnati, Colorado State,New Mexico and/or UNLV.
The problem, though, is that the Big 12 is boxed in financially. Unlike the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC (and maybe eventually the ACC), the Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network that can leverage additional households in expansion and is entirely dependent on its national ESPN/Fox deal for conference TV revenue. Now, schools such as Texas and Oklahoma enjoy lucrative third tier rights deals within the Big 12, yet that doesn’t do anything to support overall conference expansion. Plus, the expansion candidates are still largely flawed, as the best football schools like Boise State don’t bring any solid TV markets or recruiting grounds while the schools with the best demographics (e.g. UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado State) have some of the worst FBS football programs anywhere. BYU plus Cincinnati or UConn would seem to be the best shot for the Big 12 to maximize financial value in expansion out of what’s realistically available, yet that combo may not be enough. Unfortunately for the Big 12, the conference’s leaders (or maybe just Texas AD Deloss Dodds specifically) got sidetracked for awhile by chasing the expansion lottery dreams of Notre Dame and Florida State while passing on what could have been lucrative and stability-producing additions with Louisville (which would have given a nearish geographic partner for isolated West Virginia) and BYU. The ACC grabbed Louisville to backfill for Maryland, though, and that ended taking a lot of solid expansion combos for the Big 12 off the table (as any desirable expansion for the Big 12 that didn’t include the pipe dreams of Notre Dame and/or Florida State involved Louisville on some level).
To be sure, the Big 12 (a) probably will always be a pretty good conference in terms of football on-the-field by virtue of being the most prominent conference in the recruiting rich state of Texas and (b) will unequivocally be a power conference with high national TV revenue numbers and bowl appeal as long as Texas and Oklahoma are members. However, that’s also a blessing and a curse, as the conference’s over-reliance on the state of Texas and a couple of marquee brand names exposes some of the same weaknesses in the Big 12 that eventually caused the old Southwest Conference to collapse. The demographic growth prospects of the state of Texas specifically are fantastic, but that masks the fact that the Big 12’s demographics outside of Texas are the worst out of all of the 5 power conferences by a wide margin. (This is a large reason why I never bought what was seemingly a widespread belief that ACC schools would defect to the Big 12 no matter what financial arguments some observers attempted to make.) Long-term, the Big 12 is at risk because there isn’t a ready reservoir of brand names that it can expand or merge with in the way that the old Big 8 took Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor from the SWC. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Big 12 is at risk of completely breaking up like it did back in 2010-11 since I firmly believe that Texas desires the ability to control (or have perceived control over) a conference more than even making the most TV money, but it’s still the power conference that is bound almost entirely by the strength of its current TV contract (which will eventually expire) as opposed to the strength of its bonds beyond that (unlike the academic bonds of the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 or the geographic institutional football focus of the SEC). So, the Big 12 is still be the power conference that will be most susceptible to raids in the future, just as it was 3 1/2 years ago when Jim Delany first announced that the Big Ten was looking to expand. We may just have to wait another 10 years before power conference chaos happens once again. Until then, we’ll need to pay attention to the non-power conferences and basketball leagues (Oakland moving to the Horizon League was announced today and Davidson appears to be heading to the Atlantic 10 as rumored) for our conference realignment fixes.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Sports Illustrated)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
While down in the non-football subdivision, on the other hand, the game of conference musical chairs doesn’t seem likely to pause to catch its breath.
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
Huskers
LikeLike
MgoBlue
Without a conference network in its near or distant future, I’m guessing someone in the Big 12 will eventually challenge the GOR.
LikeLike
But which power conference would willing be behind a move that resulted in that legal challenge taking place? As a hypothetical, the B1G adds UT in 2014 and UT challenges the GoR. Great, but it also challenges the GoR for the B1G.
As the article correctly stated, challenging the legality of a GoR also challenges the legality of the GoR for ACC, B1G, Big-12 and Pac-12. Some may point out that the SEC does not have a GoR, but I believe that they will adopt the GoR sooner rather than later now that they have the SECN.
LikeLike
Not sure I agree as cultural and economic issues seem to negate a GoR scenario
LikeLike
Fair enough. I’m not an expert on the South by any means since i only lived in Blacksburg, Va for 3 years while attending graduate school. So i shall defer to those more knowledgeable about this subject than myself.
LikeLike
Without a conference network in its near or distant future, I’m guessing someone in the Big 12 will eventually challenge the GOR.
Challenge it…on what basis? You cannot challenge a deal just because you regret it. You need something more than that (false dealing, fraud, coersion, material misstatement). You can’t get out of it merely because, with the benefit of hindsight, you realize that you didn’t do the best you could.
LikeLike
You also need someone willing to challenge it. That means someone that wants to get out because they have a better deal elsewhere. That pretty much rules out the entire Big 12 outside of Texas. Oklahoma, and maybe Kansas. And i don’t see Texas challenging anything.
LikeLike
Good post, well reasoned.
I thought the Big Five realignment dance was done a couple of steps ago. I didn’t foresee the Maryland move, but practically no one did, so I don’t feel foolish about missing that. The next two moves (Rutgers, Louisville) were really just the inevitable consequences of what Maryland did.
So Big Five realignment takes a pause for ten years or so.
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
I agree there will likely be no more movement ( except possibly Johns Hopkins for Lacrosse as far as the B10 is concerned. For me the big stories are 1: What will be the terms and dollar amounts of the new TV Contract, and will the bottom feeders ( such as Indiana in football ) take advantage of the situation and upgrade their program? I can tell you that the big programs already are (Nebraska with the Newmarket Arena for hoops and Penn State with the Pegula Ice Arena for hockey are examples of this). 2: The O’Bannon case, and how much money (if any) will the schools have to pay out to players?
LikeLike
Lets assume that Frank is right and realingment is done for a while. Then, let’s say that the upcoming playoff system stays in place for the proposed 12 years.
Which of the “Gang of Five” conferences gets the most bids to an access bowl?
Is the MWC the runaway winner or could the AAC challenge them for the most # of bids?
LikeLike
Penn State Danny,
“Which of the “Gang of Five” conferences gets the most bids to an access bowl?
Is the MWC the runaway winner or could the AAC challenge them for the most # of bids?”
There’s no way to know, obviously, but let’s take a look.
MWC:
Mtn – AF, BSU, CSU, NM, USU, WY
West – Fresno, HI, NV, SDSU, SJSU, UNLV
We know Boise can be elite. The rest? Not really.
AAC:
UC, UConn, UH, Memphis, SMU, USF, Temple, UCF, ECU, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy
We know UC can be elite. The rest? Not really.
I’d actually lean towards the AAC having more depth. UH, SMU, USF and UCF can become strong, at least on occasion. On the other hand, Boise has been better than anyone in the AAC.
I’d say they’ll be close, with it basically being Boise versus several AAC schools.
LikeLike
Hawaii has a BCS record to match UC. Fresno has had extended periods being a top twenty team. USU and SDSU are under appreciated. I’d say they are fairly even, with the edge going to MWC because of Boise at the top.
LikeLike
HI had one good team, more like UH. UC put several together in a row, and against tougher competition. They’ve won 4 of the last 5 BE titles, for what that is worth.
Fresno had a run under Pat Hill (2001-5) but they haven’t done much lately.
USU and SDSU haven’t done much ever. USF and UCF have done more and they are young pups.
The problem for the MWC is that they are dependent on Boise staying dominant. If someone beats BSU, it devalues the whole MWC rather than boosting that team. The AAC can have more teams achieve success without that consequence.
Boise seems most likely to have the most success, but I can easily see the AAC topping the MWC overall.
LikeLike
BYU, with a lackluster offense and a mediocre 8-5 record, lost by a single point AT BOISE because they went for two instead of kicking the extra point and taking the game to OT (and because the worst BYU quarterback for years threw a pick-6 to a defensive LINEMAN). BYU and Boise State will play each other annually for the next decade. BYU will win some of those games and steal some of Boise St.’s hype.
Boise St. LOST to San Diego State, AT HOME, in 2012. Boise State will be a perennial contender for the MWC crown, but it is not invincible.
A huge problem for the MWC is that EVERY YEAR it has two or three teams that ABSOLUTELY SUCK. It is frequently UNLV and New Mexico at the bottom, but Hawaii and Wyoming will make their presence shown. If UNLV and New Mexico could put together programs that could even have a 6-6 season every 3 or 4 years, that would be a huge boost for the MWC.
Another huge hurdle for the MWC is that its teams are either secondary in a decent market (SJSU, San Diego St., Fresno St.) or don’t deliver a decent market (Boise St., Wyoming, Colorado St., Utah St., Nevada). UNLV, Hawaii, and New Mexico are the primary teams in decent markets, but their football is HORRIBLE.
The AAC has bottom-dwellers in Memphis and Tulane, but most of the rest of the conference is competitive. No one is elite, but they there is 70% of the conference can compete for the AAC crown in any given season. Cincinnati, USF, UConn, East Carolina, Houston, SMU, UCF, even Navy,…that’s some parity for you. (Don’t think that the AAC champ won’t occasionally have a 5-3 conference record). The AAC champ will frequently give Boise St. a run for the host bowl bid. Frankly, if the AAC can nurture its football into something entertaining and competitive, the AAC has the markets to quickly grow some programs and prestige. I am secretly hoping that the AAC nails it and expands westward with Boise St., San Diego St., UNLV, and BYU within the next 5 years.
And, don’t forget MAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA schools that can pull a Northern Illinois and get in ahead of the MWC or AAC champ.
LikeLike
FtT:
“…another decade to see if schools like Texas, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Kansas and/or Oklahoma are willing to test the free agent market at that point.”
Am I misremembering? I thought OU tested that market and was told leaving OkSU behind wouldn’t solve their problem. UT losing Tech would have solved UT’s.
LikeLike
Wow, Frank. Really lame. On the one hand you say the B1G passed up Missouri multiple times. Yes, that’s true. They passed up Missouri multiple times for spot #12. The rules are different for spots 13-16. If Missouri were still on the market instead of happily married to the SEC then things might have turned out differently. You yourself have conceded this in the comments section of your blog more than once.
But then you go on in the same section to talk about how the B1G might go on for decades to wait to see if they can get Kansas and Oklahoma. I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous. Kansas football is abysmal. Their academic metrics are basically tied with Nebraska (and several spots below Missouri on the AAU totem poll). They’re also a smallish school in a low population state. Yes they have basketball but that’s it. Now I can see how you could say they’re a marginal candidate because they border Nebraska and they’re (at least for now) AAU. But to include Kansas as a candidate while dismissing Missouri outright (without referencing the fact that Missouri wouldn’t even say yes if asked at this pointin time), is absurd. And Oklahoma is even more absurd. Not only are they not AAU, but they aren’t even remotely close to being AAU. In all likelihood, they will never be even close to being AAU. Yeah they’re good at sports, but they’re pretty damn far from the B1G region, they’re a smalish school in a low population state, and their academics aren’t even close to good enough. In Missouri you’ve got a school that’s AAU with little to no risk of losing AAU status, 35k students, 6M state population, top 30ish in football over the last 10-15 years, top 30ish all time in basketball, basically meeting every criteria that the B1G is looking for (moreso than Maryland or Rutgers) and they’re not worth considering but Kansas and Oklahoma are? That’s very dumb. Usually you’re pretty sensible but this just reads like petty flaming to me. Missouri will not go to the B1G, this is true. But if the B1G ends up adding Kansas and Oklahoma down the road instead of Missouri it will be because Missouri is happily making more money and getting more exposure down in the SEC. And I’d say the odds of Kansas and Oklahoma every joining the B1G are slim to none anyway.
LikeLike
Andy, you utter buffoon. The schools Frank mentioned as possible Big Ten adds down the road when the GOR expires were Texas, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Kansas and Oklahoma. All from the Big 12 or ACC. Both conferences with GORs, which was the point of the list.
Somehow, you ignored this sentence:
“I’m also not delusional enough to trick myself into thinking that they could raid the SEC”
Frank only mentioned Big 12 and ACC schools as possible adds down the road because he doesn’t think any SEC would leave for the Big Ten.
You should seriously rethink why you comment here. Whatever you are trying to accomplish has completely backfired as no one takes you seriously and I would bet that everyone’s opinion of the University of Missouri (not too mention the entire state) has been dramatically lowered just due to your presence.
I have a theory that you are actually a Jayhawk backer posing as a Missouri fan to make the Tigers’ fan base look as bad as possible, one message board/blog at a time. If this is in fact the case, bravo to you! Your act is near perfect, but at times it is hard to believe that an actual Missouri fan could be as large of a d-bag as you make Andy out to be so maybe ease up just a little bit in the future.
Thanks!
LikeLike
You’re pretty blustery for someone who is so ass backwards wrong, both with this post and with pretty much every other time you’ve attacked me on here. (which is several).
Frank clearly said that the B1G rejected Missouri several times and wouldn’t look at them again. But what he fails to mention is that even if they did look at them again Missouri wouldn’t be interested. Any implication that Missouri is waiting by the phone for the B1G to call is ridiculous.
LikeLike
…and you just keep making Arch’s point for him…
LikeLike
cc, you have no room to talk. You’ve been ridiculously wrong about a great many things on here.
LikeLike
Arch,
Nice use of utter buffoon but I was a bit surprised you did not follow up with balderdash to educate the whippersnappers on here.
LikeLike
Talk about playing the man rather than the ball … can I take it you launched a personal attack because it was so hard to actually defend your post as a reasonable reading of Frank’s post?
Or is personal attack just your preferred approach?
LikeLike
Bruce, Arch just launched a 3 paragraph personal attack on me. Even went so low as to call me a jayhawk of all things. Responding with a personal attack was the only reasonable response to that.
As for Frank, this quote of his is 1) unnecessary, 2) misleading, and 3) inflammatory. “Note that the Big Ten passed on Missouri (the most oft-referenced school that would plausibly defect) multiple times when the school was a Big 12 member, so it makes little sense that Jim Delany and the university presidents would even target them now”.
Why? Because 1) Missouri would not plausibly defect, and 2) the fact that the B1G passed on them for spot #12 has little or no relevance to whether the B1G would pass on them for spot #14 or spot #16 if they were on the market. Frank shouldn’t have said it at all, and by saying it he made a fool of himself.
LikeLike
@Andy – I don’t quite get why you’re feeling slighted here. The Big Ten passed on Missouri in both 2010 (after the Nebraska/Colorado defections) and 2011 (when it was apparent that Texas A&M was going to the SEC). That would constitute multiple times. I’ve actually been very clear that I don’t believe that the Big Ten would or could raid the SEC – that comment was in light of some rumblings in blogs and even Brett McMurphy saying on a radio program that Missouri was one of the few expansion possibilities for the Big Ten out there along with UConn (to the extent that there any semi-plausible possibilities at all).
LikeLike
The B1G passed on Missouri in 2010. That’s true. But they also passed on Kansas, Oklahoma, and UConn in 2010 as well. They did not pass on Missouri in 2011 because they were not expanding in 2011. They were still waiting on Notre Dame and/or Texas at that point. Only after those two were effectively off the market in 2012 did the B1G expand again, and by then Missouri was off the market. So really the B1G only passed on Missouri once while actually expanding. And at that same moment they also passed on UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Kansas, Oklahoma, and who knows how many other interested schools. If you’re going to count every year that they could have expanded but chose not while Missouri was interested to as a time when they they “passed on Missouri”, then the B1G “passed on Missouri” probably 20 or more times. But I’d say the only time it counts is when 1) the B1G was actually expanding, 2) Missouri was willing to join, and 3) the B1G went with somebody else instead. And that’s only happened twice: 1990 with Penn State and 2010 with Nebraska. Those are two big name schools and it’s unsurprising that they could get the nod over Missouri. But could Missouri get a spot over Rutgers if Missouri were available? Certainly? Over Kansas? Certainly. Over Oklahoma? Certainly. Over UConn? Certainly. Over Notre Dame or Texas, no. Over UNC or UVA? No. Over Georgia Tech? Very possible. Point is, when talking about candidates for expansion, Missouri’s not at the top of the list, but they’re not near the bottom either. Getting passed over for Nebraska is proof of nothing. Joining the SEC and being off the market makes it all moot anyway though so why even bring it up? And if you do bring it up, why say something misleading like you did?
LikeLike
You’ve lost me here Andy. I guess I look at it this way:
1.) The BIG passed on Mizzo because Neb became available, thus the BIG was content at 12 after their addition. Choosing Neb over Mizzo was a no brainer & I say that with much respect for the University of Missouri as a higher learning institution. I don’t think Delany foresaw aTm bolting to the SEC, therefore putting Mizzo in a good position with the SEC. The SEC couldn’t stay at 13. Mizzo found a great home, the alpa conference for football.
2.) The BIG moved to 14 because the ACC, along with the SEC, reached 14 or more. The ACC secured Pitt, Syracuse and ND (<– which crushed a lot of BIG fans despite countering claims, I say f ND & have been saying it for years). In this event, I believe Delany likely had some regrets by not adding Mizzo because 16 would be nice with say a UConn & Mizzo combo, which can't happen now & leads me to my next point, clearly made by Frank.
3.) Frank is pretty clear in his current post . . . not delusional. The BIG won't go after Mizzo now – they're in a great place foremost & a rejection would backfire on the BIG's reputation, which is already at risk due to poor football the past decade, I could note other periods here as well.
*****
Unfortunately, too many BIG fans remained delusional that the BIG would get more ACC teams. These fans often came across as snotty-elitist-football centric types with dollar sign pupils on various boards, referencing cut paste articles and figures – pseudo journalism. But to Frank's defense, a position I agreed with him on, FSU was a real possibility & he was generally consistent that FSU was the key ACC team to score. Unfortunately FSU needed another member to join them. No other team was available. Not Virginia, GT, certainly not UNC (<– God I can't believe this scenario every came up) & whoever else. I think someday it will be pretty clear, documented-filed fashion, that no other ACC team was interested in joining the BIG – none. Some may cite GT, but fail I say. GT's AD has a ND pedigree & both schools have strong history with each other, plus ND's blatant need for Ga football recruits remains vital. Lastly, the ACC is a very proud conference, esp the older members. Thus when BIG bloggers & pseudo journalists spoke with confidence of a Va, GT or UNC addition, they offended legions upon legions of fans & power brokers.
The BIG found the right ACC member to leave & that wasn't easy considering the slight majority of Md fans-alum-adminstrators-former athletes-former coaches who were disappointed to leave the ACC.
BIG fans, which includes me, need to get off the high horses, engage our respective schools & communities and insist on the following:
Better recruiting retention, esp in basketball
Year round amateur football
An innovative system to improve baseball
And of course, maintaining excellent academic standards
I find it remarkably tragic that a school like UI-UC (however you say it) can't deliver on the gridiron nor hardwood at a consistently high level. This reality is sobering, despite the Orange & Blue's base: the most populous state in the BIG & certainly home to one of the greatest hoop's hotbeds in the nation, year after year. Illinois still hasn't won a basketball NC, an almost criminal reality.
Which leads me to my final point: too many BIG fans speak along quantitative lines when it comes to expansion, coupled with pretentious academic elitism. STFU already! Please remember that the quality & quantity of BIG fans who show up at football and basketball games distinguish us from the rest of the power conferences. No other conference delivers our attendance in both sports – ACC is strong in basketball, SEC in football, but neither attend both sports in BIG fashion. This laudable BIG attendance reality is a rare combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics. But BIG teams need to deliver more quality at this point: NCs in basketball, not consistent runner's up & of course much need winning bowl records/winning bowl seasons (<– I'm being nice here & excluding NC discussion because the BIG's NC's are pitiful over the past 40 plus years, pitiful). We can't piggy back Nebraska or PSU's hey days, those NCs were earned outside BIG membership.
Time to grow the conference from within in terms of quality, improve the products on the fields-courts-diamonds, etc. Winning with class would do wonders for the BIG's very tainted national perception, a perception quite obvious once you leave the BIG footprint – the bubble pops loudly, esp in the Southeast and Left Coast.
LikeLike
gfunk, I agree with everything you said, and if Frank had said the same I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But he didn’t.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Unfortunately, too many BIG fans remained delusional that the BIG would get more ACC teams.”
That’s unfair, IMO. UMD wasn’t seen as a likely addition until it happened. After getting one founding member of the ACC, I don’t believe it’s delusional to think you might get another ACC member. It’s not like most B10 fans thought it was a given, just that it was a possibility.
“These fans often came across as snotty-elitist-football centric types with dollar sign pupils on various boards, referencing cut paste articles and figures – pseudo journalism.”
All B10 fans come across as snotty to many people online the instant they mention academics. But since that is a factor in B10 expansion, tough crap for those that can’t handle it. As for being football-centric, only an oblivious fan could think expansion of the big 5 wasn’t driven by football. Hoops fans don’t have to like it, but they should be able to recognize the truth. And everyone, I mean everyone, has said from day 1 that expansion is all about money. There isn’t anybody involved that doesn’t have dollar signs in their eyes.
So how do you avoid those appearances when those are the underlying facts? ACC fans just didn’t like it because they were the potential victims. I don’t recall them being so offended when they were the ones shredding the Big East not so long ago.
“But to Frank’s defense, a position I agreed with him on, FSU was a real possibility & he was generally consistent that FSU was the key ACC team to score.”
Ah. So it’s OK to spread rumors about football-focused FSU because they aren’t really an ACC school (not a hoops school, not an academic power, not a founder) but heaven forbid people mention an old guard hoops school like UVA. That’s despite UVA being AAU and adjacent to recently added UMD, not another 800 miles away.
“Unfortunately FSU needed another member to join them. No other team was available. Not Virginia, GT, certainly not UNC (<– God I can't believe this scenario every came up) & whoever else."
Really? UT to the ACC, B10, P12 and SEC all came up, but UNC should be off limits? What makes them so special?
"I think someday it will be pretty clear, documented-filed fashion, that no other ACC team was interested in joining the BIG – none."
1. This stuff never gets clarified that way. For whatever reason, people feel the need to keep it all secret. Delany would rather die than tell much of anything.
2. You just finished saying FSU was interested, and you have no basis for that, so do you mean no 3rd ACC school? We know Pitt has tried to get into the B10 before, so I assume you mean no school the B10 was thought to be interested in this time other than UMD and FSU were seriously interested.
"Some may cite GT, but fail I say."
And we should take your word over their's why, exactly?
"GT's AD has a ND pedigree & both schools have strong history with each other, plus ND's blatant need for Ga football recruits remains vital."
GT's AD is brand new and probably had no say in anything. He didn't take office until 4/1 and the old one is at Clemson. GT could play ND in football in any conference. ND can recruit GA regardless of being in a conference with GT. Besides, why would ND's recruiting needs influence GT's decision?
"Lastly, the ACC is a very proud conference,"
Unlike the B10?
"esp the older members."
Like SC? Oops, they left a long time ago. Like UMD? Oops, they just agreed to leave. Like Clemson? Oops, their BOT chairman said Clemson would listen to offers from other conferences and their fans were mad at the coach for saying staying in the ACC was the right choice.
That's 3 of 7 founders.
"Thus when BIG bloggers & pseudo journalists spoke with confidence of a Va, GT or UNC addition,"
Clearly a lot of people were getting bad information. Multiple people claimed to have sources saying one or more of those deals were real.
"they offended legions upon legions of fans & power brokers."
Too bad for them. If you get offended by internet rumors like that, you get offended way too easily.
"BIG fans, which includes me, need to get off the high horses,"
Not all B10 fans are on high horses.
"Better recruiting retention, esp in basketball"
Perhaps you could beat this dead horse some more. You still have never backed up how this is a factor. The top hoops players go to schools all over the country. B10 schools just need more of them, it doesn't matter where they are from.
"Year round amateur football"
1. Not everyone agrees that's good for the kids.
2. We have no say over that. In OH it's the OHSAA that keeps saying no despite the coaches asking for it.
"An innovative system to improve baseball"
How about dumping it as the world's most boring sport? I wish OSU would stop wasting money on it. I couldn't possibly care less if the B10 is bad at something so meaningless to me.
Barring that, they've been proposing things and they all get shot down by the schools with a weather advantage. Imagine that, people with an edge want to keep it. There is no magic fix for bad weather, and it impacts all levels of baseball. How many games do the Braves cancel due to snow versus the Twins?
"And of course, maintaining excellent academic standards"
Are you saying we aren't interested in that now?
"I find it remarkably tragic that a school like UI-UC (however you say it) can't deliver on the gridiron nor hardwood at a consistently high level."
It's just sports. Save tragedy for plays or when life is at stake.
"Which leads me to my final point: too many BIG fans speak along quantitative lines when it comes to expansion, coupled with pretentious academic elitism."
How else should candidates be evaluated? It's hard to have discussions about "fit" and other nebulous topics. You can list and discuss various facts and figures, though. And whether you like it or not, as far as we can tell AAU status is a line in the sand for the B10. Maybe that is elitism, but we aren't are the source. We're just acknowledging the reality of it. Ignoring it would be dumb on our part.
"Please remember that the quality & quantity of BIG fans who show up at football and basketball games distinguish us from the rest of the power conferences."
Now who's being elitist? B10 fans are no better than any other fans in terms of quality. As for quantity, that's as much due to the size of the schools and the population in the footprint as anything. I don't know that it's anything to brag about. It's not like the football stadiums at all 12 schools are sold out each week.
"No other conference delivers our attendance in both sports – ACC is strong in basketball, SEC in football, but neither attend both sports in BIG fashion."
2011 Football
SEC: 6,369,898 (75,832 per game) – #1 conference for 15 straight years
B10: 6M+ (71,439 per game) – #2
Difference = 4400
2011-2 MBB
B10: 2,856,785 (12,868 per game) – #1 conference for 36 straight years
SEC: 2.5M+ (11,513 per game) – #2
Difference = 1350
The B10 had 222 hoops games to roughly 84 football games, or about 2.65 times as many games, but the SEC leads in football by 3.26 times as much. In total fans, the SEC wins.
"But BIG teams need to deliver more quality at this point: NCs in basketball, not consistent runner's up"
We all want to win more titles, but you have to make the Final 4 to win the title. That's better than nothing.
"& of course much need winning bowl records/winning bowl seasons (<– I'm being nice here & excluding NC discussion because the BIG's NC's are pitiful over the past 40 plus years, pitiful)."
How is this a B10 problem? Nobody else is winning titles either.
BCS Titles:
SEC – 9
B12 – 2
ACC – 1
B10 – 1
P12 – 1
BE – 1 (now in ACC)
1973-1997 (Isn't this ancient history by now?):
Indy – 10
B8 – 7
SEC – 6
ACC – 3
P10 – 3
BE – 1
B10 – 1
SWC – 0
Lots of B10 teams came close but didn't win a title over these years. OSU had only 1 loss 4 times. MI did it 2 times plus had 0 losses 3 times (3 ties 1 year, though). IA and WI did it once.
IA was #1 for much of 1985 until they lost at OSU in the pouring rain.
OSU was #1 for most of 1973-5 and spent a lot of the 90s in the top 5.
MI was #1 for most of 1976 and much of 1977 and spent much of the 80s in the top 5.
Of course, the years matter a lot, too.
1963-1972:
B10 – 4 titles
1953-1962:
B10 – 5 titles
There are also structural issues that keep us at a disadvantage and you know that:
1. We play more road games than anyone else (SEC in FL, B12 in TX, P12 in CA). USC is 24-8 in the Rose Bowl (16-6 vs the B10). The B10 is 24-21 against everyone else there.
2. Our bowl lineup is usually the most difficult.
Current line up:
1. BCS (P12 #1 or better)
2. BCS (other or P12 #1)
3. Cap 1 (SEC #3)
4. Outback (SEC #4)
5. Gator (SEC #7)
6. BWW (B12 #4)
7. Texas (B12 #6)
8. Dallas (B12 #8)
9. Pizza (MAC #1)
B10 – 1 MAC, mostly even or uphill match-ups
SEC – 1 CUSA, 1 BE, 3 ACC, mostly even or uphill match-ups
B12 – 1 BE, some downhill match-ups
ACC – 2 BE, 2 variable (mostly non-AQ), several downhill match-ups (#7 vs SEC #10, for example)
BE – 2 CUSA, mostly downhill match-ups
P12 – 1 ACC, 2 MWC, 1 non-ND indy, several downhill match-ups
3. Our players face more weather shock than anyone else at the bowl sites. Fans downplay it, but it does impact play and indoor practice isn't enough to compensate for all the other hours your body spends adjusting to the weather. B10 players get a lot more cramps, for one thing. Ever notice how much hotter 80 degrees in April feels than 80 degrees in July when you're working out?
You also might want to remember the truth and not the ESesPN narrative – the B10 has been in more BCS games than anyone else and is 13-14 overall. That's exactly the sort of record you should expect in elite bowls. And remember, the B10 rarely played non-AQs, weak BE teams or bad ACC teams. That record is mostly against the P12, B12 and SEC.
http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern-manifesto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs
Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8
That is not to deny that we need better players and coaching to be on par with the best teams now. But you see OSU and MI building and PSU will once the sanctions end. NE will eventually improve. Eventually WI will probably get over the hump, even if it’s just for 1 year. More importantly, we need to build depth.
“Winning with class would do wonders for the BIG’s very tainted national perception, a perception quite obvious once you leave the BIG footprint – the bubble pops loudly, esp in the Southeast and Left Coast.”
So would ESPN telling the truth, but I’m not holding my breath. The P12 stinks in hoops and they don’t get much flack. The B10 gets stuck playing the SEC a ton in bowls and gets crushed for it. Remind me – which other conference is whipping up on the SEC in major bowls?
LikeLike
Brian, Brian, Brian,
I applaud your rebuttal – an amazing effort filled with passionate defense. But you did lose me several times : ).
I’m ultimately happy with the BIG, despite my posted concerns. Hell the BIG will always be fine, even if we were back at 10.
If anymore expansion occurs, so be it.
I’m disappointed to see the Big East pretty much destroyed, mostly at the expense of the ACC.
But I’m also happy to see the ACC hold serve at this point.
I do prefer a strong sense of regional togetherness amongst conferences. We still have Nebraska adjusting to the BIG & from 2014 on, we’ll have two major schools aboard. It will take a half a decade, at least, to integrate these additions.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I applaud your rebuttal – an amazing effort filled with passionate defense. But you did lose me several times : ).”
It was late and I was tired, so parts may be incoherent. Feel free to ask for clarifications.
“I’m ultimately happy with the BIG, despite my posted concerns. Hell the BIG will always be fine, even if we were back at 10.”
We’d be better back at 10, IMO.
“If anymore expansion occurs, so be it.”
Hell, no! Go down fighting it.
“I’m disappointed to see the Big East pretty much destroyed, mostly at the expense of the ACC.”
The BE was never a true FB conference. It was a hoops league that dabbled in CFB and the membership showed that. If they had just stuck with hoops, they would have been fine. If they had always been a FB league they might have been OK, too. The hybrid approach was doomed from the start.
“But I’m also happy to see the ACC hold serve at this point.”
I wish they still had UMD and didn’t have some of their add-ons (ND, BC, Pitt, SU, even UL is a stretch).
“I do prefer a strong sense of regional togetherness amongst conferences.”
So do I. I realize modern travel and communications has enabled growth without losing contact, but larger numbers always lead to dilution.
“We still have Nebraska adjusting to the BIG”
I think they’ve fit in pretty well and pretty quickly. Once they get a rivalry going, they’ll be at home.
” & from 2014 on, we’ll have two major schools aboard. It will take a half a decade, at least, to integrate these additions.”
More like half a century since they are so different from everyone else.
LikeLike
Andy: “The B1G passed on Missouri in 2010. That’s true. But they also passed on Kansas, Oklahoma, and UConn in 2010 as well. They did not pass on Missouri in 2011 because they were not expanding in 2011.”
Given that the Big Ten moved on Maryland just about as soon as they were known to be available, I’m not inclined to be convinced by your claim that they threw the realignment switch to the off position after Nebraska and didn’t throw it back to the on position until after Missouri had left.
And even if that was what happened … that counts as passing on Missouri, if Missouri is on the table and they don’t make an invite … its just quibbling on why they passed on Missouri.
LikeLike
They were waiting on Notre Dame, obviously. Once Notre Dame joined the ACC the game changed, and the B1G looked to make a move again. By then Missouri was gone.
LikeLike
Brian,
Your late evening/early morning (May 9th) rebuttal post is spot-on… Great job putting forth what many of us B1G fans/followers/alum feel…
Thanks
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
Thank you for the compliment.
LikeLike
@gfunk ~ regarding innovative baseball strategies, I agree with Brian.
Inside the pre-WWII Major League Baseball footprint, college sports fans and/or baseball fans don’t really care enough about college baseball to justify making it a strategic emphasis for the Big Ten. I grew up in Central Ohio as a baseball fan following the Reds, and I first became aware that college baseball was a thing when I went to grad school in Knoxville. And even there, when I wanted to take the kids out to the ball park, I took them to watch the minor league club.
LikeLike
Andy, you’ve really misread the post—badly. Frank’s core point is that nobody is going to raid the SEC. In addition, he points out that the Big Ten already passed on Missouri multiple times, a fact with which you don’t disagree.
The rules are different for spots 13-16.
Oh, really? How do you know that the rules are different; or that if they’re different, they’d tend to make the B1G more likely to take a school like Missouri, rather than less?
But then you go on in the same section to talk about how the B1G might go on for decades to wait to see if they can get Kansas and Oklahoma.
Frank gave a list of six “maybes,” of which KU and OU were numbers five and six. The inclusion of those two, at the end of a long list, doesn’t undermine the basic validity of Frank’s point.
Anyhow, I think OU is the only one that I have trouble imagining. Gordon Gee said not long ago that the Big Ten might take “a couple of midwestern schools.” With Missouri clearly off the table, it’s hard to imagine Kansas not being one of the schools that was, at least, considered.
Do I think Kansas is a likely future Big Ten school? No. But as #5 on a list of maybes, I don’t take issue with it. I could very well see Kansas as an “even-numbered school,” much the way Rutgers was (a school you take, along with a more compelling partner, to get up to even numbers).
LikeLike
Marc, the fact is if you’re going to make a list and include Oklahoma and Kansas then you can’t leave out Missouri, and you especially can’t specifically post that Missouri should be left out because they were passed over in the past. Guess what? Kansas and Oklahoma were passed over in the past as well. You think those schools didn’t want to come with Nebraska too? Yeah right.
The fact that MIssouri wasn’t picked for spot #12 can in no way be used as proof that they would not be a suitable #14 or #16 if they were on the Market. Frank saying as much was just plain dumb. He should have just left it alone if all he had was that weak ass argument.
LikeLike
Andy, your error is that you’re picking off Frank’s points one at a time, instead of reading them together, as they were meant to be. No one else so far has had any trouble figuring out what Frank meant, so perhaps the misunderstading is yours, not his.
LikeLike
He said that Missouri wouldn’t be considered because they were passed on multiple times. That’s crap. They wouldn’t be considered because they don’t want to be at this point. That’s it. Reading his whole post doesn’t negate that he was wrong in that sentence.
LikeLike
@ Andy, It sounds like you are a being a little hyper-defensive here. No one was attacking Missouri, no need to go on a crusade. None of us know (including your super secret sources at Missouri) exactly what went on in 2010 and 2011; just have fun with the speculation and don’t get so emotionally involved. It’d suit you better.
LikeLike
OrderRestored, you’ve flamed me and trolled me dozens of times, often with completely idiotic posts. Honestly I don’t even read what you say to me anymore.
LikeLike
I’d say that my opinion of Missouri was affected, but I just don’t care enough about them to muster one.
LikeLike
Selective thought process…RU and NYC/NJ has been on the unofficial B1G waiting list for years….sorry to say Mizzou just wasn’t…easy as that….hate to burst your bubble..only a suddenly available UNL prevented RU from being number 12….thats when the Md talks started and Pitt and Cuse bailed to the BE save face knowing RU was short for the conference.
LikeLike
Couple points
Even if grant of rights agreements could be challenged and struck down, the issue is that none of the 4 conferences that have them in place have any incentive to test that (or else they’d be challenging the strength of their own protections).
I agree with you on the ACC and Big XII, but I don’t see why this would be an issue for the PAC or B1G. Even without a GOR it’s not like anyone is going to be leaving anyways.
So, the Big 12 is still be the power conference that will be most susceptible to raids in the future, just as it was 3 1/2 years ago when Jim Delany first announced that the Big Ten was looking to expand.
I’m not so sure about that. In 10 years the ACC is still going to be facing the fundamental problem that it has a lot of schools that would be appealing to other conferences but lacking a strong core to hold them all together. The ACC is essentially a Jenga tower; left untouched it won’t collapse on its own, and it could even afford to lose a few pieces. But take the right piece and the whole thing will come crashing down.
The flip side is the Big XII’s stars and scrubs model that ensures all they have to do is hold Oklahoma (who probably doesn’t want to leave) and Texas (who definitely doesn’t want to leave) to survive into eternity.
Also, remember that 3.5 years ago the Big XII was trapped in a way below market TV contract which is a situation much more likely to describe the ACC in 10 years.
We may just have to wait another 10 years before power conference chaos happens once again.
One thing to keep in mind that the cost of buying out a GOR drops every year since you have to buy out fewer years meaning that schools aren’t necessarily chained together for the actual duration of the deals.
LikeLike
frug,
“I agree with you on the ACC and Big XII, but I don’t see why this would be an issue for the PAC or B1G. Even without a GOR it’s not like anyone is going to be leaving anyways.”
I’m with you on this. The B10 and P12 largely need a GOR for network purposes, not member retention. Now, I don’t think the B10 would take the risk (esp. to their reputation) of attacking a GOR without a huge target wanting to join, and I also doubt any school would take the risk with more than 2-3 years left in their GOR. But I agree, the B10 shouldn’t be worried about weakening a GOR.
“I’m not so sure about that. In 10 years the ACC is still going to be facing the fundamental problem that it has a lot of schools that would be appealing to other conferences but lacking a strong core to hold them all together. The ACC is essentially a Jenga tower; left untouched it won’t collapse on its own, and it could even afford to lose a few pieces. But take the right piece and the whole thing will come crashing down.”
What we can’t predict is what happens to the money. The ACC deal lasts until 2026-7. What is the ACCN worth by then? That’s the big question. If it really gets them $5M per school, then they may trail the B10 by only $3M/year in TV money or so. Or maybe the B10 gets a huge deal and the ACCN either never happens or has little value and they trail by $15M.
Without knowing the financial gap, it’s impossible to predict their vulnerability. They’ll be fine if the gap is small while schools will refuse to renew the GOR if the gap gets big.
“One thing to keep in mind that the cost of buying out a GOR drops every year since you have to buy out fewer years meaning that schools aren’t necessarily chained together for the actual duration of the deals.”
It does, but the school still has to give notice and then stops getting paid for 1-2 years. Add in the exit fee and the GOR fee, and that’s a lot to cough up for any conference. You need a high value target to justify that, and that means the GOR fee will be even higher.
LikeLike
And for a school with only two or three years left in its GOR, if it announces that it is going to leave in a year or two, that is only a year or two of impaired rights for the conference it is joining.
If its not a strong enough add to wear a year or two of impaired rights, its a marginal add anyway and probably should be left alone.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the B1G cares much whether the Grant of Rights fence is hurdled. No one is leaving the B1G for another conference so why would they care? Furthermore, if the B1G was recently looking at Oklahoma and Kansas that speaks volumes as to whether the B1G thinks a Grant of Rights would stop them.
Grant of Rights is not a new concept, it’s just relatively new for college athletics. They have been used in the media and entertainment for a long time with the licensing of intellectual property. While some contracts with a grant of rights can be iron clad and harsh, like most record deal in the past where the conveyance was permanent, most contracts these days limit the effect of type of agreements two ways. First, such contracts now usually are for a reasonable length, the term. A ten year conference media rights agreement is made to order for such a term. The other way such conveyances of intellectual property is limited, the conveyor somewhat protected, is to include a buyout. I have a hard time believing every team in the Big 12 and the ACC entered into a Grant of Rights without such a provision.
I think the Big 12 media contract has such a provision and the B1G knows it. I also think the ACC, who patterned their Grant of Rights after the Big 12’s, likely has one also.
LikeLike
Exactly right on all counts.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the B1G cares much whether the Grant of Rights fence is hurdled. No one is leaving the B1G for another conference so why would they care? Furthermore, if the B1G was recently looking at Oklahoma and Kansas that speaks volumes as to whether the B1G thinks a Grant of Rights would stop them.
We have no evidence that the B1G was recently looking at Oklahoma and Kansas, aside from Gordon Gee’s extremely vague comment about “midwestern schools.” I have a hard time believing that the Big Ten ever gave much serious consideration to Oklahoma at all. Kansas, I’m sure, was considered, but that was probably before the Big XII GOR was signed.
The concept of the GOR has gotten plenty of media attention. Everyone agrees that it’s for the length of the TV contract. But I haven’t found any report that there’s a buyout. If there IS, it would need to be awfully expensive. Otherwise, it would vitiate the whole point, which is to ensure that the schools stay together for the life of the agreement.
A GOR is like any contract: it’s escapable at some cost. But every league that has a GOR seems to be pretty damned sure that it’s extremely safe. Hence, the cost of getting out must be FAR more than just an exit fee — otherwise, the ACC (which already had an exit fee far higher than any other league) would have had no reason to consider the GOR more stable.
I agree with you that the B1G is probably not worried about getting poached, but you ignore the far more practical questions. What would be the cost of getting out? And given the cost, what schools and which leagues would consider it worthwhile? Frank’s point is that the answer is: probably nobody.
That is: nobody until these GORs get close to their termination dates, at which point the exit costs will begin to resemble an old-fashioned exit fee, which we know never stopped anybody. We won’t see that until the early-to-mid 2020s.
LikeLike
Yes, the chronology is important here … for instance, some people have wanted to take the remarks regarding the Big Ten having NDA’s with some vague number of schools as a specification of what happened SINCE Nebraska joined the Big Ten, but there’s nothing in the original statement to specify that, and it could easily be a description of the whole process since the 11-school Big Ten announced they were looking at expansion.
LikeLike
Even if there isn’t a buyout, there are always business solutions to get out of a contract. If the Big 12 knows that Kansas wants out, it would rather cash in (and then replace Kansas) then deal with a disgruntled member for the next 8 years. It would come at a hefty price, but there are always business solutions.
And, as you correctly point out, the grant of rights does not last forever. The closer you get to the end of the term, the easier (ie, cheaper) it will be to get out of the grant of rights.
Thus, the recent grant of rights solidarity has likely cooled off expansion AMONG the Big 5 for the next FIVE years or so. But the closer we get to expiration, the more things will heat back up.
I’m still of the opinion that the ACC is in a better position than the Big 12 (always has been). It is WAY more likely that the ACC expands westward, than the Big 12 raiding the ACC (always has been). Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa are pretty weak markets, especially to be shared by two universities.
Compare the footprints:
BIG 12
Texas – 25.6 million
…..
…..
…..
Oklahoma – 3.8 million
Iowa – 3 million
Kansas – 2.8 million (although includes 2.8 million St. Louis market – with some overlap)
West Virginia – 1.8 million
TOTAL – 37 million – but, if Texas were poached…?
ACC
Florida – 19 million (2 of the 3 big programs)
Pennsylvania 12.7 million (2.3 mil in Pittsburgh metro)
Georgia – 9.8 million
North Carolina – 9.6 million
Virginia – 8 million
Massachusetts – 6.5 million
Indiana – 6.5 million (plus Notre Dame fans/haters EVERYWHERE)
South Carolina – 4.6 million
Kentucky 4.3 million (1.4 mil in Louisville metro)
Syracuse – 660K (access to New York’s 19 million?)
TOTAL 81.6 million >>>>> Big 12’s 37 million
Big Ten
Illinois – 12.8 million
Pennsylvania 12.7 million
Ohio – 11.5 million
Michigan – 9.8 million
New Jersey – 8.8 million
Indiana – 6.5 million
Maryland – 5.8 million
Wisconsin – 5.7 million
Minnesota – 5.3 million
Nebraska – 1.8 million (and they are ALL Huskers fans)
TOTAL 80.7 million >>>>>>>>Big 12’s 37 million
PAC 12
California – 37.6 million
Washington – 6.8 million
Arizona – 6.5 million
Colorado – 5.1 million (one school)
Oregon 3.8 million
Utah – 2.8 million (one school)
TOTAL 62.6 million >>>>>> Big 12’s 37 million
SEC
Florida – 19 million
Georgia – 9.8 million
Tennessee – 6.4 million
Missouri – 6 million
Alabama – 4.8 million (and they are ALL SEC fans)
Louisiana – 4.5 million
Kentucky 4.3 million
Arkansas – 2.9 million
Mississippi – 2.9 million (again, ALL SEC fans)
[Texas – 25.6 million]
TOTAL 60.7 million [Not including Texas] >>>Big 12’s 37 million
I look for the Big Ten, ACC, PAC 12, and SEC to have their expansion sights on Texas and Oklahoma within the next 5-10 years. If the Big 12 loses UT, it’s Texas footprint takes a huge hit, and you’re largely left with teams in states that cover less than 12 million total.
LikeLike
You can reach some deceptive conclusions with those numbers. The question is not merely how many people a state has, but how passionate they are about watching college sports, and particularly football. Colorado and Wisconsin are pretty close in population, but that doesn’t mean the two markets have equal value.
LikeLike
The AACK! probably has higher population figures than the ACC. They are in TX, LA, OK, TN, OH, CT, NC, FL, MD, PA.
The ACC’s problem is the northeast doesn’t care, the southeast cares far more about the SEC and the mid-Atlantic cares far more about basketball than football and fb is driving the $. And they are the 2nd tier school in several states. Those are the major reasons they are likely to be 5th in revenue for the next dozen years.
LikeLike
Yes, for much of the AACK!! you have to talk about splitting metro areas rather than whole states.
LikeLike
Not to mention splitting states.
LikeLike
Any chart that gives Pitt credit for all of Pennsylavnia is simply garbage in, garbage out.
In fact, if you just add up state population totals, the MAC comes out to 66.4 million. But what does that mean? Nothing.
LikeLike
Deceptive….Syracuse possibly access to NYC but not RU who IS IN the demo? RU is only 35 mile’s outside Manhattan whilst Cuse is closer to Canada hundreds of miles northwest.
LikeLike
Oklahoma and Florida State are really the odd-Kings-out for the foreseeable future. ESPN isn’t going to even consider an ACC network until the SECn is off and running (if ever). Oklahoma doesn’t have the demographics to warrant a stand alone network (especially after the LHN debacle) and no B12N is possible. The money disparity between themselves and the SEC/B1G teams MAY eventually (5-10 years) trump OK’s Texas dependancy and OSU brotherhood. Politicians obviously would be up in arms but if there’s a 20M gulf, they may see the writing on the wall. I can see Kansas and Oklahoma being the next targets in the years to come. I fully realize most will disagree.
LikeLike
“Oklahoma doesn’t have the demographics to warrant a stand alone network (especially after the LHN debacle) and no B12N”
Doesn’t mean they couldn’t be the recipient of a, albeit smaller than UT’s, tier3 bribe to hold the B12 together. Would Fox/ESPN be willing to pay enough? How much more would the B1G or PAC’s primary contract be worth, plus the added value to BTN or P12N with OU (and perhaps UT)? The likelihood is that without OU the Longhorns effectively no longer have a conference worth lording over.
LikeLike
Oklahoma already has a deal with Fox to air 1,000 hours of OU programming (dubbed the “Sooner Network”) that is going to pay them $7 million a year on top of their conference distribution so they should at least keep up the PAC which should keep them happy enough.
LikeLike
I agree, short term.
But I suggest the calculation shouldn’t be OU vs any particular conference and their logical short term future value. Rather, it should be OU longer term in the likely B12 (no adds possible to significantly increase its value) vs OU in another conference (they are a significant add that should significantly increase that conferences athletics value). Same for UT. That’s the target, not matching current payments to others.
LikeLike
I actually think an Oklahoma network can be successful. If you recall, Nebraska was actually looking at starting its own network before realignment chaos started. While an OU or Nebraska network would never have the upside of a Longhorn Network, I think both have an easier time getting carriage. Both are in states that have a lot of passion for those particular schools with little else in the way of pro or college sports, and I think cable companies would have a hard time refusing to put those networks on basic. Wasn’t Nebraska selling one or two games a year to PPV prior to its entry into the Big Ten?
Texas is certainly a bigger brand than Oklahoma and Nebraska, and it has a massive following; however, it has a hell of a lot more to contend with than either of those schools. It has other college teams, the NFL, and the MLB all as major sports competitors that pull away Texas’ sports market share. There may be more total demand for the Longhorn network than there would be for an Oklahoma network, but the relative demand is arguably more important.
LikeLike
Good points all.
LikeLike
Hail Cael!
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
Couple questions:
1) What do you think of the SEC’s carriage in Florida? To me, if Texas is the potential home run end of it (i.e. if they can get it at high carriage this will be a huge hit), Florida is the potential landmine (i.e. if they CAN’T get it at high carriage this could be a mess).
2) I know I’ve pounded this drum before, but what data suggests that it’d be a financial gain for the Pac-12 to take ANY Mountain West programs, even if you guess that somehow any of them will be majorly growing?
I can’t see any of those programs equaling, or even coming close to, the average value of a Pac-12 program, which essentially means that unless you’re Larry Scott and want a bigger empire to rule over, there really isn’t any benefit at all to any of the member institutions to sign off on this kind of deal. Not just now, but any time conceivably in the next 10+ years.
Obviously academics are another issue, but even if academics were good, none of those programs (except BYU) are, or will be, worth anything near enough for it to make sense for the Pac-12 to even seriously consider them.
LikeLike
Just my own thoughts here…
1. I think the SECN will be able to get decent carriage in Florida. South Florida may have much lower rates (or be on a sports tier), but there’s enough people in the rest Florida to make up for that. However, I don’t expect rates to come close to those in say, Alabama. They should get basic in much of Florida, but, despite all its success, Florida doesn’t have the intense following that schools like Alabama have. All that being said, I think high rates throughout any conference state not named Texas or Florida will be most important to the network’s revenue, especially early on.
2. I brought up the New Mexico/UNLV angle a long time ago as the kinds of additions that could become valuable down the road. However, as you said, it’s hard to see the incentive to do it now. Of course, these schools may ultimately need to be in a power conference to become the kind of school that the Pac-12 would take, which presents a problem. If UNLV can catch fire and produce a decent football program, I think the Pac-12 would take a good look at them. Las Vegas is a valuable, growing market, though I am unsure of UNLV’s following in Las Vegas/Nevada.
LikeLike
Just a follow-up question here…
Since the Pac-12 owns 100% of its network(s), is there a lower financial hurdle for potential expansion candidates?
There are other obstacles of course, such as philosophy, academics, recruiting grounds, demographics, etc., but as far as a school’s direct impact on television contracts go, could a UNLV/New Mexico be more appealing to the Pac-12 due to its 100% ownership? I can see the other side of that argument, that the conference is assuming all the risk in taking these schools, but, by retaining all the network profits, can the conference afford such a risk?
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s lower or higher, but it’s going to be a more direct calculation of value (as opposed to simply being able to dump the contract on ESPN/Fox and get a 1/x fee increase).
But as far as population / markets go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
California by itself has 38M people, plus Washington has 7M, Arizona has 6.5M, Colorado has 5M, Oregon has 4M etc. All in all let’s be very conservative and say it’s a 54M population (it’s probably closer to 60-65M). That works out to 4.5M people per current school.
New Mexico has 2M, Nevada 2.7M, Idaho has 1.5M, Hawaii has 1.4M etc. So in terms of covered population, every Mountain West school (except sort of SD St, but there the market is still covered by the CA schools) is drastically behind the curve of the average Pac-12 school, EVEN IF all the Mountain West schools could drive carriage all by themselves (and I wonder about, say, UNLV when it comes to the rest of the state).
Honestly, you could double the population of any current Mountain West school and it’d at best be debatable whether it’d make sense on those numbers. At the current population support levels, you could dump any non-CA MWC school into an AQ league and it’s not like they’ll suddenly become good. None of them have the population or underlying resources to expect to succeed in any kind of long term.
So just in terms of raw population, every conceivable candidate is wildly behind unless somehow they could drive either higher per head subscriber rates or get a massively greater greater penetration rate than you see in Pac-12 states (and the network already has most of the home cable companies on board with less than a year of operation under the belt).
If the question is can the league financially afford a risk, sure. It’s not like UNM or UNLV or Boise would bankrupt the league. But it’s extremely obvious that they’re bad gets, and a net negative to the bottom line. MAYBE it’d make financial sense if the league gave those schools drastically uneven offers, and said offers were permanent (i.e. “you get a 1/5 share compared to current members, and that would NEVER change”).
But that’s not a road the league is likely to have any desire to get into. And even all that doesn’t consider the LA access question, which would only get more heated if there were to be more mouths to feed. Basically every school in the Pac-12 cares enormously about LA access, and diminishing that access would be a major problem even for a financial winner, which again none of these possibilities even come close to being.
And as far as Vegas goes, I honestly think the league is already making a Vegas play simply by having some events there. They don’t need UNLV to tap at least some of the Vegas market. And that’s without considering the possibility that legalized sports gambling elsewhere (especially California) could destroy Vegas as a meaningful market.
LikeLike
I agree with you cfn. The only way the Pac 12 expands w/o a Big 12 school is if Houston has a 5-10 year run like Boise and suddenly gets nationally recognized again. Then one of those other schools could be paired with Houston, where there are 2.1 million people just within the city limits, as many as some of those MW states. But you still have to overcome the LA access issue to get the votes. Houston and San Diego St.?
LikeLike
Even there it’s not going to work. Houston is an afterthought in Texas and there’s no reason to think this will ever change, even if they do get briefly hot. Moreover, while there’s some advantage to the non-CA schools in having more access to the state, you get pretty obvious concerns about market overlap (since the league already is a player in the SD market), and it’s a virtual lock that the CA schools will never allow another in-state school to join the league (if the other could actually somehow force it through, I strongly suspect at least one of the CA schools, and perhaps all, would say “screw it” and go independent either when the GoR expires or perhaps even sooner).
Moreover, even for the non-CA schools it’s not so much playing in LA as it is playing against UCLA/USC in LA. Anyone in the league could easily move an OOC home game to the Coliseum, for instance. The reason they don’t is that playing against Fresno, or Utah State, or whoever, in LA doesn’t get you much of anything. Unless you’re playing against an opponent the market actually cares about, it’s not worth the effort to leave your home stadium.
LikeLike
There is another school in Texas that has the opportunity to be a valuable member of the PAC. SMU. The brand name exists. The market exists. The academics are solid. Big boosters are plentiful. SMU has shown signs that it wants back in the game after the disastrous 80s (see hiring of Larry Brown). If the boosters commit to it, they could make SMU a viable option over the next decade.
LikeLike
@Frank
Is that a serious post? The PAC has made clear they will never allow a religiously affiliated school.
LikeLike
USC was originally Methodist. I think its not the religious affiliation, but religious beliefs impacting educational decisions as they do at BYU. I’m not sure the objection to Baylor wasn’t primarily their size and lack of success.
LikeLike
SMU is IN Dallas but does not OWN Dallas. That’s a market split between TCU, SMU, Texas and probably A&M to some degree (and perhaps even others). It’s the same reason the Mountain West was never enthusiastic about grabbing SJ State (until they were desperate for bodies): simply being present in a market doesn’t matter unless you’re a major player in that market.
Just in terms of carriage, there’s no reason to assume that adding SMU would force Pac-12 Networks on just the Dallas market, let alone Houston, San Antonio etc. And that doesn’t even get into the logistics of adding a geographic outlier: basically if the league is going to move into the market it’d be with the Longhorns and some friends. Until and unless that happens (and there’s zero reason to think it’d happen anytime soon if ever) the Texas market is off the table.
I know it’s fun to speculate on “who would the Pac-12 take if they had to grab someone” or “well, maybe Program X would someday sort of be as valuable as a member in the bottom half of the league” or “if you squint really hard, you can sort of make an argument that Program X is kind of a peer as long as you ignore all the negatives.”
But the blunt answer is that the Pac-12 should have ZERO interest in offering an invite to any of the current non-AQ’s (except MAYBE, and I do mean MAYBE, BYU). And there’s no reason at all to think that’s going to change today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now.
There simply aren’t any Western non-AQ’s who have:
the program history of Colorado, much less USC;
or the market size of ASU, much less the California schools (especially USC/UCLA); (like with the SJ example, someone like SMU or Dallas doesn’t provide a market just by being there)
or the academic reputation of Washington, much less Stanford or Cal
etc.
Barring an implosion of the Pac-12, similar to what happened to the WAC, Mountain West or Big East, where the name remains but the cachet is just gone, the blunt fact remains that no Western non-AQ’s are or will be Pac-12 peers. The only one that has any kind of case at all is BYU, and the cultural differences are so overwhelming that it’s just not happening.
And that’s without dealing with the fact that 12 is a very convenient number in many ways, and that the logistics of 14 or more are less pleasant to deal with. The SEC went to 14 because they really wanted to get into Texas. The B1G went to 14 because they wanted to get into the New York – DC region, and have the potential to grab more of the ACC (which hasn’t worked out, at least for now). The ACC went to 14 because they were scared that they’d fall apart if teams left (which seemed to come close to happening).
In each case, there was a compelling reason that made it worth going beyond 14. In the Pac-12’s case, on the other hand, every theoretical candidate presents compelling reasons to stay at 12.
LikeLike
It was a serious post. SMU is loosely affiliated with the United Methodist Church and it has moderate views. I doubt the PAC would object simply because of the “Methodist” name in the title of the school. This isn’t a Baylor or BYU issue.
SMU would obviously need to improve on the field and enhance their public perception but, if they did, the could easily overtake TCU in popularity.
@cfn – i always get a kick out of the DFW market take from many on this board. As a 30 year resident of Dallas, I can tell you the DFW market is Texas, then Texas A&M, then OU, then Tech. (Texas has a clear lead over everyone and then the other three have a clear lead over anybody else). Your comments about Texas, TCU, SMU are just wrong.
TCU, Baylor and SMU are next in line in equal order. SMU is the only school in that group that could muster up enough market share to matter against the primary four to carve out a signifcant marketshare in the DFW metroplex. Never did I say they owned the market but they do have potential to be a significant presence.
Of course the PAC would like Texas first. That wasn’t the point of my comment. It was simply that SMU has the potential to be a viable candidate if the school administrators want to again emphasis football and invest in the program over the next decade.
LikeLike
@Frank
It doesn’t matter how loose the affiliation between the two is or how liberal or conservative the church is (and for the record I am a member of the United Methodist Church) the California schools will not let the PAC add a religiously affiliated school. They are way more hardline on that issue than the Big Ten is on its AAU requirement or the SEC’s dedication to only adding Southern schools.
LikeLike
BYU gets more fans to Sam Boyd stadium than UNLV does.
LikeLike
I think the value comes in a few years if Nevada and Idaho’s populations continue to grow and if the Pac-12 sees the Pac-12 Network growth slow without the addition of new markets. I really think Boise St and UNLV are solid options for #13 and #14, but only if (1) UNLV gets its facilities upgrades and (2) Boise St becomes a clear athletic and academic leader in the region. Boise St needs to continue to grow past commuter-school status and grow its alumni base.
I agree with you, though, that we’re realistically talking 10+ years before Boise St and UNLV could be valuable enough to warrant expansion.
LikeLike
Even if Nevada and Idaho grew population by 50% in 10 years, Nevada would be at 4.1M and Idaho would be at 2.3M, and they’re not going to grow by 50% in 10 years. NV grew by 35% from 2000-2010 and ID grew by 21% in those 10 years.
Realistically, NV is probably 2 decades away from being big enough that they’d be considered a good market, and ID is even farther away.
LikeLike
Note that Oregon’s population is only 3.9 million, so if Nevada is 4.1, that would seem to be a pretty big market to ignore that’s right in your footprint. However, obviously it’s going to take Idaho a lot longer at current growth rates to get to that level.
LikeLike
Nevada getting to 4.1M implies a 50% population growth, and then comparing it to Oregon’s current 3.9M implies a 0% growth rate. That’s not a particularly realistic comparison.
LikeLike
I’m not suggesting Oregon won’t grow. Instead, Oregon at 3.9 million is an extremely valuable Pac-12 property; if Nevada has 3.5m+ residents, you’d have to think it would be similarly valuable, regardless of what year it crosses that line.
LikeLike
Except Oregon at 3.9M isn’t an extremely valuable Pac-12 property. The Ducks’ athletic department has been successful not because of the market or the population, but primarily because of Nike money. That’s worked out well for Oregon, of course, but unless there’s a massively wealthy booster type (like Pickens at OK St), comparing Nevada or UNLV to Oregon just because the state populations aren’t wildly different is a poor idea. Oregon’s strengths are fairly unique and non-replicable, as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
Really can’t see UNLV or Boise State in the Pac 12 for quite some time. Both need a lot more people, a lot better facilities and more success athletically (not just football/basketball either.)
LikeLike
…that we’re realistically talking 100+ years before Boise St and 50+ years before UNLV could be valuable enough to warrant expansion.
There. Fixed that for you.
LikeLike
@cfn_ms – My thoughts:
(1) I think the SEC Network will get carriage in the state of Florida quite easily. I’ve spent more time in that state (Central and South Florida) than in any other besides Illinois and the Gators are probably the most consistently popular sports team there (whether college or pro). There’s certainly a much higher interest in SEC football and the Gators specifically across the board there compared to the Big Ten in Illinois, and there’s obviously BTN carriage where I sit in Naperville (and that’s just my experience in the southern half of Florida – Jacksonville and the northern half are even more rabid about college football). The main risk areas for the SEC are its newest ones in Texas and Missouri.
(2) In my mind, UNLV (especially if it gets its planned football stadium built) has a ton of upside. Las Vegas is a market that has a massive amount of people that are looking to spend money on entertainment and a market of its size ought to have a pro team yet doesn’t due to outdated biases against the perception of gambling. (An NBA franchise would make a *killing* there.) So, it’s a lucrative market that’s wide open for major sports in general.
I also recall seeing a list of the top 25 TV markets for college football ratings and there was only one that wasn’t associated with any power conference school: Las Vegas. In fact, it was the only market on that list that was in either the Pacific or Rocky Mountain Time Zones. Gamblers might account for some of that viewership, but it doesn’t explain it all. So, it’s definitely one of the best relatively untapped markets for college (and even pro) sports.
LikeLike
I’d guess those Vegas viewership numbers are a lot of “why buy the cow”, since I’d guess they’re pretty solidly de-coupled from UNLV-specific viewership (if not, then among other things the mtn might have been more successful).
It seems a lot more likely that the Vegas viewership is focused on national brands than anything UNLV-specific, much less Mountain West specific. And if that’s the case, then it stands to reason that the Pac-12 is already getting a decent chunk of the viewership.
If the Pac-12 is already getting substantial portions of that Vegas market viewership, then what do they really get from specifically adding UNLV? Certainly not carriage (see above state population numbers; Nevada total population is less than half of 1/12 of the current Pac-12 population footprint), unless somehow the league could get Nevada at a carriage rate of at least twice the rate inside the current footprint, and at similar penetration rates (and even that ignores any subscriber revenue they get from the state right now).
Could the Pac-12 dominate the Vegas market by adding UNLV? Maybe, but then again maybe not. To the extent that viewership is already national, you’d probably still see a greater proportion of viewership going to B1G, SEC etc. than you would in say Seattle or LA. Moreover, the UNLV brand itself isn’t actually valuable. Instead to the extent that it makes sense to value the Vegas market (and I’m still very much skeptical) then it makes sense to do what the league is already doing, putting on some events (like the MBB tournament) and building a presence, without devaluing the league brand by adding another bottom-feeder non-brand in UNLV.
Again, why buy the cow when the Pac-12 is already getting a good chunk of the milk for free, and even with the cow, wouldn’t get all of its milk anyway?
LikeLike
What makes you think the Pac 12 presidents wouldn’t have the same concern about gambling?
LikeLike
It wasn’t that long ago ASU had a BB point shaving scandles. I’d bet it’s on their minds.
LikeLike
@bullet – The PAC12 did hold their last men’s basketball tournament in a casino.
LikeLike
A first time, single event, post season tournament is a sign of a willingness to give LV a look. It doesn’t simulate having year round presence, often multiple exposures/visits per week. The increasing comfort people have with gambling is an invitation to problems. Not insurmountable but something presidents will need to be assured can be addressed, and that they would be comfortable taking on that responsibility. And that only is a concern if UNLV were to have achieved acceptability as a school and athletic department, and their market was somehow not being captured already.
LikeLike
cfn_ms,
“1) What do you think of the SEC’s carriage in Florida? To me, if Texas is the potential home run end of it (i.e. if they can get it at high carriage this will be a huge hit), Florida is the potential landmine (i.e. if they CAN’T get it at high carriage this could be a mess).”
http://commoncensus.org/sports_map.php?sport=5
Based on the commoncensus map:
Panhandle – FSU 3:1 over UF, but AL and UGA and Auburn are also near by. I think they get full coverage here.
N FL – all UF, so coverage guaranteed
Mid FL – UF ~ UCF ~ USF, so coverage guaranteed at least in the rural parts
S FL – Miami 4:1 or more over UF and FSU, so a tough sell
Basically, it comes down to Tampa and Orlando, but I think they get a solid price in both cities. Miami and south FL is basically 1/3 of the population in FL, so I’d guess they get 2/3 of FL at $1 and the other 1/3 at a lesser price.
LikeLike
Brian – thanks for the link. Here’s the opening paragraph from your link.
“Important: this map is highly inaccurate and should be understood only as a demonstration, and not as any kind of reliable data yet. It is based on only a few thousands of votes spread across all teams, across the country. Areas with virtually no data are shown in gray, and many boundaries are still expected to change their shape drastically. A map with more accurate boundaries will gradually emerge as the number of votes reaches the upper tens of thousands.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I know it’s not correct but it’s better than nothing to see where the fandom overlaps. It’s also really biased towards younger fans being an internet census. That said, I don’t think it’s results here are that crazy. FSU is the favorite in the panhandle while UF own northern FL. Central FL is more strongly UF than it shows, probably, but both Tampa and Orlando were within the spot I checked. Miami has south FL, even if the fans are more casual.
The point is, the SECN should easily get on in all of rural and northern FL. I think they’ll be fine in Tampa and Orlando, too. Miami will be the tough nut to crack. Isn’t that basically the same thing all the experts have said?
LikeLike
The larger question in FL isn’t whether SEC has more fans than other leagues (which it does) but whether they’re strong enough to force carriage not just on fans of other programs but also anyone who doesn’t care very much about college football. Obviously that’s not a problem in Alabama. Is it a problem in Florida? I honestly don’t know. I’m sure the SECN will be fine in parts of the state, but I do wonder where they may struggle. The whole state isn’t as football crazy as say Alabama.
LikeLike
The problem with Fla is it’s a moving target. UF wasn’t even a true national brand until midway thru Spurrier’s tenure…they hadn’t even won a conference title until circa 1992 (after SIXTY years). In the 80s and 90s…FSU and Miami ruled…and arrived on the national scene first. UF has been the strongest suite recently (and will probably carry the largest fan base)…but it’s no old guard program or overwhelming force in the state.
LikeLike
Don’t agree. While you are totally right about the football history, in general support in the state, Florida rules. Remember, FSU was a girl’s school until 1947. And Miami is private with a substantial out of state student base.
LikeLike
Wrong. FSU was actually coed from 1857 to ~1905 (oldest institution in Fla…nly one that tangibly existed prior to Civil War). The campus in Gainesville didn’t even open its doors until ~1905. Fla will always be much more fluid than other states when it comes to the share of the fanbase pie. UF is no doubt currently in first (and may hold onto that distinction more often than not). But they’re no old guard, overwhelming force.
LikeLike
In other words, you are disagreeing just to disagree and I am right. From 1905 to 1947 FSU was all female and there are almost certainly no living male graduates from prior to 1947.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Gig’em
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
I think the Big 12’s best option is to add BYU and UNLV, even if it means getting BYU in football only. It would probably require splitting up Texas and OU (OU in a division with the other four Big 8 schools and WVU, Texas with the three Texas schools and BYU and UNLV) to have decent, competitive divisions with desirable CCG matchups.
LikeLike
I agree BYU and UNLV are (currently) the last two solid long term additions for either the Big12 or PAC.
LikeLike
I think the Big 12′s best option is to add BYU and UNLV, even if it means getting BYU in football only.
It might be their best option, assuming they expand. But why is it better than doing nothing? I’m not seeing it. Unless they’d earn dramatically more TV money (which is unlikely), all they’d be doing is feeding two extra mouths.
It would probably require splitting up Texas and OU (OU in a division with the other four Big 8 schools and WVU, Texas with the three Texas schools and BYU and UNLV) to have decent, competitive divisions with desirable CCG matchups.
There’s no way they’re doing this. The whole value proposition for the ex-Big 8 schools is based upon playing two football games in Texas every year. Oklahoma and Texas would certainly want to protect the Red River Rivalry every year, but they wouldn’t want the specter of playing it twice, as could frequently be the case if they were in separate divisions. (That was the reason why Oklahoma and Nebraska were split up when the Big XII was formed originally.)
LikeLike
Marc, I agree that doing nothing is the preference for Texas and company, but IF they were forced by the new playoff rules to have a CCG, or just pressured into it by the other conferences or by a seeming disadvantage in the playoff selection, then BYU and the team that plays in Vegas seem like the best options; and if those are the best options, how can you keep Texas and OU together? It would be hard to have any semblance of divisional balance, unless you take the next six best teams and put them into a geographically-challenged division (WVU, BYU, couple Texas teams in the same division?).
As much as everyone thought FSU and Miami would play each other in the ACC championship every year, and OSU and Michigan would do the same in the B1G, it somehow rarely works out that way (in my two examples, never). Texas and OU could probably count on meeting up only 2 or 3 times a decade in the CCG, but the Big 12 could probably count on at least one of them being in the game 9 or 10 times out of 10.
As for the Big 8 schools, they would at least have OU in their division, and you could guarantee them a Texas or Vegas trip every year. If circumstances force the Big 12 to go to 12, it won’t be perfect for everyone…
LikeLike
Marc, I agree that doing nothing is the preference for Texas and company, but IF they were forced by the new playoff rules to have a CCG, or just pressured into it by the other conferences or by a seeming disadvantage in the playoff selection, then BYU and the team that plays in Vegas seem like the best options; and if those are the best options, how can you keep Texas and OU together?
I agree that IF the Big XII is somehow “forced” to expand, those are the best options. But I don’t think they’ll be forced.
The Playoff rules already give Notre Dame a seat at the table. During the negotiations that led to this system, the five league commissioners treated Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick like an equal. They even chose him as their spokesman when the proposal was presented to a committee of university presidents.
Notre Dame not only doesn’t have a CCG, they don’t have a league. And none of the powers in college football seem to have a problem with that. Some fans do, but not the decision-makers. It’s hard to imagine the scenario where the Big XII is forced to add a CCG, as long as ND is allowed to qualify as an independent.
Rewriting the rules so that nobody is allowed to be independent would create a whole host of other problems that nobody wants to face. And if independents are allowed, there is no rationale for forcing the Big XII into a CCG they don’t want.
LikeLike
To expand, the Big 12 needs about $50 million in new revenue to make it worth it (ie, to feed the newbies and keep everyone at their current levels).
How much is a Big 12 CCG worth? $12-15 million per year? Would the increased TV markets out west (UNLV and BYU would both get the foot in the door in California, Arizona, Idaho, and Colorado, in addition to Nevada and Utah) and the added game inventory get $35-40 million of additional value? (That seems like a stretch, but any thoughts?)
Would two new schools propel the Big 12 to more semi-final spots and CFP bowl bids such that the additional TV revenue could be less than $35 million, yet still justified? ($6 million additional revenue for each semi-final spot and $4 million additional revenue for each CFP “host” bowl bid – other than Sugar Bowl).
LikeLike
boscatar,
“To expand, the Big 12 needs about $50 million in new revenue to make it worth it (ie, to feed the newbies and keep everyone at their current levels).
How much is a Big 12 CCG worth? $12-15 million per year?”
The B10 CCG is worth about $24.2M per year. Pencil in the B12 game for at least $20M.
“Would the increased TV markets out west (UNLV and BYU would both get the foot in the door in California, Arizona, Idaho, and Colorado, in addition to Nevada and Utah) and the added game inventory get $35-40 million of additional value? (That seems like a stretch, but any thoughts?)”
Would it bring an extra $30M? Frankly, I doubt it.
LikeLike
If a Big XII CCG is worth about $20m, why not add a couple of AAC/MWC members that only get $2-4m annually and only pay them $10m? No reason you can’t have an uneven split of revenues.
LikeLike
If a Big XII CCG is worth about $20m, why not add a couple of AAC/MWC members that only get $2-4m annually and only pay them $10m? No reason you can’t have an uneven split of revenues.
Well…there is a reason. The Big XII formerly had an uneven split, and it practically killed the conference. It doesn’t take much imagination to see all of the problems that could arise.
LikeLike
The uneven split was low on the reasons for the Big 12 defections. The defectors were some of the biggest beneficiaries of it, while the teams like ISU and Baylor, who never, ever wanted the Big 12 to split up, were the biggest losers under the old system.
Missouri was a perennial complainer who always felt they got the shaft (bad bowl selections, especially) and they were a better geographical fit with the Big 10. Colorado had always wanted to be in the Pac 10. A&M had always wanted to be in the SEC, and just needed a good reason to convince the traditionalists. Nebraska proactively took the B1G invite when it looked like the Big 12 was collapsing. Uneven revenue split was hardly a consideration at all. Hell, A&M originally demanded they receive $20MM to stay in the 10-team Big 12, to the detriment of the lesser schools, and Nebraska didn’t have a problem with it when they were cashing the biggest checks. Revisionist history.
LikeLike
“Hell, A&M originally demanded they receive $20MM to stay in the 10-team Big 12, to the detriment of the lesser schools, and Nebraska didn’t have a problem with it when they were cashing the biggest checks. Revisionist history.”
I like how UT posters play the victim\hero when in fact they were a large reason why conference realignment started in the first place in 2009 – PAC 16 and UT also got a much bigger check in the Big 12 which they also cashed happily. revisionist history indeed.
LikeLike
As the B12 doesn’t have a shared conference network they are still in the uneven revenue sharing model, just with a different structure than before.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 had a more uneven revenue split than the Big 12 when Colorado left. Doesn’t seem to have hurt them. For that matter, the Big East was even more unbalanced and the biggest beneficiaries-Miami and Virginia Tech, left.
The SEC had the identical revenue split as the Big 12 when Missouri and A&M left and will still be identical until 2014. Doesn’t seem to have hurt them.
And as pointed out, A&M embarrassed themselves by insisting on trying to get a share of the exit fees belonging to the left behind 5 while Texas and Oklahoma realized it was unfair and refused.
Everyone had their own reasons for leaving, but unequal revenue sharing was just a phrase used by some of those leaving to try to shift “blame” for their own decisions done for their own reasons. Unequal revenue sharing had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
UT’s AD and President definitely did their fiduciary duty by examining fallback options in case the Big 12 split up, but many on here seem to think that means UT was the main culprit for others leaving. No one did more to keep the Big 12 together than Texas, as evidenced by the fact that IT STILL EXISTS!
Also, you’re missing my point on “happily cashing checks”. Nebraska used unequal revenue distribution as one of their excuses for why they had to leave the Big 12, despite that fact that they were the biggest beneficiary of the system. UT never complained about unequal distribution, hence they are not a hypocrite for “happily cashing checks”. Also, during the early years of the Big 12 when UT wasn’t one of the highest compensated league members, they didn’t bitch, they lived within the system that the league members unanimously voted for.
LikeLike
Bullet:
The terms of full and equal revenue sharing were set as a condition of PAC expansion, with a few years of 2M extra to the LA schools if a threshold wasn’t met with the new primary media contract (was exceeded by over 70M/yr).
My point about continued uneven sharing is that selling a few tier 3 events is not the same as getting and being paid for a school specific 24/7 network. The paradigm has changed.
LikeLike
Texas, Deloss and Beebe guaranteed Texas A&M $20M per year to walk away from a standing SEC offer to join in 2010. There was no demand by A&M to claim exit fees, only a demand that what was agreed upon to not leave was met.
LikeLike
“Also, during the early years of the Big 12 when UT wasn’t one of the highest compensated league members, ” – complete and utter bullshit the 1st big 12 CCG had UT in it as well asmost of all thier other games. at the time it was A&M and UT as the dominate teams in the south cause OU sucked in the 90s
1996
#3 Nebraska
27
Texas
37
Trans World Dome • St. Louis, MO
63,109
RB DeAngelo Evans, Nebraska
1997
#2 Nebraska
54
#14 Texas A&M
15
Alamodome • San Antonio, TX
64,824
1998
#2 Kansas State
33
#10 Texas A&M
36
Trans World Dome • St. Louis, MO
60,798
1999
#2 Nebraska
22
#12 Texas
6
Alamodome • San Antonio, TX
LikeLike
Only an Aggie would try to justify it.
What A&M was asking for was a guarantee that wasn’t earned and would be taken from the shares of the have-nots. Beebe and the have-nots-ISU, KU, KSU, UM, BU (not Texas) DID offer it. But Texas and OU had the integrity to refuse to take something that wasn’t earned. Tech whined that they weren’t included and A&M tried to insist on it. OSU wisely said nothing.
LikeLike
once again A&M is the bad guy for demanding to get paid thier $20 million, but UT having already been in long term discussions with the PAC 12 about the PAC 16 had NOTHING to do with Nebraska entering into joining the B1G. just like in the early 90’s when UT tried to join the PAC 10 but got voted down by Stanford, causing Arkansas to start looking at the SEC.
face it Deloss Dodds and UT have had a direct hand in the (near) destruction of the SWC and the Big 12. bullett is right about one thing unequal revenue sharing isnt the issue…it was UTs shopping around for a better deal both times.
LikeLike
wasn’t earned and would be taken from the shares of the have-nots. Beebe and the have-nots-
but you “EARNED” the LHN’s $10 million a year on the backs of the have nots but that’ totally okay done with integrity and fidicuary responsibility. hypocrisy coming from the richest athletic department in the country.
for shame
LikeLike
but you “EARNED” the LHN’s $10 million a year on the backs of the have nots but that’ totally okay done with integrity and fidicuary responsibility
How exactly is UT earning revenue off the back’s of the have nots with the LHN when the LHN doesn’t broadcast conference games?
LikeLike
My point about continued uneven sharing is that selling a few tier 3 events is not the same as getting and being paid for a school specific 24/7 network. The paradigm has changed.
How? UT sold their Tier 3 rights to ESPN just like Florida did with Sun Sports.
LikeLike
Biological Imperative:
I feel you’ve made some inaccurate statements, but will admit I’m wrong if someone can provide facts to the contrary:
– Arkansas did not go to the SEC because of a Texas PAC flirtation. Arkansas began that process in the late 80’s. Texas had a PAC 10 invite in hand in the mid-90’s (Stanford never voted them down), and A&M had a similar invite from the SEC. Both were ready and willing to go their separate ways, but Texas politico’s forced them to join the Big 12 and take Tech and Baylor with them, or risk losing PUF money.
– Just because a very average 7-4 Texas team played in the 1996 Big 12 championship doesn’t mean they were a top-paid team that year. I’m going by memory here as my quick Google search yielded no results, but I recall seeing a year-by-year revenue distribution that shocked me because it had Nebraska and K-State and A&M as the highest paid teams in the first few years of the Big 12. Texas was always around the 3-6 range, even behind Colorado in some years. I’ll try to find that info as I’m curious if my memory is accurate.
– Only people with an axe to grind against Texas would claim they were the cause of the SWC break-up. The rampant cheating by a few teams (not Texas) was a big contributor, as was losing Arkansas to the SEC and the general move to larger conferences.
LikeLike
Sun broadcasts Florida events, and lots of other as well. They are the ones who carry some events, but they aren’t exclusive. Texas is being compensated in a manner that a conference network would, but with all the air time focused on them. It was an ESPN bribe to keep the B12 alive longer term by stroking UT’s ego and wallet. And getting a say and some control of where UT could go if they did decide to leave the B12, in the process.
LikeLike
The Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers mortally wounded the SWC. The rampant cheating and UGA and OU’s lawsuit against the CFA finished them off. Texas and Texas A&M hung around as long as they could. There was talk even before Arkansas left.
LikeLike
To clarify, the Cowboys and Oilers severely hurt the small privates-TCU, SMU and Rice. The Cotton Bowl with its 65,000 seats was the “house that Doak built,” Doak Walker, SMU’s Heisman winner. Rice built a 70,000 seat stadium in 1950 because they needed those seats. A&M played THEIR home games vs. Rice at Rice Stadium throughout much of the 50s because they drew better in Houston. Houston, who joined later, had similar issues.
LikeLike
@cc
I don’t see what point you are trying to make. What is the significance of the difference between Texas selling its rights to ESPN for a LHN and OU selling its rights to Fox for Fox Sports SW? Its just a different structure like the difference between the Pac 12 Network 100% owned, BTN 49% owned and SECN 0% owned.
LikeLike
@Christian
For some reason it is very hard to find past year’s conference distributions with the Big 12. I’ve tried looking just a couple years back and can’t find things. It tends to be released on the Big 12 website and then they take it down never to be seen again.
LikeLike
Bullet:
You’re kidding, right? BTN and P12N (and soon SECN) are all shared equally throughout their conferences. Doesn’t matter whether 100%, 50%, or 0% conference owned. How evenly is LHN or Sooner network revenue shared?
LikeLike
You’re drifting. This thread is from MS’s incorrect comment that the Big 12 members left because of unequal revenue sharing. And what is the difference between UT having a network and OU selling to Fox? You made it sound like there was some significance in that.
LikeLike
Perhaps I am. I will say that while I don’t think it was primary in either aTm, UNL, et al leaving, the potential disadvantage an LHN would put everyone else in was cited by aTm. How could anyone (even OU) hope to create similar revenue stream? UC was PAC bound, UNL couldn’t refuse the B1G, aTm was, well, leaving in a huff, Mizzou…felt slighted. If everything had been equalized, and the media money rolled earlier, perhaps the last two stay. But that would have required a giant change in attitude on all sides, and that was probably the toughest hurdle.
LikeLike
“Texas and Texas A&M wrested concessions from their conference brethren. Rather than equitably split gate receipts, the two schools forced the others to agree to what DeLoss Dodds, Texas athletic director, described as “You keeps yours and I’ll keep mine.”
sound familiar?
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/look-back-birth-big-12
LikeLike
“If a Big XII CCG is worth about $20m, why not add a couple of AAC/MWC members that only get $2-4m annually and only pay them $10m? No reason you can’t have an uneven split of revenues.”
BYU gets about $10 million a year from ESPN, on its own. With a Big 12 schedule, and the added good game inventory, BYU would definitely bring at least $15 million in annual revenue to the Big 12. So, the question is: is there another team that the Big 12 could add that would bring another $15 million in annual revenue (to justify expansion with BYU – ie, get to $50 million, with CCG, in additional annual revenue for the Big 12)?
Boise St. is probably the closest – but not quite there yet. The Big 12 will wait and see how BYU, Boise St. and the AAC perform for the next couple of years – and to monitor how the 10-team Big 12 composition affects the Big 12’s chances at the CFP and big bowl games.
LikeLike
@boscatar – You’re making an assumption that the Big 12 isn’t already getting paid for a championship game. It’s possible that ESPN is continuing to pay for the game as part of their original contract with the Big 12 that was extended later.
LikeLike
It surely is significant that the Sooners are with Fox and the Longhorns with ESPN ~ if they were both with the same network, that would make it much easier to look around five years from now and say, “ah, hell, let’s merge them and invite everyone else to join in too”.
LikeLike
@boscatar
BYU’s ESPN deal isn’t worth $10 million a year. The original reports were indeed in the $9-$12 million range, but ESPN has since confirmed that the real number is actually less than $4 million.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8653727/boise-state-broncos-sdsu-aztecs-byu-cougars-talk-mwc-return-sources-say
@Mike
You are right. As part of the 2010 Big XII bailout ESPN agreed to continue to pay the Big XII $10 million a year for the CCG even though it was no longer being played (though the two sides have since signed a contract extension that may have superseded that agreement)
LikeLike
Only a Texas fan would continue to twist the truth.
Here’s the facts on the 2010 deal. Texas A&M had an offer for SEC membership on the table. Texas A&M pursued and received a membership offer from the SEC AFTER Texas agreed to a deal with Larry Scott on joining the Pac. Dodds and Powers approached Texas A&M and President Loftin after-the-fact, when the deal was “done” with Scott and the PAC. Upon getting the word that the group of 6, including Texas A&M was heading to the PAC, Texas A&M, basically said to Dodds, “We’ll get back to you”…and called Slive. Slive came to A&M for three day visist and a deal was done for A&M to join the SEC. This was all in 2010. Bullet and most longhorns never believed the SEC offer (go read Frank’s blogs from the timeframe for validation) but as we all know now, Texas A&M did have a standing offer to join.
Dodds immediately panics at that, and arranges a meeting with Loftin, Bill Byrne (who had lost all influence with Loftin) and Beebe. They all agree to stand down but only after Beebe guaranteed Texas A&M $20M in revenue distributions from the B12. It was the price to get A&M to back away from the SEC. It wasn’t from the forgotten five’s share of exit fees or any other identified source. It was from B12 revenues, which Beebe and Dodds felt comfortable enough to offer. The only embarassing act was when Dodds tried to change the deal after A&M notified Slive they wouldn’t be joining. He showed the bully mentality he often displays by attempting to reneg on an agreed upon deal. Once again Texas A&M told him – not happening – a deal is a deal.
LikeLike
We were worried about Texas and Texas A&M pulling out and leaving us for the Pac-10,” he said.
“Where would we have been if they’d done that? What kind of athletic prestige could we have without those two?”
Nebraska knows just how Broyles felt. Neither school could afford to wait.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/columnists/kevin-sherrington/20100610-Sherrington-Frank-Broyles-not-surprised-9212.ece
LikeLike
UT had a major football infraction in 1986 per NCAA website.
try again and please do explain how UT earned $10 million a year and also why it looks like the LHN will piggyback on the SECN
LikeLike
Only Rice didn’t have a major violation, but UT’s was much less significant than SMU, TCU and A&M paying players. Just like there was a massive difference last year between Georgia Tech getting a major violation for ticking off the NCAA investigator after one player got $300 worth of clothing from an agent and the things that went on at Miami and UNC. All are classified as major violations.
LikeLike
“The rampant cheating by a few teams (not Texas)”
nice deflection bullet, UT’s cheating isnt as bad as TCU or A&M etc. since UT is the biggest, richest most awesome school in the state if not the universe, why does it have to cheat at all?
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
a bribe is a bribe whether its from ESPN or the Big 12, you can call it whatever you want.
UT is not a saint, it’s players are not scholars, it’s AD and students are no better than A&M OU Tech. Once you and shaggybevo get that through your heads you can be alot more objective.
and more interesting
and yes Aggie posters have the same delusions.
LikeLike
“That’s the hard part for me. Understanding how one schools non-rev TV channel could generate a lot of $. And generate enough to threaten OU or A&M. Coaches shows traditionally are late night TV with low $ advertisers. They were basically set up to supplement coaches salaries, not to generate funds for the athletic department” -bullet circa 2010
wow i went looking for confirmation of Stanford voting against UT and a timeline and I found this instead
funny
to answer your question as to how the LHN takes money out of the have nots, the LHN prevents the creation of a Big 12 network, as you well know, right now the LHN is almost cetainly losing money and is saddle with a “guaranteed” payment of $10 million a year to UT. A&M was guarenteed a $20 million dollar check to stay, which they did, for all of one year. Fair or not fair is a bullshit statement to make. A&M said fuck you pay me (in FtT vernacular). Beebee and the other have not said they would give it to them. A&M insisted upon it period.
You could look at it objectively and say: A&M had already made plans to leave and wanted the $20 million for the downpayemnt on the exit fees and OU and UT were pretty sure they were staying and made a political (to keep the peace) as opposed to a financial one and gave up $20 million for $10 and $7 million a year over 15 years. Fairness is subjective and not factual.
LikeLike
to answer your question as to how the LHN takes money out of the have nots, the LHN prevents the creation of a Big 12 network
No it doesn’t, but thanks for playing.
LikeLike
How does it not prevent a B12 net? An “8 of the B12 network” is not a B12 net.
Perhaps you are suggesting UT and ESPN are not absolutely barred from turning the rights over to the conference? That’s the only way it “doesn’t” prevent it.
LikeLike
The LHN does nothing to stop the other schools from pooling their rights and forming a Big XII Network. Not one thing.
LikeLike
Unless ALL the schools are included it is only a part of a conference network.
LikeLike
No it would be a conference network, just not all the schools would be participating.
LikeLike
That only would be true if UT didn’t participate in any non tier 1 or 2 broadcasts. Same principle as sports having to compete in your conference if the conference sponsors it.
LikeLike
Yes it does but thanks for playing,
John in Greensboro, N.C., writes: What is missing from the Big 12 to enter in the era of the Conference TV/Digital Networks? I mean in the sense of those working for the BIG, Pac12 and now the SEC. Thanks!
DU: Mostly, the entire structure oYf the Big 12’s media rights. ESPN/ABC owns the Big 12’s first-tier rights, which are the league’s best games. Fox owns the second-tier rights for the Big 12, and both paid a pretty penny for them. Ultimately, the third-tier rights are mostly what conferences are building conference networks upon, led by the Big Ten and followed by the Pac-12, whose network launched last fall. Now, the SEC is joining the ranks.
However, in the Big 12, each school retains the right to use its third-tier rights in whatever manner it pleases. Texas launched its own network. Many other schools have signed deals with other distributors, and several have launched web-based networks. There is a lot of basketball, baseball and Olympic sports in the third-tier packages that provide a lot of that programming.
Unless those rules change (and considering the Big 12 fashioned this plan to differentiate itself in the marketplace, that is unlikely), a conference network is an impossibility for the Big 12
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/66786/mailbag-big-12-network-trickett-k-state
LikeLike
Same principle as sports having to compete in your conference if the conference sponsors it.
So does that mean the ACC won’t really exist as a FB conference next year since ND isn’t going to compete?
@BI
You do just realize what you posted shows exactly that the LHN, in and of itself, does not prohibit a conference network.
in the Big 12, each school retains the right to use its third-tier rights in whatever manner it pleases. Texas launched its own network. Many other schools have signed deals with other distributors, and several have launched web-based networks.
All the schools have chosen to take individual deals. Nothing (let me repeat NOTHING) is any of the schools from pooling their rights, and all it would take would be a simple majority to dub that entity the “Big XII Network”.
LikeLike
Frug: ND is not a football member of the ACC. They have a scheduling agreement in order to join in the other sports. Is UT going to/be allowed to become FB independent? Would they want to?
LikeLike
UT can’t pool their rights unless ESPN agrees. OU is probably in a similar position with Fox.
Sure a majority can vote for whatever they want to call it. They could call it network of the Antarctic, but that doesn’t mean the name reflects what it actually is.
LikeLike
ND is not a football member of the ACC.
Ok, then UT is not a member of the Big XII network for its Tier III rights. Still not seeing a difference.
LikeLike
To complete the analogy; if the other schools started a Big XII Network, then the Big XII Net. would be football and the the Tier I & II deals would be all the other sports.
LikeLike
“Ok, then UT is not a member of the Big XII network for its Tier III rights. Still not seeing a difference.”
Therefore a conference member is not allowing its rights to be used in a conference endeavor, which means its a “portions of the B12 network”.
The B12, by design, excluded the conf net possibility by allowing the tier 3 rights to remain with the schools. If they all give those rights back (20 year ESPN/LHN deal a bit of a prob) then they can have a conf. net.
LikeLike
I think ccrider explains it very well but since I like analogies…
Your explaination of the Lincoln assassination:
John Wilkes Booth didn’t shoot Abraham Lincoln at Fords theater, Lincoln failed to get out of the way of the bullet. 🙂
Now that frug has reminded me that it is technically possible for me to be elected president of the United States, Im going to go start working on my bid for 2016.
Peace out
LikeLike
I didn’t understand how those things generated value. A lot of people on here won’t accept that they have value. But I don’t let my perceptions stand in the way of facts. I accept that networks are paying for it, so it clearly has value. OU is earning $7 million a year more for it and UT is making $15 million a year average. And given the bigger population and alumni base of Texas, the $15 doesn’t look like a “bribe” when OU is earning $7 (and my understanding it that OU’s doesn’t even include the 1 football game).
LikeLike
Actually, one thing to keep in mind is that UT is “only” getting $11 million from the LHN. IMG gets the other $4 million.
LikeLike
Frug:
That’s true, just like all those in conference network arrangements the former rights holder needs to be compensated in some way. I’m not sure but I believe IMG is still providing services, but LHN is paying? Bullet?
LikeLike
UT had a $10 million contract with IMG where they got commissions on advertising sold among many other things.
When UT did the deal with ESPN, IMG got 15% of the ESPN contract to give up some of their rights. The ESPN contract started at $10.81 million and escalates with an average of $15 million over 20 years. IMG gets 15% every year.
So Texas is getting over $20 million in total Tier 3, net on average.
LikeLike
…but only $11M, on average, from the LHN. Fact.
LikeLike
@franktheag
As I said, LHN pays $15 million average over the 20 years. IMG gets 15%. So that is an average of $2.25 million per year. That’s $12.75 million, net. IMG is effectively getting a commission on the LHN deal. The remainder is from the separate IMG contract which is approximately $10 million average per year.
LikeLike
IMG contract was $9.4 million average for Texas. It was probably signed in 2008, so its hard to find the announcement by IMG of the signing anymore, but I saw it referenced when the Ohio St. deal with IMG was announced in March 2009. So the total is $22.15 million.
I saw someone who is usually pretty reliable say the radio deal is separate from that, but I don’t know that for a fact and haven’t seen that mentioned anywhere else.
LikeLike
as I recall Byrne saying it was a 50/50 cost\profit deal, but what most UT posters say is that A&M was made an offer to get in on at the beginning is the same thing that ended up being the LHN. Dodds in an interview said that their projections would be to have the network profitable in 3 years and of course everything was to be based out of Austin. This was going to be a growth of the BEVO network. A&M would have little control alot of risk and no idea that ESPN or anyone would pay anyhting for the network at all. At the time it was a reasonable business decision to say no, UT could afford a loss A&M couldn’t.
LikeLike
It doesn’t prevent the creation of a Big 12 Network, it merely prevents the creation of a valuable Big 12 Network.
LikeLike
But of course as has been pointed out before, Texas was interested in a conference network, but no one else was. Finally, Texas and Nebraska funded a study on their own. Texas asked A&M if they wanted to partner on a network and A&M said no. Big 12 fans know this and so none of them complain about UT having a separate network (although they might complain about the possibility of HS content or other specifics).
LikeLike
Texas was going to the PAC, except for that little thing about bundling all their rights. Appearently their interest in a conference network ends with the conference actually controlling the members rights.
Yea, I’m sure UT was offering equal control and profit to aTm and UNL (sarcasm). And how would that in anyway be anything but another way to re establish the unequal revenue pattern that had been eroded in tier 1 & 2?
LikeLike
Texas offered A&M an equal share when neither thought it would be worth much or might even cost money. Bill Byrne kept telling half-truths saying Texas never offered him a share of a $15 million network. And Texas didn’t offer him a share after Texas did all the legwork and ESPN offered to pay $15 million. But they could have been in on it earlier.
And the Texas/Nebraska study did show that Texas was better off doing their own deal.
LikeLike
Actually, Fox Sports SW pretty much has a Big 12 network. They have bought the rights to Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Kansas St. and Oklahoma. All but OU were signed within a few weeks of each other. OU took a few months longer.
LikeLike
Do you have a link validating Texas offered equal shares? Bill Byrne is on record saying they did not. I believe the deal per Bill Byrne, was Texas and A&M split the costs 50/50 but the revenue was to be split 2/3rds Texas and 1/3rd A&M.
LikeLike
It was in the alumni magazine a couple of years ago when they were discussing the LHN.
LikeLike
Basically Byrne wasn’t interested because no one expected much money out of it, including Texas.
LikeLike
as I recall Byrne saying it was a 50/50 cost\profit deal, but what most UT posters say is that A&M was made an offer to get in on at the beginning is the same thing that ended up being the LHN. Dodds in an interview said that their projections would be to have the network profitable in 3 years and of course everything was to be based out of Austin. This was going to be a growth of the BEVO network. A&M would have little control alot of risk and no idea that ESPN or anyone would pay anyhting for the network at all. At the time it was a reasonable business decision to say no, UT could afford a loss A&M couldn’t.
sorry to repeat also wanted to add:
A&M has also had a long term plan to offer its tier 3 programming over the internet, which it has done mostly for free, which is alot cheaper to do then a network, It also is pretty good forsight in that most entertainment is coming from the net and cable subsctiption are declining. I think the long term viability of even ESPN, SECN and LHN are on the web not cable.
Bill Byrne was building the presence of A&M on the web for the future.
but what do I know
LikeLike
In hindsight it was a bad decision. But it was the same decision the rest of the Big 12, the SEC and ACC all made.
As to what makes the most sense 15 years from now its hard to predict.
LikeLike
BTW, Brian, I finally looked here:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/78575/jim-delany-talks-divisions-schedules
“If you look at the schedules, what you’ll see is over time, the crossovers rotate. In the first 18 years, you’re going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division. We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling. You’ll see Wisconsin and Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will eventually rotate.”
So if the B10 somehow stays at 14 over 36 years, all non-IN schools will play all the non-IN schools in the other division the same number of times.
LikeLike
I read that a while ago. That’s if and only if they stick with the plan the whole way through. They could easily decide to repeat the first 18 years (or 12 or whatever) instead. If they believe it has significant value to screw up the schedule this way, why would they devalue it for almost 20 years after that? Clearly they aren’t concerned about fairness or balance if money is at stake
LikeLike
By the time the next 18 years rows around, the top tier could have change. Right now, UW and Iowa have more resources than Illinois and Minny, but there’s actually little reason for that to be true. As far as I can tell, the biggest difference is that Iowa and UW had Hayden Fry and Barry Alvarez while Illinois and Minny never had a program-building legend as coach. Minny actually had more wins than Iowa the decade before Fry took the helm and Illinois had more wins than Wisconsin the decade before Alvarez took the helm. Get the right coach, and both Illinois and Minny (or Northwestern) could replace Wisconsin and Iowa, especially since the gap isn’t that big anyway.
LikeLike
Illinois has structural obstacles to overcome, because all of the major powers recruit the state heavily, and successfully. What has helped Iowa, is that they are good at retaining the in-state talent. The state of Iowa may not be a football hotbed, but what they produce, they tend to keep.
There is no logical reason why Wisconsin is good, and Minnesota is not. The Gophers were a national power, many decades ago. Getting the coach that would return them to that level is not a trivial undertaking: heaven knows, they’ve tried and tried and tried. But theoretically, it ought to be possible.
LikeLike
The Packers are in Green Bay and the Vikings are in M-SP and the Gophers played in their stadium for many years.
LikeLike
Well, the Illini should own downstate IL as much as Iowa owns IA, but they don’t. The Gophers being in a pro sports metro may be a disadvantage, but so are the Wolverines (and the Pac Cal schools and Washington, all of whom have been good at various times). I think that expecting the Gophers to be as good as UDub is not unreasonable.
LikeLike
ASU, Utah, and Colorado as well.
LikeLike
Illini for whatever reason (coaching imo) hasn’t retained their in-state talent which is quite plentiful. They routinely lose recruiting battles to Northwestern, Wisconsin, Michigan, Purdue, Iowa, Missouri, etc. They are a constant underachiever both on the field and in the lifeblood of any program, recruiting.
LikeLike
Iowa has always drawn very well. They had 18 straight losing seasons before Fry arrived in 1979, but still played in front of sellout or near-sellout crowds. One of the famous stories of Fry’s hire is that he visited during a football game in late 1978, and was amazed at the size of the crowd as the Hawks completed a 2-9 season. He wondered how great the support would be once he gave them a winner.
Iowa has always had much more in-state support than Illinois (general fan support, not just attendance). Its the classic case of being the only show in town, similar to Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, etc.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Iowa draw very well. What is there to do on a Saturday at either location? (or within 100 miles?) You go to the football game. Way more options in Chicago, Minneapolis, or any other metropolitan city.
LikeLike
Richard,
“By the time the next 18 years rows around, the top tier could have change.”
Of course it could. But it’s unlikely to completely change. The point remains, why would they stick to a plan with lesser value for 18 years?
LikeLike
Of course not (especially in the B1G West). If Iowa or Wisconsin becomes less competitive, then I would expect it to be relegated to the lower parity group and a more successful team promoted to the higher parity group.
And I don’t think they will wait 18 years to do it. With three crossover games it takes just three years to complete a crossover rotation. So it would be logical to reassess the parity groupings every three (or six or nine) years.
LikeLike
Maybe every 9 years, but there’s no way they change it every 3 years.
LikeLike
“Of course it could. But it’s unlikely to completely change. The point remains, why would they stick to a plan with lesser value for 18 years?”
For fairness. Plus, they did so when the B10 had 11 schools. The top brands played each other more often early on, but the frequency of play between non-tied-in schools was roughly even by the end (which meant that the B10 went through a phase when they did not maximize matchups between their top brands).
LikeLike
Richard,
“For fairness.”
That’s funny. You should try stand-up.
“Plus, they did so when the B10 had 11 schools. The top brands played each other more often early on, but the frequency of play between non-tied-in schools was roughly even by the end (which meant that the B10 went through a phase when they did not maximize matchups between their top brands).”
PSU got OSU and MSU as locked partners but also got an agreement to play MI for their first 10 seasons as part of the deal (MI had MSU, OSU and PSU, OSU has PSU, MI and IL). After that, the rotation was equal from 2003-2010. If that’s what you mean, I agree. What they didn’t do was go back in 2003 and play the opposite schedule with the kings missing each other more than normal so that it would be balanced after 20 seasons. That’s the difference.
It’s one thing to go from biased to balanced, it’s another to switch to the opposite bias for 18 years. If you believe a skewed schedule is worth 10% more (just to use a number), then why spend almost 2 decades giving a 90% value schedule? What TV partner would say yes to that without reducing the payout?
LikeLike
Or maybe they will start out with balanced (in 2016; biased in 2014 & 2015), but with the top matchups front-loaded (which is what I believe they will do). With a 36-year long cycle, I think it’s highly likely that before 18 years have elapsed, the B10 would have expanded or other schools would have rotated to the top in the West.
Plus, my instinct is that illinois punches above its weight in TV ratings.
Brian, didn’t you do that study on which schools over or underperformed in TV ratings in bowl games?
How do the Western teams compare with each other?
LikeLike
Richard,
“Or maybe they will start out with balanced (in 2016; biased in 2014 & 2015),”
I actually expect 2014 and 2015 to be rivalry years for the eastern kings (OSU/IL, MI/MN) while the western brands play RU and UMD. That’s a way to throw a bone to history before selling out completely with the 9 game parity-based schedule.
“but with the top matchups front-loaded (which is what I believe they will do).”
That’s what they claim they’re doing, but over a 36 year time frame. I just don’t buy that they’ll follow through. Try explaining to ESPN they should pay just as much for 1/3 frequency for the big games versus 5/9 for 18 freaking years. Unless the B10 signs a 36 year TV deal, it isn’t happening.
“With a 36-year long cycle, I think it’s highly likely that before 18 years have elapsed, the B10 would have expanded or other schools would have rotated to the top in the West.”
I agree the order will have likely changed (I’ve never argued otherwise, in fact). NW could replace IA, for example. But it sounds like they are committed to the 18 year rotation. But assuming teams have changed places in the order by then, will they really do another 18 years of that plan? Maybe, because by then it might be more fair. More likely, IMO, is that they do another long term parity-driven schedule rotation. I think they’ll assume fans are so used to some games being only 1/3 of the time that it won’t matter as much by then.
Of course the whole plan is out the window if there is more expansion.
“Plus, my instinct is that illinois punches above its weight in TV ratings.
Brian, didn’t you do that study on which schools over or underperformed in TV ratings in bowl games?”
The problem is IL has been so bad that they don’t have much data from bowls.
“How do the Western teams compare with each other?”
Impact on TV Ratings (# of data points)
IA -2.5% (8)
IL +27% (3) – 1 great game overwhelmed 2 bad ones
MN -24% (7)
NE +6.0% (7)
NW -0.4% (5)
PU +15% (5)
WI +5.4% (9)
Remember, there are a ton of error sources here. Bowls change dates, times and networks. The competition varies wildly from year to year. Other sports events and news events may overlap. Bowls move around in the lineups for leagues, too. With so few data points, 1 outlier can really skew the outcome. The more bowls, the more likely the number is to be semi-reasonable. Also, it’s harder to improve the ratings for big bowls while crappy bowls can be improved a lot with a small increase in viewers.
LikeLike
Was the game wih great ratings for Illinois the Rose Bowl or another bowl?
LikeLike
It was the Texas Bowl versus Baylor.
LikeLike
Something very important to remember about UNLV and New Mexico is that they have nationally elite basketball programs. While basketball is clearly not the driver of conference realignment it does has some real value. That is more true for the Pac than any other conference at this point in time. Although the league definitely was better last year that the two or three before it, Pac 12 basketball was still well below the other Big 6 leagues (the old Big East still existed last season) other than the SEC, and was probably behind the A-10 and the Mountain West as well. However, the SEC does at least have Kentucky and Florida, which are both regular national title contenders. And in any case, SEC football alone is enough to sell the SEC Network. At this point, the Pac 12 doesn’t have much desirable content after football season ends. Adding a combination of UNLV and New Mexico would change that in a hurry. As for Vegas and New Mexico viewership, neither fan base is particularly passionate about football, but both are huge draws for basketball. UNLV fans will spend too. UNLV has one of the largest athletic budgets outside of the Big 5, and until these new television deals was competitive with several Pac 12 programs. New Mexico would definitely also be a solid academic fit in the Pac 12 right now. UNLV could get there as the school is making a very sold effort to improve it’s academic reputation, but I think that it would take closer to 20 years of improvement than 10 to reach a level the Pac 12 would like.
Don’t discount Hawaii. From Hawaii, you could feasibly broadcast live daytime games in Japan, Eastern China, and South Korea, three countries that the Pac 12 actively recruits students from. Many extremely wealthy Japanese and Korean citizens also own vacation homes in Hawaii, who could conceivably be turned into Pac 12 fans. Larry Scott has openly said that he wants to increase his league’s exposure in Asia, and adding Hawaii might be the best way to do that. Although Hawaii itself has a very small population, if it could help add in even a miniscule fraction of the Asian market, it would be a home run. If you could turn just 1% of Japan, South Korea, and China into college football fans, that would be well more than 15 Million people. Although I’m not saying that you could get even that 1%, but I think that’s more likely than Rutgers bringing the New York market to the Big 10.
LikeLike
It’s been enormously clear that basketball isn’t anything even close to a primary driver of revenue, but even if it was, New Mexico and UNLV do not have “nationally elite basketball programs.” They have programs who have been hot for a little while.
UNM is the epitome of a coach-dependent basketball program, who went to the NCAA’s 3/6 years under Alford (a ratio that would probably have gotten him fired from an actual elite program), 0/8 years under their prior two coaches, 7/11 yeas under Bliss, and 0/8 years under the two guys before Bliss.
UNLV at least has an argument for being at least a good program, though they only made two tourney berths from 1992-2006, and just one Sweet Sixteen (2007) after Tark’s last final four in 1991
Honestly, there’s a very reasonable chance one or both of those programs go back into the toilet in the near future (especially for UNM); why any power league would want to hitch its future to either wagon is frankly beyond me.
And, of course, as noted earlier, basketball REALLY isn’t the driver in power conference realignment. And even if it was, as noted above, Nevada has 2.7 million people total. Vegas (population of nearly 600k) simply can’t be that huge of a basketball market. Even if every single person in Vegas was basketball crazy (which isn’t true), that’s still not a particularly meaningful market. Comparatively speaking, Denver metro has about 2.5 million, Seattle metro has about 3.5 million, Phoenix metro has about 4.2 million, and the Bay Area has over 7 million, and we haven’t even gotten to LA.
PS Hawaii? Really? Not only are the logistics a total train wreck, there’s no point to trying to somehow use that as a “gateway to Asia.” If you want to broadcast in Asia, you can already do that from your own campuses (a 9AM Pacific time kickoff is the same effect on a player as a 12PM Hawaii time kickoff, and they don’t need to cross an ocean to do it). If you want a presence in Asia… then you actually need to go to Asia (which is something the league seems to be embracing, or at least thinking about embracing).
Honestly, saying Hawaii will get you anything for Asia is like a Euro soccer league thinking that getting into Puerto Rico will somehow help get them into the U.S. Asia cares about sporting events in Hawaii as much as the U.S. cares about sporting events in the Carribean. Zero.
LikeLike
UNLV and UNM are not elite, but they are more than just programs that have been hot for a while. They have very good bb programs. They both have 18k + arenas. New Mexico was in the top 10 in attendance every year but one (11th in 1992) from 1970 to 2002. Most of those years they were in the top 6. Since then they’ve mostly been in the 2nd 10 and have been at least in the top 25 every year. Its a pretty exclusive group that has been top 25 for 43 straight years or has ever been top 10 for 22 straight years. 2012 UNM was 16th and UNLV 17th.
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t believe Hawaii would get you the Asian market. However, the argument could be made. Essentially, all conference realignment is about future predictions and speculation. From a PAC 12 perspective, there really aren’t any better options than Hawaii, assuming Texas/Oklahoma are off the table. If your options are 4 million flat or 2 million with a chance for 15 million, you may convince yourself to take the risk on 15. very much doubt that the PAC would expand specifically to take Hawaii, but I wouldn’t dismiss them out of hand. And the logistics wouldn’t be that terrible for the non-Hawaii schools. They’d only have to go to Hawaii once every year or maybe even every other year. The trip would be long, but it would be no worse than when a PAC team plays on the East Coast. Plus every PAC team could sell trips to Hawaii to recruits. Would the logistics be ideal? Obviously not. Insurmountable? I don’t think so.
And a soccer team in Puerto Rico would get substantial ratings in parts of the East Coast, especially Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Eastern Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
Putting a soccer team in Puerto Rico would get almost zero interest in New York . If you look at the Red Bulls MLS team, they are at the bottom of the list of local sports rooting interest ( right there with the WNBA Liberty and below the Islanders and Devils). The MLS is even finding it difficult to build a soccer stadium in Flushing Meadow Park, which is near a huge Hispanic Population Center (Corona), so they can target them as potential ticket buyers. I have heard for years, that soccer will be bigger than any sport (Except the NFL) but they have not even caught up to Hockey (and as new facilities for ice get built, like the one in The Bronx (9 rinks)), that gap will grow. Perhaps deep down, most people in this Country do not care about American Soccer and in their hearts and minds, it is nothing but a niche sport like Tennis. Good luck getting New Yorkers ( like me) to choose Soccer over the Islanders ( let alone the Yankees).
LikeLike
MLS soccer is not very popular in the NY area because even the people that are into the sport know there are many leagues in the world with a higher level of play, and technology allows them to follow the EPL, Serie A, etc. instead.
It is the same reason I think people are underestimating how big the RU addition is going to be for the B1G. The idea that the highest level of college football is being played in the area is going to make things take off in a way RU playing Louisville, UConn, etc. was never going to be able to.
LikeLike
“I have heard for years, that soccer will be bigger than any sport (Except the NFL) but they have not even caught up to Hockey …”
That kind of fan delusion exists in lots of sports, but using it as your benchmark is still knocking down a straw horse. Unless somebody talking about soccer’s growth potential exhibits its THEMSELVES, they are not responsible for the delusions of others.
And you are quite right: soccer in the US has been catching up with hockey, though like hockey the level of interest can be quite different from one region to another. But college soccer is likely to hold a smaller share of the total soccer market than college football and basketball in their respective markets, because of the split in followers between the big overseas clubs, the national team, and the US league, with college soccer only getting a piece of the action in one slice of that via the US Olympic football squad.
LikeLike
The interest would have nothing to do with soccer and everything to do with Puerto Rico. There are more than 4.5 million people of Puerto Rican descent in the Continental US. The team wouldn’t have to be soccer, it could be football, baseball, or even hockey. Whatever pro sport eventually ends up in San Juan will get a large and devoted following both on and off the island.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
I believe a video was posted where DeLoss Dodds was speaking in front of UT boosters. In one moment, he said that one of the reasons UT didn’t take the PAC was that it is more difficult (from UT’s standpoint) to look west than it is to look east. He makes a very interesting point. Despite the pop. growth in the west, most of the population is still east of the Mississippi River. Thus, the focus of the major conferences has been eastwards. The PAC took Utah and Colorado, going much deeper into the Mountain states. They tried to get into Texahoma with UT/OU but were unsuccessful. The Big XII, in turn, went over several states to take West Virginia. The B1G went further east to take Maryland and Rutgers. The only movement that occurred in the opposite direction was from the SEC (only because they were blocked in other directions and TAMU was very compelling from their standpoint). The ACC took Louisville and Notre Dame because they were the better candidates available and the ACC already had enough of their fill of northern schools, not to mention needing to replace a founding member.
If we go by this convention then I have a hard time believing that the Big XII would want BYU, Colorado State or UNLV. They might fit better geographically but the current distribution of population has already influenced the major conferences. Already, we read concerns about schools in the to-be B1G West, especially Nebraska’s ability to recruit in the future because of population. Until the population in the west closes the gap even more I doubt this bias would change much in the future. Even then, that’s difficult to do because there’s much less water out west than back east. The common refrain about how there’s only enough water to fight over rings more true today.
The conferences today are mere vassals of the media companies. Media companies need ratings to justify their outlays. Conference networks need new areas of high income earners to keep in business. Both of those things are dependent on population. Institutional fits still matter to the elitists but you still need people to make it work.
Demographics is the real reason why the Grants of Rights ended this last round of major realignment.
LikeLike
Big XII is pretty much screwed for the future. After the GoR, the old Big XII South teams are headed either to the PAC in a pod format or the SEC West in some configuration.
It’s only option is to try and go to 14 with BYU/UNLV in the West and Cincy/Connecticut in the East to give WV some regional partners. (Yes, the Big XII Brass is going to have to lower standards to get this thing done
The conference divisional alignment would look as follows:
Big XII East
Cincy
Connecticut
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
West Virginia
Big XII West
Baylor
BYU
Oklahoma
Texas Christian U.
Tejas
Texas Tech
UNLV
That’s not too shabby of a conference. You’ve got a decent balance of super-powers (Oklahoma/Tejas), mid-level elites (Okie State, WV, TCU, K-State, BYU), mid-level solid (Cincy, UCONN, Tech, Baylor, Iowa State), and a few cupcakes (Kansas, UNLV).
Also, to go to 16, the Big XII could look at getting the Florida market with USF/UCF in a package deal. It is a major downgrade, but at this point, the Big XII is going to have to make some moves in the next couple of years or OU/Texas will be looking West again, or OU/Okie State possibly to the SEC (not the B1G = doesn’t have the academics and likely never will).
LikeLike
Every one of those additions, except maybe BYU, dilutes the conference. How is that better than just keeping what they have?
LikeLike
#1 Texas doesn’t want to leave.
#2 Texas would be making less money anywhere else, at least for the next 17 years while the LHN is being paid for by ESPN.
#3 Texas has no interest in the SEC and hasn’t for at least the last 25 years.
#4 As stated above, Texas has figured out they need to stay east, not west, so the Pac 12 is highly unlikely if they were ever to leave.
#5 B1G is not very good at most spring sports. And Texas doesn’t want to “fly the women’s softball team all over the Midwest,” at least according to the current president.
The only way I see Texas leaving is if they form a new conference in the 2020s with Notre Dame, elements of the Big 12 and ACC and possibly some SEC schools and possibly Nebraska.
LikeLike
Bullet:
“The only way I see Texas leaving is if they form a new conference in the 2020s with Notre Dame, elements of the Big 12 and ACC and possibly some SEC schools and possibly Nebraska.”
Really? UNL is going to leave the B1G to rejoin what they just escaped? ND decides to create a ragamuffin conference rather than fully joining the ACC, or even B1G? Other than during the period of uncertainty and misdirection when has UT ever expressed a “need” for anything east?
Texas isn’t likely to go anywhere. But if they eventually do, it’ll be alone to the B1G, or with friends to the PAC. In either case it will be as an equal.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think the main non-Big 12 option for Texas would be to become a partial member of the ACC in the same manner as Notre Dame. Now that John Swofford broke the ACC’s seal regarding a hybrid league, Texas is probably the one school besides Notre Dame that has the wherewithal to be independent and, in turn, offer enough value to the ACC to agree to a partial membership. To be clear, that’s still way less likely than Texas being happy with its own fiefdom in the Big 12.
LikeLike
That may have also been what Dodds was implying when he was talking about Texas looking East in the future.
They’d have their ND connection if they could set up the same deal in the ACC.
As far as likelihood goes, it’s not going to be in Dodds (or Powers) hands. The next generation of Texas leadership will determine the issue.
LikeLike
Actually, what Texas would need would be different from ND. Specifically, Texas would need to keep its Tier 3 rights so it could maintain the LHN. All other things being equal UT would probably prefer independence, but they would be just fine with full membership as long as the ACC let them hold onto the LHN.
LikeLike
I said possibly Nebraska and the “new” conference is a long shot anyway. None of the other Big 10 schools would even be a possibility. The right setup “might” be attractive to them. Whether they would be receptive depends on how well the Big 10 works out for them over the next 15 years or so.
LikeLike
“The only way I see Texas leaving is if they form a new conference in the 2020s with Notre Dame, elements of the Big 12 and ACC and possibly some SEC schools and possibly Nebraska”
1) ND won’t join a conference and will remain independent.
2) It isn’t “possible” that SEC teams wold leave to join
3) It isn’t possible that NU would leave the B1G and join up with Texas.
that’s fairytale thinking…
LikeLike
Frank:
Just wanted to let you know that the acronym LDS (which stands for Latter-day Saints) is typically used as an adjective – rarely, if ever, as a noun.
So while the sentence where you talk about the “viewpoints of the LDS …” is grammatically correct, it sounds awkward and disjointed to Mormons and those familiar with the use of the acronym. Instead, I recommend using the phrase the LDS Church or members of the LDS Church when using the acronym.
LikeLike
I never quit understood why Denver decided to join the Summit League in the first place. There was talk that the MVC was interested in them as was the WAC, but Denver was not interested. Now Oakland is leaving the Summit and that league looks even more pitiful. Why would a decent Denver Athletic Department stick with that league? Maybe they will rethink it with the new departure.
LikeLike
IIRC, Denver was interested in the MVC but they needed to add sports to meet requirements and were unwilling to do so.
LikeLike
Sorry Denver is already leaving the WAC. Still, Summit is a sad place to be.
LikeLike
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-swofford-uva-acc-grant,0,286752.story
UVA AD Littlepage’s perspective on Grant of Rights.
What is interesting…he clearly suggests that UVA did not sign a non-disclosure agreement with the B1G. Also, Swofford’s presentation to the Board of Visitors was a relatively brief 30 minutes. Basically downplaying the general media perception that UVA’s move was almost inevitable.
What is known…the GoR vote by ACC presidents was held the morning after Swofford’s meeting with the UVA BOV.
LikeLike
With all the mess in their governance, it was hard to see them making any large decisions like a conference change.
LikeLike
Pablo,
My God! Not interesting at all. UVa wasn’t joining the BIG, period. I think you need a long dose of ACC history. If you took a solid, year round run at various ACC sporting events you would conclude that the ACC was never going to disband like the Big12.
I knew the GOR was coming months ago & so did any other non-ACC fans who’ve spent time in ACC country. The obvious clues that suggested no more ACC teams were coming to the BIG were ND’s near full membership & a very large portion of Md’s fanbase disappointed by the recent switch. Md has consistently been the most discontent ACC member, not say FSU or Clemson, yet their discontent was unlike Neb, Rutgers, and even PSU’s BIG membership.
There was a slivering chance that FSU would join the BIG, but they needed another ACC team to join them, which didn’t happen. Moreover, FSU was likely using a BIG invite as leverage to secure an SEC membership.
LikeLike
Either the B1G was not interested in FSU, or FSU was not interested in the B1G. The B1G had another ACC school (Maryland) and FSU knew full well that joining MD in the B1G was the best way to open the gates to more defections from the ACC such as GT. .
LikeLike
Yeah, if FSU had jumped it would have been rats from a sinking ship, but the Big Ten couldn’t get past the AAU issue.
Like I said, ACC is a Jenga tower; pull the right piece and whole thing comes crashing down…
LikeLike
And now that ACC JENGA tower has been effectively super-glued together. And it could be a very diferent conference landscape in 15 years.
LikeLike
If you took a solid, year round run at various ACC sporting events you would conclude that the ACC was never going to disband like the Big12.
Funny, I don’t recall the Big XII disbanding…
LikeLike
Frug,
You’re being a smart ass and nitpicking in the literal sense. The Big12 took huge hits: Colorado, Nebraska, aTm & Mizzo. That’s what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I knew the GOR was coming months ago & so did any other non-ACC fans who’ve spent time in ACC country.”
What a load of revisionist history. Thousands of people in the ACC footprint, ACC fans included, thought the ACC was vulnerable months ago.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’m not really being the revisionist you claim, though I have actual hindsight fact at this point & frankly you wasted a ton of time in your previous post. The so-called ACC targets, outside of Md, never materialized & not one credible report ever manifested during this rumor gushing period, not one. Not even so-called journalists among the bigger media brands had actual proof the BIG was going to actually break apart the ACC.
From my review of message boards, there were far more fans from say GT, UNC, and UVa opposed to leaving the ACC for the BIG. The vulnerability you speak of is true, but was it ever even a slight consensus? Was it even actual insiders who knew the end was near? I don’t think so. There is Internet perception, then actual, real life. The latter prevailed & so many signs were up indicating such in the end.
Let’s just be happy with the BIG from 2014 forward – a fine collection of schools.
LikeLike
@gfunk: We know that the ACC schools resisted the GOR for a long time. This suggests that they wanted to leave open the possibility of leaving. We also know that FSU voted no on the exit fee. And when the GT athletic director was asked about potential re-alignment, he gave a meandering, non-definitive answer.
You say that no report materialized: well, there was no report on Maryland either, until a very short time before it happened. The lack of reports simply means that people kept their mouths shut. Or they had non-disclosure agreements that they actually abided by.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I’m not really being the revisionist you claim,”
Yes, you are. You are not accurately reporting the feelings of fans in the SE “months ago.”
“The so-called ACC targets, outside of Md, never materialized & not one credible report ever manifested during this rumor gushing period, not one.”
That’s irrelevant to your claim. You claimed that you and all other non-ACC fans in ACC territory knew months ago that a GOR was coming. All the message board traffic would clearly indicate otherwise. Lots of people felt ACC schools might be leaving.
“Not even so-called journalists among the bigger media brands had actual proof the BIG was going to actually break apart the ACC.”
I never said they did, nor is it relevant to your claim that I disputed.
“From my review of message boards, there were far more fans from say GT, UNC, and UVa opposed to leaving the ACC for the BIG. The vulnerability you speak of is true, but was it ever even a slight consensus?”
It doesn’t matter since you used an absolute term.
“Let’s just be happy with the BIG from 2014 forward – a fine collection of schools.”
No, the new additions suck. I’ll never be happy with them.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
The American Association of Universities announced Wednesday morning that the University of Missouri has been expelled by unanimous vote. President Hunter R. Rawlings III explained, “Missouri remains in good standing according to the AAU’s core metrics, but the membership simply could not continue to tolerate Andy’s message board posts.”
Missouri Chancellor Bradley J. Deaton commented, “We are dismayed, but not surprised, by today’s vote. Frankly, our very accreditation is in doubt as a result of Andy’s relentless blather. For the love of your alma mater, please stop.”
Added Provost Brian L. Foster, “I mean, like, seriously. Go away.”
LikeLike
looks like we have a jayhawk in our midst, and he’s projecting his own fears onto his rivals.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
I think Kansas to the B1G as a solo school isnt going to happen, now or in the future. They would have to be a partner to a much bigger fish. Those bigger fish OU,UT,UNC, UVA already have partners and Kansas isnt going to change much in the next 15 years to make them desirable. Andy is right about Missouri in 15 years might be a partner with OU and UT. I think ESPN won the lottery after losing to Fox with the B1G network. Fox has become a solid #2 for college sports outlet. but what do I know.
LikeLike
I think Kansas to the B1G as a solo school isnt going to happen, now or in the future.
At this point, NO school is going to be a solo add, because no league wants odd numbers in football. Even Texas would have to come with a partner — not that they’d have trouble finding one, because if Texas leaves the Big XII, then everyone will want out. The value of Kansas (if that ever happened) would be much like Rutgers, something you evaluate as part of a package deal that includes one or three or five other schools.
LikeLike
“so I find it to be entirely consistent that they’d be fine with waiting another decade to see if schools like Texas, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Kansas and/or Oklahoma are willing to test the free agent market at that point.”
I would say Kansas should NOT be on that list. Missouri makes slightly more sense because I’m sure Delany would love to steal an SEC member more than get a Basketball king with weak demographics. Its a minor point.
I think UT,ND, UNC, UVA still could walk on as a solo school (if it were possible to ignore GOR etc) and any other conference would be glad to have them.
but what do I know
and shut up greg 🙂
LikeLike
Not a sole add like Michigan State or Penn State … but I reckon certainly UT, ND or UNC would be “say yes while they’re asking, then find the 16th”.
LikeLike
Kansas is one of the few national brands in college basketball. I know football drives the bus, but basketball is very important for the BTN. Forbes has the Jayhawks as the 2nd most valuable team behind Louisville and CNBC has them tied with Kentucky and UNC for 2nd most profits from basketball.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/03/18/louisville-cardinals-lead-the-list-of-college-basketballs-most-valuable-teams/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100581891
No team is coming alone to the BIG but Kansas would be a great addition after the football centric schools.
LikeLike
PSU you make a good point, but even then I think your logic is flawed. If basketball were a driver for B1G,even then Kansas shouldn’t be on the list. I’m not much on basketball but it would seem to me that UCONN would make a better pick then Kansas. almost as good as Kansas, better academics and better markets.
It should be clear with Rutger going to the B1G that markets and football are the driving factors. Basketball is a distant 4th place. Louisville (according to the artcle) is the most valuable basketball team, but it has been sitting waiting for an invite to a big league for a long long time.
Kansas has a basketball brand but I think you overvalue it.
LikeLike
Biological Imperiative,
“PSU you make a good point, but even then I think your logic is flawed. If basketball were a driver for B1G,even then Kansas shouldn’t be on the list. I’m not much on basketball but it would seem to me that UCONN would make a better pick then Kansas. almost as good as Kansas, better academics and better markets.”
KU is AAU, UConn isn’t. That ends the discussion as far as the presidents are concerned.
I think he’s correct only if #15 is UT. Then KU gains value as a cultural bridge and a way to keep geographic balance (contiguous ain’t happening with UT, but the OK panhandle is only about a 30 mile gap). It’s hoops value is high and it brings a decent market in KC.
LikeLike
KU is barely AAU. Small enrollment, not top 100 in research, not top 100 in USNews, etc. Among AAU schools they rank at or near the bottom by pretty much all metrics. And Kansas has a population of 2.8M. And they share that state with KSU, who has the much stronger football program. They average only around 44k fans per game, which puts them right there with equally pitiful Rutgers and Maryland. Their all-time football record is about on par with Rugters, which is to say, very bad. But they are very good at basketball. They cheat a lot, but they win a lot too, and that’s what counts.
LikeLike
Though as we saw with Nebraska, barely AAU is certainly close enough for a brand name, if they decide they want to add that brand name.
LikeLike
Ohh I thought Uconn was AAU, I think UT would want OU or Tech with them and Kansas would not be an acceptable substitute, but what do I know.
Thanks for the discussion
LikeLike
Basketball is a distant 2nd to football but there are few, if any, football schools outside the SEC and PAC left and are a member of the AAU. UT is the only one. Any multiple school addition will probably have to include a non-football power. A state like Virginia does offer more population, but little fan interest in comparison. UNC would have both but Kansas is the Nebraska of college basketball so to speak. Here’s a link to television ratings in the 2nd half of last season:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/03/college-basketball-tv-ratings-part-2-numbers-for-the-second-half-of-the-season/
Kansas draws pretty much a million plus viewers per game, which for basketball is huge (even though that is terrible for football). That’s also playing in a conference that was significantly down this year as far as team quality and fan interest. Add Kansas to what is right now the strongest basketball conference ratings wise, and it ain’t even close (look at the top 10 games for the year) and you got a cash cow. Not only for the BTN, but also for Tier 1 basketball which the BIG sells separately. Yes I would love for the BIG to add Texas and Oklahoma and close down forever, but that’s not happening.
LikeLike
I agree that Kansas is a great Basketball School but the B10 does not need great Hoop Schools, they need better Football Schools to bring in more future revenue streams. Right now we have Ohio State and Michigan as far as great are concerned. I expect my Nitts and Nebraska to be back up there within 5 years, but the rest are questionable (Wisconsin, Iowa & Michigan State offer the best chance). If you look at the thought process of the B10, they look at things from a long -term perspective, and if going forward, they feel that in 10 years Oklahoma might be AAU they would gladly accept them. Keep in mind, they knew Nebraska was on less than solid ground with the AAU. But since they are a football power, despite that issue (and a poor hoops history and small population), they were happy to have them join up. The thing to watch for is after the new B10 TV contract happens then what is next. Most of us agree the big Government contracts and subsidies are going to decline, so will the current low interest rates environment which makes the financing of construction desirable (even if it is really not needed (see the $44m HUB expansion at Penn State as exhibit A)), so to make up the difference Schools and the B10 in general will do whatever is necessary to add to revenue, and if that means adding the Sooners (even if they think AAU Membership is about 50/50 (at best)), and Johns Hopkins for the CIC (and Lacrosse) they will do it.
LikeLike
Heard Northern Illinois brought up as a potential Big12 expansion target. I can see how them and Cincinnati would help make a bridge to isolated WV but is there any real possibility Big12 would really consider NIU?
LikeLike
NIU plays in a 24,000 seat stadium. They’re 95th nationally in revenues. I don’t see the B12 considering them.
LikeLike
is there any real possibility Big12 would really consider NIU?
No.
There is, however, a Facebook page dedicated to getting NIU into the Big XII
https://www.facebook.com/NIUToTheBig12
LikeLike
NIU has been talking about it for about 10 years. Doesn’t mean the Big 12 has.
LikeLike
I think Northern Illinois has a lot of potential due to their market size and location inside the Big XII’s footprint, but at this point, all they have is potential. There would need to be some serious upgrades before they could be considered for membership anywhere outside the MAC.
LikeLike
Please. Don’t feed the troll.
LikeLike
School finances. Lots here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
LikeLike
B1G specific
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76373/b1g-revenue-expenses-among-highest
LikeLike
The big decline at Penn State is revealing but not shocking. A lot of boosters have cut back on contributions (football excluded), a lot of it is anger at School President Erickson (Thank God he will be history when his contract ends) and AD Joyner (the Board of Trustee Elections reflected that) . if you add the debts that must be repaid to the University (related to NCAA fines and Lawsuits), paying off the Paterno Contract and no Bowl Game revenue, means a bad situation for now. The good news, is that a lot of the expenses involved in sports related construction are over (the Rec Hall renovation for wrestling and TV coverage is an example of this) , I believe just the pool and tennis center are left to go. Assuming Bill O’Brien stays , and the Big 10 gets a huge TV Contract, the problems in the past, will be where they belong in the past.
LikeLike
David Brown,
The USA Today slideshow had this to say in explanation of PSU:
“Penn State $108,252,281: Penn State’s overall operating revenue declined by nearly $7.9 million compared to 2012, but athletics officials have attributed that primarily to a spike in 2011 revenue caused by an usually large number of football club-seat and suite contracts coming up for renewal in 2011. Penn State had $106.6 million in revenue in 2010, the year before the revenue spike and a year in which Penn State played eight home football games rather than the usual seven.”
LikeLike
Top schools not in Big 5 in expenditures (note that private schools are not in this list)
43 UConn 63.8 million (#42 in revenue)
46 UNLV 58.7 million (#47 in revenue)
53 Cincy 49.9 million (#53 revenue)
55 Memphis 46.8 million (#54 revenue)
56 New Mexico 44.3 million (#58 revenue)
58 Boise 43.2 million (#57 revenue)
59 Air Force 43.2 million (#55 revenue)
60 USF 43.1 million (#56 revenue)
61 Hawaii 40.3 million (#63 revenue)
62 UCF 40.0 million (#60 revenue)
Utah, #57 at 43.7 million (#61 revenue) was the bottom Big 5 school.
LikeLike
If the Big 5 expand, the top spending schools would be the ones they would look at (again, private schools like BYU and Tulane aren’t in this list). After this group expenditures fell off rapidly-SDSU was next, then Houston, then James Madison at $34.5 million.
LikeLike
Looking at the school finances, the most interesting column to me is the subsidy.
Take Vincent’s turtles for instance. They are #39 in revenue, but 25% of that revenue is in subsidies.
#61 Utah has the lowest revenue of any Big 5 public school and receives subsidies at a rate of 24%. P-12 has even bigger offenders with Colorado at 27.87% and Oregon State at 31.9%
Hopefully, all this new found TV money will lower these absurd student fees and direct state subsidies.
Some other head scratchers:
Wisconsin’s subsidy is 6.87% and Minnesota’s is 8.32%. BTN money should make that kind of subsidy moot.
Alabama with $125mm in revenue still takes the second biggest subsidy in the SEC at 4.37%. WTF? Miss State is the highest in the SEC at 5.37%.
Clemson receives the lowest subsidy in the ACC at 7.6%. B1G targets UNC and GA Tech are at 11% each. UVA checks in at over 16%.
LikeLike
@Alan – IMHO no “power” 5 team should recieve a subsidy. I could understand a G5 team accepting one, but not a P5 school.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the angst about subsidies. Kudos to those who have developed a private, professional sports department on their campus. College sports are supposed to be an important part of the total educational endeavor. Only a very few have the possibility of being self sufficient, and do the presidents really want an almost completely independent, self sustaining dept with perhaps a different vision being financially divorced from the school? Possibly becoming dependent (I know, a stretch) on AD income being give to the academic side?
Take a look at the amounts, and the percentage of more than the power conferences. 5 to 15 M seems easily within an amount most schools see as acceptable.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
LikeLike
College sports are supposed to be an important part of the total educational endeavor.
If that was the case why not just put all the money into intramurals which are open to all students (to say nothing of considerably cheaper).
Only a very few have the possibility of being self sufficient
No. Actually most power conference schools could be self sufficient; they just chose not to. Remember K-Freaking-State has the most profitable AD in the country by an absurd margin. If they can pull it off so can just about every other Big 5 school.
That said, I don’t necessarily have a problem with some subsidies since if the teams are competitive they can bring value.
My problem is with schools that waste money (hello Rutgers and your 27 sports).
LikeLike
Why have conferences at all. Lets just live in our own tiny little worlds. Then everyone gets to be king of their domain.
Intramurels are another, different part of the educational endeavor that almost all schools subsidize.
Appearently most power conference schools see a benefit that you don’t. I see K State subsidizes at almost 5%. I doubt they are just throwing money away.
Do the thousands of student ticket purchases at mega stadiums not count as a subsidy, but the student tickets given as a part of student athletic dept fee compensation do? Why should we dictate what a school, and/or its students choose to fund?
LikeLike
Why have conferences at all. Lets just live in our own tiny little worlds. Then everyone gets to be king of their domain.
?
Appearently most power conference schools see a benefit that you don’t.
I said I wasn’t opposed to all subsidies. In some cases I think they can be appropriate (for example, they allow UCLA to continue marketing on the fact they have won more NCAA championships than any other school).
Subsidies are just an investment. Some schools make them wisely; unfortunately many don’t.
I see K State subsidizes at almost 5%.
I never said they didn’t. Also, they are fazing out their subsidies. They plan on being completely independent in the next 5 years.
I doubt they are just throwing money away.
Agreed.
Do the thousands of student ticket purchases at mega stadiums not count as a subsidy, but the student tickets given as a part of student athletic dept fee compensation do?
Students purchase FB and MBB tickets voluntarily; student fees are mandatory. If students were given an option to purchase a package that included tickets free/reduced ticket prices to non-revs then I wouldn’t consider it a subsidy.
Why should we dictate what a school, and/or its students choose to fund?
Well all taxpayers have an interest in what state universities spend their money on, but I don’t really consider anything that anyone on this website has called for to constitute “dictating”. We are just expressing our opinions, not calling for legislation or NCAA action.
LikeLike
Perhaps I was reading too much in the intensity of complaints about subsidies. I see what seems to be a 5 to 15M basic range of support that schools find acceptable, at almost any of the top 250 schools. The question is what level of income is high enough that schools could reduce their subsidies without creating a competitive disadvantage with similar schools who chose not to reduce. When, how fast, and how much should it be reduced would be individual schools decision and subject to the same complaints.
LikeLike
In regards to the revenues/expenses/subsidies/etcetera for each school… none of this is apples to apples. Some schools always show a balanced sheet, some reflect excess revenue, some excess expenditures. What each school considers direct revenue or expenses, how the accounting is done for revenues and expenses, where moneys generated are actually allocated (i.e. does parking revenue go to the general fund, or to the athletics dept?). It’s hard to know (without being on a university’s finance/accounting staff) the specifics. There obviously are some variables (i.e. stadium/arena sizes/attendance) that will reflect hard numbers—beyond that your guess is as good as mine.
LikeLike
Wisconsin really doesn’t receive any direct subsidies. There are no student fees associated with athletics and the department generates a profit and actually sends money back academics.
From what I’ve been told what you are seeing is soft cost allocations such as campus IT and communications, chancellor office expenses
LikeLike
@Kevin – Wisconsin gives their AD money to cover chancellor’s office expenses? That seems a little backward. Does the AD run campus IT and communications? Why are they being reimbursed for that?
LikeLike
It’s the way the university allocates it’s soft costs. All the infrastructure projects get allocated and to the extent it involves the AD they consider it a subsidy.
LikeLike
Mike, its accounting. Somebody in the Chancellor’s office is working on project X, maybe info the AD needs for NCAA compliance. That is allocated to the Athletics Department. So two week’s salary plus (say) 20% on-costs are recorded as Chancellor’s office expenses on behalf of the AD. If its not paid for out of AD revenues, its accounted as a subsidy. Similarly if the AD uses the IT system without explicitly paying for. Those are “soft costs” ~ effectively direct provision of services, rather than handing money over.
LikeLike
cc – my problem with subsidies among schools in power conferences is the combination of fat new media contracts, the nationwide problem of state budget cuts to higher ed, and skyrocketing tuition. Families are paying for an ever increasing share of the cost of public education in America, and athletic departments have never made more money, and there’s more coming. I believe that funding an athletic department using required student fees or state money, to extent that half of the Pac-12 schools and Maryland do is obscene.
What does it take to run a P5 athletic department? Let’s see, Texas took in $163mm and Utah took in $41mm, of which almost $10mm was a subsidy. 14 schools have revenue in excess of $100mm. 13 schools have revenue between $99-80mm. 11 schools have revenue between $79–70mm. Seven schools have revenue between $69-60 mm. Seven schools have revenue under $60mm. Utah, in their first year in the Pac-12, was obviously not ready for prime time. Purdue, on the other hand, is last in the B1G in revenue and takes no subsidy.
If your school is public and in a P5 conference and can’t cobble together $60-70mm to run their athletic department though TV rights, mandatory donations for football/MBB tix, ticket sales, and corporate sponsors, maybe they ought to look at the number of sports they sponsor and whether they actually belong in a power conference. If your alumni and “supporters” won’t support the athletic department, its wrong to make students and their families pay. Other Athletic Departments should use Purdue as an example and live within their means.
LikeLike
ACC schools that were mentioned as Big Ten targets have the following subsidies/revenues (in $ millions)
Virginia – 13.1/80.8
North Carolina – 9.1/82.4
Florida State – 7.8/100.0
Georgia Tech – 6.9/63.2
I imagine the GOR plus any other media deals the ACC would make might reduce those subsidies in time, but a move to the B1G by any of these schools would have done it a lot quicker.
I would love to have heard Swofford’s 30 minute presentation to UVa on the benefits of staying in the ACC given the amount of money the university is currently handing over to the AD to sustain their operations.
LikeLike
ESPN tied into the SEC to have something. It’s basically the SEC network now.
They’ve hated the BIG since the launch of BTN.
Plus, with the BIG expanding into other major markets the new TV deal will be huge.
BTN add tiers. BIG ties into FOX and /or NBC. Also Expansion is not over.
The GOR means nothing. It doesn’t stop anything. It hasn’t.
Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, FSU, Virginia, NC, and GT are all on the table for the BIGs future.
The world is different. Regional traditions are over.
Never say never when it comes to teams leaving for a better financial future.
Look at Maryland. A founder of the ACC. Had to drop sports to survive in the ACC.
I doubt an ACC network of any kind will help. ESPN has really no interest.
They’re set with the SEC.
Plus, ESPN gave the ACC a broadcast deal a year ago. Just 17 mil. per school.
It’s the reason FSU, Maryland, and Clemson were not happy.
Once the Maryland case is over, the path will be cleared for expansion again..
LikeLike
The UMd issue is child’s play compared to the ACC GOR. It’s game over for at least 15 years as far as ACC defections go. And the tables could turn in the coming years…
LikeLike
A couple random comments.
1. Kansas seems to be a fairly valuable property. Brands matter, and it is a brand. Given the chance to buy a Mizzou hat or a Kansas hat, most will go Jayhawk. I just don’t know how that quite figures into the expansion discussion. Its like Nebraska, except its brand is basketball and not football. That makes it less valuable for conference purposes than Nebraska, but I still think it more valuable than a Mizzou, despite the demographics.
2. I can’t help but feel the gravitational force between Texas and B10 will pull those two together.
LikeLike
The number 1 concern for all universities right now is the decline of government dollars, whether that be state subsidies or federal research money. How much government funds decline and how it is distributed could play a huge part in the next round of realignment, if there is any, when the GORs in the ACC and Big 12 end. The possiblilty of a huge increase in research money is the only thing I can think of that would make UT abandon its control and enter into an equal partnership in the BIG. The CIC would have to become a very strong lobbying entity for that to happen. That is really the only thing that the BIG could sell Texas.
That is why John Hopkins is very interesting. John Hopkins is the leader in research in the country by a huge amount. They almost do as much as the next two schools, Michigan and Wisconsin, put together. If JHU became a full partner in the CIC, the resources available especially to schools with medical centers would be huge. Any bid with JHU name on it for a research project in the field of medicine would go right to the front of the line. That means any tag along BIG schools on those bids get to profit by being associated with the most prestigious medical institution in the country. It’s not as exciting as adding OU football or UNC basketball, but JHU decision might end up being the most impactful on the future of the BIG.
LikeLike
Nice post PSUHockey.
LikeLike
agreed “good post” PSU
LikeLike
PSU Hockey, I agree that is an excellent point. For Penn State, their Hershey Children’s Hospital ( as well as Central Pennsylvania) would really benefit by having additional research dollars available. It will be interesting to see if Johns Hopkins will give up their independence in order to join the CIC?
LikeLike
Missouri has moved up from #93 nationally to #69 nationally in research dollars over the last 20 years.
Kansas has climbed from #108 to #100.
http://mup.asu.edu/research.html (see page 12 of the 2011 report)
I’d say Missouri’s state has supported their University better than Kansas has.
LikeLike
“Given the chance to buy a Mizzou hat or a Kansas hat, most will go Jayhawk.”
Nope. Missouri ranks #19, Kansas ranks #22.
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Q4-2012.aspx
LikeLike
^^Probably because there are more than twice as many people living in Missouri as Kansas, and Kansas’s national following isn’t enough to make up for that.
LikeLike
I think many of us have become addicted to the rumors and speculation and are having a hard time coming to grips with the reality that changes among the big 5 conferences are over for the next 10+ years.
Having said that the themes I’ll be watching over the next decade because they are the most likely to create enough instability to lead to future changes to the landscape:
* B1G and SEC separating themselves from the pack financially which could lead to the next round of optimizations.
* On field success for Florida State and Oklahoma. Seems like potential for SEC envy is very high with these two institutions of higher education.
* FBS Haves splitting from the FBS Have-Nots
LikeLike
Oklahoma made it pretty clear that they (like the Longhorns) have no interest in the SEC. Maybe that will change, but the PAC remains a far more likely option for the Sooners if they decide to make a move (especially if Bob Stoops and David Barron are still at the school).
LikeLike
I disagree Frug. Traveling expenses for any Big12 school that once played in the Big8 would be incredibly unfair to the olympic sports. Colorado is nearly the outlier equivalent of WVa in the Big12. Boulder has a solid 8 to 10 hour head start for most, stress “most” conference road trips compared to any remaining Big12 schools thinking Pac12 down the road. OU would have at least 6 non-driveable road trips for fans via a Pac12 membership. That’s ridiculous!
If the Big12 dissolves, they’re going BIG or SEC.
I don’t even want to go down the road of cultural compatibility. Ok is not Co, the latter being a state much more aligned with Pac12 general culture. Colorado has increasingly grown due to Upper Midwest & California transplants, immigration as well.
LikeLike
B1G doesn’t want OU. SEC? Maybe, but not OkSU. OU doesn’t want SEC, and won’t/can’t leave OkSU. Exactly how are these hurdles to be overcome? There was (don’t know if it would still be available) only one destination that would overcome those problems, along with a Tech problem, if UT agreed. Not that it matters for quite a while now.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why some people think that OU to the B1G is an option considering OU has no shot at AAU status. If the B1G wouldn’t take FSU, they sure won’t take OU.
LikeLike
It all depends at what is the final number for the BIG. 20 has been mentioned by Gee so if that’s the case, finding 6 AAU schools that add value to the conference is pretty hard. OU is desperately trying to up their acedemic standings. I think in the last AAU rankings I saw, they were in the 80’s which is above some current schools but not close to being in. However, I do think that the BIG could take 1 non-AAU school if they go to 20. They would have at the bare minimum 19 AAU schools if you count the Univ of Chicago as a CIC connected voting block. If JHU comes aboard, that is 20 even with Oklahoma or FSU not being AAU, so 1/3 of the entire AAU NCAA schools. The BIG is still an athletic conference. Oklahoma would be a huge get to shore up the Western Divsion in football. I don’t think it was that the BIG wouldnt take FSU as much as it had two other schools they considered more desirable in UVA and UNC.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“It all depends at what is the final number for the BIG. 20 has been mentioned by Gee so if that’s the case, finding 6 AAU schools that add value to the conference is pretty hard.”
That doesn’t mean they’ll lower their standards except for ND. UVA, UNC, GT, KU, UT and ND would be 20 with only 1 exception. That’s 20 the B10 COP/C could live with. They aren’t taking schools like OU despite what fans want.
“OU is desperately trying to up their acedemic standings.”
So are a lot of other schools, including the current AAU schools.
“I think in the last AAU rankings I saw, they were in the 80′s which is above some current schools but not close to being in. However, I do think that the BIG could take 1 non-AAU school if they go to 20.”
Sure, if it’s an elite undergrad school like ND. They don’t feel the need to reach for an OU, though.
“The BIG is still an athletic conference.”
To fans, yes. To the COP/C it is just as much an academic conference if not more so.
“Oklahoma would be a huge get to shore up the Western Divsion in football.”
Of course it would be. But so would UT, and they are AAU. That’s how the COP/C thinks.
“I don’t think it was that the BIG wouldnt take FSU as much as it had two other schools they considered more desirable in UVA and UNC.”
And why were they more desirable? AAU status. If that wasn’t stopping the B10 from taking FSU, FSU would be in and someone else would have joined with them.
LikeLike
Except that the Big Ten isn’t adding any non-AAU schools and OU has zero interest in the SEC. Plus, neither the Big Ten or SEC is adding Okie St. and both OU’s statements and actions since the founding of the Big XII indicate they are either unable or unwilling (or both) to ditch the Cowboys.
As for driving? Lincoln is 6 and half hours from Norman and Iowa City (the second closest) is only 20 minutes closer to Norman than Boulder and it’s 10 hours away.
Also, please don’t ever reference “cultural compatibility”. It is exists solely as an excuse for schools and conferences to pass up opportunities they know objectively are their best option (see the Big East passing on Penn St.)
LikeLike
T Boone Pickens has been as generous with OK State politicians as he has with OkSt U. As long as he is alive (98 at GoR expiration), OU will not be able to get away from OkSt.
LikeLike
Cultural compatability as an institution is important. Rutgers and Maryland are enormous state research universities like everyone but NW in the Big 10. Most of the ACC schools are either private or relatively smaller state schools (GT, UNC, UVA). Maryland was the only really large school in the ACC. The Big East was a mess with every type of institution and eventually fell apart.
LikeLike
Cultural compatability as an institution is important. Rutgers and Maryland are enormous state research universities like everyone but NW in the Big 10. Most of the ACC schools are either private or relatively smaller state schools (GT, UNC, UVA). Maryland was the only really large school in the ACC.
There’s not much truth in that. FSU has a larger enrollment than Maryland, and N. C. State is not far behind. Pitt, UNC, and VT are sufficiently close, that you could say they’re (broadly speaking) the same kind of institution. Likewise, Clemson, GT, and UVA are all fairly large publics with more than 20,000 students. They’re more like Maryland than unalike. Maryland dropped out of the ACC because their athletic department was practically bankrupt, and they needed to chase the money; not because they were culturally incompatible with the rest of the league.
No one is talking about cultural incompatibility in the Pac-12, even though its public schools have a range of enrollment sizes that is even wider than the range in the ACC, from Arizona State (almost 60,000) to Washington State (slightly over 20,000). Baylor (a mid-sized private religious school) has been in the same league as Texas (a huge public) since 1915.
What matters is not so much shared culture as shared objectives.
The Big East was a mess with every type of institution and eventually fell apart.
The fact that it had different types of institutions was not what doomed the Big East. What doomed the Big East was that they tried to be a football league, but didn’t have a sufficiently competitive product. The teams that could find homes in better leagues moved, and every time they were replaced with worse teams.
LikeLike
The Big East was a mess with every type of institution and eventually fell apart.
The Big East’s problems were economic and can be traced back entirely to the decision to turn down Penn St. on cultural reasons.
Most of the ACC schools are either private or relatively smaller state schools (GT, UNC, UVA).
Why does that matter? Not being sarcastic I honestly can’t understand what difference it makes. They still have the same goals as the Big Ten schools.
Plus, it’s not like Northwestern has been complaining about being in a conference with big public flagships.
LikeLike
@frug
The schools have similar missions and resources. The 35-50k student schools are hard for someone like Georgia Tech who until recent years had around 12k to keep up with. Northwestern and Vanderbilt struggle to be competitive in most sports. Stanford does well, but they have one of the biggest endowments in the country.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Likewise, Clemson, GT, and UVA are all fairly large publics with more than 20,000 students.”
GT has fewer than 15,000 undergrads. I wouldn’t consider it a large public school.
LikeLike
@marc
The Big 10 schools generally have nearly 40k up to over 50k students. And they have been there for decades.
Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC are much smaller. So is Clemson. NCSU and VT are larger than their sister flagships, but still under 30k last figures I saw. Wake, Duke, Miami and BC are private. FSU is big, but its growth is more recent (for example, enrollment was 21k in 1980).
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Traveling expenses for any Big12 school that once played in the Big8 would be incredibly unfair to the olympic sports.”
Expenses don’t matter to those sports, they matter to the AD who has to pay for them from FB money. The travel time would be an issue for the players.
“Colorado is nearly the outlier equivalent of WVa in the Big12. Boulder has a solid 8 to 10 hour head start for most, stress “most” conference road trips compared to any remaining Big12 schools thinking Pac12 down the road. OU would have at least 6 non-driveable road trips for fans via a Pac12 membership. That’s ridiculous!”
OU would only have 4.5 B12 road games per year, and most fans never go to a road game. If the school though it would get a big enough raise, it isn’t going to say no because rich boosters would have to fly to road games. They already do fly to many games.
“If the Big12 dissolves, they’re going BIG or SEC.”
The B10 won’t accept their academics. OU said no to the SEC. Unless the P12 changes their mind, OU can’t go anywhere but the ACC (I assume they’d say yes).
LikeLike
To whomever said UMd was the only big school in the ACC…FSU is 40K+. There really is a lot of misinformation on the interwebs.
LikeLike
I’d add the outcome of lawsuits like the O’Bannon case to that list. Also changes in TV delivery.
On my personal list would also be the success of the P12 regional networks. If it works, does the B10 try to follow suit?
Option 1:
BTN-OH (OSU)
BTN-MI (MI and MSU)
BTN-Central (NW women’s lax, IN, IL and PU hoops)
BTN-East (PSU, RU, UMD)
BTN-Corn (NE and IA)
BTN-Canada (WI, MN and all hockey)
They would have to be on a sports tier for little money, but they’d get some viewers.
Option 2:
BTN-North (MI, MSU, NW)
BTN-East (PSU, RU, UMD, lax)
BTN-West (NE, IA, WI, MN)
BTN-South (OSU, IN, IL, PU)
Fewer channels would be easier.
Option 3:
BTN2
This would be a general channel with more viewers, but it may work better to be done online versus on TV.
LikeLike
That last part; aren’t they sort of making BTN2go into that?
LikeLike
Not quite. You have to get BTN by cable or satellite to get BTN2go. I was thinking of doing it without the cable requirement. I always thought that requirement was dumb anyway – why refuse a customer just because they won’t also buy something else?
LikeLike
But can’t you get BTN Digital separately? Alternative subscription TV services (cable, IP) are bad enough … cable companies really don’t like free standing streaming alternatives to set-top boxes and smartphones. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some contract clause that ties BTN2GO to cable or satellite BTN customers if they want to put cable BTN content on it ~ which would also explain why BTN Digital, which seems to consist entirely of the stuff that is NOT put on cable, might not need a tie in.
I wouldn’t be surprised
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“But can’t you get BTN Digital separately?”
Yes, you can. But he specifically mentioned BTN2go.
As for BTND, it has no football and only audio for some other things. It has nothing that BTN ever airs. That’s a lot different than forming the equivalent of BTN2 and just not televising it to me.
http://video.btn.com/allaccess/
The Big Ten Digital Network combines streaming audio and video content from all 12 member institutions with hundreds of additional untelevised games streamed exclusively from the Big Ten Network to offer the most online video coverage of Big Ten athletics anywhere in the world. The Big Ten Digital Network features live game broadcasts, exclusive behind-the-scenes video, game highlights, original programming and press conferences from 25 men’s and women’s sports across the Big Ten Conference, with additional coverage from conference postseason tournaments and events. Fans only looking for access to a single school’s content can still subscribe to just that school on monthly and annual renewing terms.
Big Ten Digital Network Monthly – $14.95
Big Ten Digital Network Yearly – $119.95
School Monthly – $9.95
School Yearly – $79.95
$15/month for that? ESPN is $5 of your cable bill.
LikeLike
And obviously they haven’t tried it as an actual TV channel.
LikeLike
And also, what about the SEC? sESPcN2 would be popular as well. So would smaller ones:
sESPcN – AL
sESPcN – Appalachia (UK, UT, Vandy)
sESPcN – East (SC, GA)
sESPcN – FL
sESPcN – TX
sESPcN – LA
sESPcN – Ozarks (AR, MO)
LikeLike
Hadn’t considered regional networks before Brian but that is certainly a point worthy of adding to the list.
LikeLike
ACC/B1G challenge games announced. Iowa is an immediate beneficiary to ND joining the ACC, as the Fighting Irish will travel to Iowa City in their first ACC/B1G game. Current Iowa head coach Fran McCaffery was a ND assistant for 11 years and his wife played hoops there. The two other new additions have attractive matchups with Indiana at Syracuse and PSU at Pitt.
Tuesday, December 3
Florida State at Minnesota
Illinois at Georgia Tech
Indiana at Syracuse
Michigan at Duke
Notre Dame at Iowa
Penn State at Pittsburgh
Wednesday, December 4
Boston College at Purdue
Maryland at Ohio State
Miami at Nebraska
North Carolina at Michigan State
Northwestern at North Carolina State
Wisconsin at Virginia
LikeLike
So Clemson, V-Tech and Wake are getting left out this time.
LikeLike
They said the B10 would play the top 12 ACC teams from the previous season, and those were the three worst ACC teams last season.
LikeLike
How does Iowa benefit by hosting Notre Dame this year? If ND wasn’t in the ACC, which team would the Hawkeyes have played? Would that team have been a better matchup than the Fighting Irish?
LikeLike
“How does Iowa benefit by hosting Notre Dame this year?”
Hawkeye fans want to watch the Hawks beat ND.
LikeLike
You mean in football, right? I didn’t realize ND men’s basketball was anything special. Of course, I still remember the Kelly Tripuka/Bill Laimbeer days . . . .
LikeLike
The challenge would be interesting in terms of scheduling issues once both conferences reach at least 14 members. Who would be the odd ACC team out next time? Or will the conference continue to send only 12 teams each?
LikeLike
I would assume there will be 14 matchups starting in 2014.
My hope is that Notre Dame is not involved, ever. That looks unlikely though, since they are playing in the challenge next season.
LikeLike
Odd man out is the worst team from the previous year, supposedly.
LikeLike
They’ll just take it to 14 teams. The ACC has already said that they will decide who plays based solely on the previous years RPI.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9254376/mount-union-purple-raiders-coach-larry-kehres-retires-332-wins-11-titles
The greatest CFB coach ever is retiring to become an AD. His son will take over.
Larry Kehres:
27 seasons
23 Ohio Conference titles
21 undefeated regular seasons
11 D-III National Titles
332-24-3 (0.929 – #1 all time over Knute Rockne at 0.881)
LikeLike
Greatest being a relative term. I hate these kind of pronouncements because they are simply expressions of opinion, but using one fact to support such opinion. Mr. Kehres may have the most undefeated regular seasons, he may have most conference titles, he may have most national titles, but all those are at a level that is 3 removed from the top level.
So no the greatest CFB coach is not retiring. The most decorated division 3 coach, sure, greatest college football coach – no.
LikeLike
SH,
“Greatest being a relative term.”
Yes, by definition it is.
“I hate these kind of pronouncements because they are simply expressions of opinion, but using one fact to support such opinion.”
I actually used a bunch of facts.
“but all those are at a level that is 3 removed from the top level.”
And so are his players. Rockne coached in a segregated era before modern football even existed but is lauded as an all-time great. Kehres topped his winning percentage in an era with an actual playoff, meaning he couldn’t avoid the top teams in any season. He also coached a lot longer, having time for new competition to rise up and challenge him or for him to slip.
Three* coaches have more total wins, but only because they coached so long (* four with JoePa). No other coach at his level has come close to his accomplishments.
Feel free to make the case for someone else being the greatest.
LikeLike
I have no clue who the greatest is, and really don’t care. To me your statement was similar to finding the best minor league manager ever and proclaiming he is the greatest professional baseball manager ever. I just think it is a silly proclamation. I don’t mean to target you specifically. Just those kind of statements. I remember an announcer once saying that the Houston Comets (after they won 3 in a row), saying they were one of the greatest dynasties of all time. Well that’s just silly – dont’ you think?
LikeLike
Well, sure. 3 in a row isn’t that impressive.
But I scoff at people that believe only things at the top level can be the best. Kehres never tried coaching elsewhere. If he had failed to succeed at a higher level, that would be a mark against his status. But in a world of playoff football, losing less than 1 game per season is a remarkable achievement no matter what. It’s not like he got scholarships and nobody else did. Nobody else in CFB has even come close to what he’s done.
If I had said he was the greatest FB coach of all time, that would be different. That brings in the NFL and the difference in competition and all of that.
LikeLike
Field of seams
Win one for the zipper
49ers new stadium naming rights won by Levi Straus.
http://www.mercurynews.com/southbayfootball/ci_23198944/levis-stadium-49ers-new-santa-clara-home-gets?source=rss
LikeLike
Will they add a 5 to the start of every players’ number?
LikeLike
If it ever happens, I will be happy the day that the B1G takes Mizzou, all they do is suck off the SEC’s udder and don’t add any meat
LikeLike
Now you’ve done it. Prepare for the wrath of Andy. I hope you’re happy.
LikeLike
We haven’t even sucked off any udders yet. We’ve been in the SEC for less than a year. No SEC paychecks yet.
As for Mizzou, they had a down season this year in football, sure. Injured honorable mention All-Big 12 QB, injured 1st team All-Big 12 RB, 6 of our top 10 O-linemen injured.
In the last 7 years:
18 players drafted, including 6 in the first round
61 wins (that’s 8.7 wins per year including last year’s bad season)
Finishes of 4th and 12th in final BCS rankings of a couple of those seasons
3 division titles
6 bowl games
Basketball is averaging 26.0 wins per year over the last 5 years. 26 NCAA apperances, 23 conference and conference tournament titles overall. 21 first team all-americans. 4 currently in the NBA, over 20 in the last 30-40 years.
Baseball: NCAA tournament 8 of the last 10 years, 22 appearances overall, 6 college world series appearances, 1 national title.
softball: 18 tournament appearances, 6 college world series apperances, including 3 of the last 4.
Missouri isn’t Alabama. They’re not UNC. They’re not even Tennessee. But they win games. The SEC will see that. The Big 12 did. Alabama still has a .500 record against Mizzou in football, and got their asses kicked in Columbia in basketball this year.
LikeLike
Also, Slive wouldn’t have invited Missouri if he thought he’d lose money on it. Missouri is making you extra money. Be happy about it.
LikeLike
Mizzwho?
LikeLike
Mizzwho? Mizzevenup. Mizzou was a 14th school to get even, because if you are the SEC, you don’t turn down Texas A&M just because you also need a 14th.
LikeLike
Plenty could have been #14. Missouri got it because they’re AAU, 6.1M people in the state, and are decent at most sports. Deal with it.
LikeLike
Andy, I ws just pointing out that Mizzou was just a tag-along add. I said nothing to disparage Mizzou’s position as the BEST AVAILABLE TAG-ALONG. Indeed, I’m sure beyond any reasonable doubt that they were the BEST tag-along that happened to be available. Otherwise, the SEC would have picked a different tag-along.
LikeLike
CIC-related news in the last few days, regarding the integration of Md/RU:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-04-30/news/bs-md-umd-cic-20130430_1_the-cic-wake-forest-university-campuses
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-03/local/38998891_1_cic-u-md-libraries
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/big_ten_school_officials_tour.html
LikeLike
Transic,
From the last one:
“Last week, Rutgers President Robert Barchi said he expects the university’s athletic department, which runs about $18 million in the red each year, to begin breaking even in six years. That is when Rutgers is to begin fully cashing in on the Big Ten’s lucrative television contracts and other revenue.”
That’s a pretty good raise.
LikeLike
Taking a while to get a full share. I imagine Maryland has a little better deal. CU had a better Pac 12 deal than Utah.
LikeLike
Well, the new TV deal doesn’t kick in for 4 more years plus they need to buy into the BTN.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions
An early set of bowl predictions.
B10:
OSU – NCG vs AL
NE – Rose vs Stanford
MI – Cap 1 vs UF
WI – Outback vs UGA
MSU – Gator vs Ole Miss
NW – BWW vs OkSU
PU – Meineke Car Care vs Baylor
IL – Pizza vs NIU
8 of 12 isn’t bad. But IL? Really?
IL – 2-2 in OOC is reasonable (SIU, UC, UW, Miami OH) but he seems to be guessing 3-1 or 4-0. In B10 play, they have @IN, @PU, @NE, @PSU, OSU, WI, MSU, NW. Are there even 2 wins there? He has more faith in IL than I do.
PU – 2-2 or 3-1 OOC is reasonable (NIU, UC, ND, IN State). They play IA, IL and IN in B10 play, plus MSU, PSU, OSU, NE and WI. 6-6 is possible.
NW – They may be a better team with a worse record this year. OOC is Cal, SU, WMU and Maine. B10 is OSU, NE, MI, WI, MSU, IL, MN and IA. I could see 8-4 or so.
MSU – It all depends on the offense. OOC should be 3-1 or 4-0 (ND, USF, WMU, YSU). Their B10 slate is pretty weak with NE, MI, NW, IL, MN, IA, PU and IN. 9-3 is reasonable, but so is 8-4.
WI – Their schedule is soft. OOC is ASU, BYU, UMass and TN Tech (4-0). B10 is OSU, PSU, IL, NW, IA, MN, PU and IN. 10-2 sounds reasonable, but I’ll call it 9-3 due to the new coach leading to a blown game somewhere along the line.
MI – Their tough games are ND, @PSU, @MSU, NE, @NW and OSU. Call it 10-2, 10-3 after the CCG.
NE – UCLA, NW, @MI, MSU and @PSU. That looks like 11-1 or 10-2 depending on the D.
OSU – WI, @NW, PSU and @MI. They’re all winnable, and that’s what I think he predicts, but I just assume there will be a slip up for 11-1. I’ll still favor them in the CCG, so 12-1.
LikeLike
The XII has no interest in any school it could get to join for quite a few years.
The P12 would rather wait for its white whale (TX) than expand with anyone else. If the P12 decides to expand it will probably make another run at TX (packaged with OU/KS/TT?) near the expiration of the GoR.
It is too early to say if the ACC or XII will be the weakest in 2025. If ACC football does not improve, a wide TV$ gap may open up in the renewal offered to the ACC compared to what the SEC and B1G are pulling down. Specific to realignment instability, TX may be on top of both the B1G and SEC wish lists, but the other 4 will be ACC schools. Will the B1G expand if the best they can do is KS and ISU (or even GT)? With A&M and MO gone, the XII AAU schools are slim pickings after TX.
The XII has a big lead over the ACC in TV$ and conference distributions, and the most desired schools (TX, OU, KS w/MBB) make the most off the retained 3rd tier rights. Unless XII football falls off a cliff and the XII cannot get a good TV contract at renewal I think they will remain a conference bound by a TV contract. Where is WV going to go? After getting rejected by the ACC and SEC they managed to get a XII invite over Louisville. If the XII had taken Louisville, CT would be in the ACC with WV in the AACK . The same type of argument can be made for Baylor, TCU, ISU, KSU, TT, and OkSt prospects. Not being desired is great protection against realignment. The ACC is more likely to be dismembered in the future because it still has members.desired by the SEC and B1G.
LikeLike
I am inclined to agree. Texas and Oklahoma like being in a league where they’re the top dogs. They’re even willing to make a bit less money, in return for being in control. On top of that, the Oklahoma governor and state legislators are probably not going to let OU split from OkSt, and Texas has a similar problem with Tech and Baylor. So that gives you a core of five schools that basically can’t split up, and four more (KSU, ISU, WVU, and TCU) that have no prayer of a better offer. That leaves KU, which might under some circumstances receive a Big Ten offer, but even that is doubtful.
In contrast, the ACC has quite a few schools that are bound, basically, only by convenience. They’re the league that’s most likely vulnerable if the TV revenue disparity continues to widen.
LikeLike
To continue the subsidy discussion… and why we probably won’t see them go.
http://www.footballscoop.com/news/9582-the-benefits-a-strong-football-program-bring-a-university
Chung quantified what a successful football season brings a school in terms a university president can appreciate: a 17.7 jump in applications. To gain a similar boost on the academic side of the house, a university would either have to lower tuition by 3.8 percent or recruit faculty who are paid 5.1 percent above their average rate. Considering the political capital that would be required to accomplish either one of those goals, one can see why university presidents are so eager to sign off on a big check for that new indoor practice facility or that hot new head coach.
LikeLike
The thing is, at power conference schools football and MBB (the sports that have been proven to boost applications) aren’t being subsidized; everything else is.
LikeLike
John McCain just filed the TV Consumer Freedom Act of 2013 with the U.S. Senate.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/john-mccain-introduces-cable-la-carte-legislation-stop-171331371.html
“The legislation is intended to “allow the consumer, the television viewer who subscribes to cable, to have à la carte capability. In other words, not required to buy a whole bunch of channels that that consumer may not want wish to subscribe to,” McCain said moments ago.”
LikeLike
And he’s probably already received $100k in lobbyist money since then to not get it passed.
LikeLike
He doesn’t have to take money to get his own bill killed. He’s doing this as a favor to his buddies, and then one of his buddies will sponsor something that he can clean up on.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mcall.com/nittany_lines/2013/05/inside-the-penn-state-athletics-budget.html
A look at PSU’s athletic finances. It includes some numbers we don’t usually see. The article also has a link to PSU’s full 42 page report if you want all the details.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22217998/sec-big-ten-big-12-acc-conferencedivision-odds-released
The odds for everyone in the ACC, B10, B12 and SEC to win their division and the conference.
ACC:
Clemson and Miami to win the divisions and tied to win the ACC
B10:
East – OSU (huge edge over WI)
West – MSU (slight edge over MI and NE)
OSU is favored to win the B10.
B12:
UT over OU and OkSU.
SEC:
East – UGA and SC
West – AL
SEC – AL
LikeLike
I understand that MSU has a favorable schedule, but I still can’t understand the many people placing them as the favorite for the division. They went 6-6 last year, lost all home B1G games, and lost some of their top offensive and defensive players. They’re really supposed to challenge for the conference title now?
LikeLike
Just to follow that up with their schedule…
vs. Western Michigan 90/10
vs. South Florida 90/10 (the Bulls were abysmal last year)
vs. Youngstown State (100…can’t see them losing this one)
@ Notre Dame (30/70, which might be generous given that they only managed a FG last year)
@ Iowa (50/50, Iowa can be a difficult place to play at times, tight game last year)
vs. Indiana (75/25, should win, but had trouble stopping IU last year, fell behind big in this game at one point, if I remember correctly)
vs. Purdue (80/20, again, MSU should win, but Purdue was an odd team last year, showing flashes of competence but some really bad moments as well)
@ Illinois (70/30, don’t expect Illinois to be much of a threat to anyone next year)
vs. Michigan (40/60, I am a Michigan grad so I am biased, but I actually think the Michigan offense is much better with a passing threat at the helm. If it was @UM I would be fairly sure of victory, but a rivalry game @EL could go either way though the young OL should be much improved for UM by this point)
@ Nebraska (30/70, not sure MSU can score enough points against Nebraska or hold that offense to few enough points to win)
@ Northwestern (30/70, similar feeling as Nebraska, will be tough for MSU to keep up in scoring with this team unless their defense is really special)
vs. Minnesota (80/20, last year’s final score did not do MSU justice, Minnesota could not do anything against the MSU D, don’t expect that to change this year)
I have put up what I think the odds are on each game, and I see 7 probable wins here, in Western, South Florida, Youngstown, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota. That leaves MSU with four conference wins and four tough games: @Iowa, vs. UM, @Northwestern, and @Nebraska.
MSU lost to Iowa at home last year, putting up only 16 points in 2OT; I certainly believe they could fall on the road. Both games against Northwestern and Nebraska were close last year, though both were at home. I expect MSU to be a worse team than last year, even if their record improves, so I can’t realistically predict MSU taking either of these games on the road.
UM@MSU might be the toughest game to predict. I give a significant edge to MSU on D, especially with the loss of Jake Ryan, but I give a rather large edge to Michigan on the offense. Tough to call this one, I lean Michigan, of course.
I ultimately think MSU could easily lose all three road games and pick off UM at home, leaving them with three conference losses, all to divisional foes, which would certainly leave them out of the title game. Of course, that then leaves us with UM, Nebraska, and Northwestern. Those three could easily split, and I think an upset by Iowa here or there (they’ve done it before) could be a difference maker.
LikeLike
Personally, I would go:
1. NE – they don’t play OSU and MI does
2. MI – they get NE at home and I think they’re better than MSU
3. MSU – easy crossovers and MI at home but @NE and @NW
But it should be close depending on how MSU’s O does this year. I think NW may be a better team than MSU but their schedule is much tougher.
LikeLike
You raise a good point about Northwestern’s schedule; I had not looked closely at that.
The one thing I think is overlooked with MSU’s schedule in saying that it is favorable is that they have two of their toughest divisional opponents on the road. Losing twice in division pretty much guarantees you will miss the CCG, unless both of those teams go 5-3 or worse.
LikeLike
MSU gets IL, PU and IN. That’s as favorable as it gets. NW doesn’t have much home field advantage (NE fans made NW use a silent count on offense at NW last year), so that makes for more of a 1-1-1 (home-road-neutral) record than a 1-2.
LikeLike
A map of the highest paid state employee in each state.
LikeLike
Worth noting that Bill O’Brien is not a state employee despite what this map claims.
LikeLike
It has an asterisk if you look closely. Maybe Pitt’s coach is the highest paid after BOB anyway?
LikeLike
Pitt isn’t publicly owned either.
LikeLike
Yeah, yeah, neither is Temple. But to most of the country they are all state schools. The difference between state and state-affiliated is more legal details than anything, especially as state funding continues to decline. It’s mostly a way to avoid the state’s sunshine laws.
Most coaches aren’t that highly paid if they only count the state pay, either. But they choose to gloss over that for this map, so glossing over state-affiliated seems fine to me.
LikeLike
Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and North Carolina are basketball. 🙂
LikeLike
Deadspin ran this map earlier today. The explained the Bill O`Brein selection.
LikeLike
Piggybacking on Brian’s post, this is what the Fiscal Times claims to be the top 10 most overpaid college presidents (article written May of last year, so the players may have changed a bit):
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/25/10-Insanely-Overpaid-Public-College-Presidents.aspx#page1
LikeLike
That article is idiotic. All it seems to be, is the list of the highest-paid college presidents, regardless of whether the college got its money’s worth. It states what they’re paid, not what they did.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/05/21968/big-ten-football-projecting-division-standings-2013
An attempt to analyze the B10 divisions for 2013. The guy comes up with a simple formula based on returning starters and incoming recruits and discusses the results. I’d say the biggest weakness is not taking into account the schedule. I’d also probably give a returning starting QB extra value (OL too). But, FWIW:
LEADERS DIVISION
Ohio State (248)
Wisconsin (171)
Penn State (155)
Indiana (145)
Purdue (141)
Illinois (92)
LEGENDS DIVISION
Nebraska (209)
Northwestern (205)
Michigan (194)
Michigan State (161)
Minnesota (148)
Iowa (115)
LikeLike
Roughly the way I see it as well. OSU heavily favored in the SE division; dogfight in the NW division with everyone (even Minny) with a chance of winning it. You could see a 4-way 5-3 tie at the top.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s why I think the schedule is so key. NW has a much tougher path than MSU, for example. How weird is it to see IN almost in 3rd?
LikeLike
UW & OSU instead of IU & PU, true, but I think Northwestern is 1.5 games better than MSU with all else being equal. Michigan has it just as tough as Northwestern (PSU & OSU). UNL has it a little easier (PSU but no OSU). That makes UNL a half-game favorite over NU/Michigan/MSU.
LikeLike
On paper, I might agree right now. Once we see how MSU’s offense looks, then I’ll be more sure.
I see NE and MI as better teams than NW right now, so I favor NE since they miss OSU but play at MI. Then I put MI next since NW has an equally tough schedule. It should be an good race.
Key games:
10/5 – OSU@NW
10/12 – NW@WI, MI@PSU
By mid-October we’ll have a good idea how NW’s season will go. Even if NW goes 0-2 here, they could still win out and challenge for the title but it’ll be a tough battle. I don’t see 5-3 winning the division. At least one team will go 6-2 or better.
11/2 – MI@MSU, NW@NE
11/9 – NE@MI
11/16 – MSU@NE, MI@NW
11/23 – MSU@NW, NE@PSU
11/30 – OSU@MI
LikeLike
If any of the 4 beat all of the other 3, they’d be in the catbird’s seat even if they lose 2 interdivisional games due to tiebreakers. A shared divisional title coming down to tiebreakers seems quite likely. Should be interesting.
LikeLike
What is the best way to schedule the crossover games for a 14-team B1G? With three crossover games and seven crossover opponents to cover, it takes three years to play every school once (123-456-7xx). The question then arises: what do you do with the two leftover (xx) games?
One option is to assign those games permanently to one opponent, thereby creating a fixed cross over (123-145-167). Team 1 is played every year and every other team is played once every three years.
Another option is to spread the extra two games around all the crossover opponents (123-456-712-345-671). This increases the frequency of the crossover matchups; however, one school each round will still have to wait three years for a rematch.
The third option is parity scheduling: the leftover games (xx) are assigned to crossover peers. For example, Nebraska could play Michigan and OSU in year one, PSU and Michigan in year two, and OSU in year three. The remaining crossover games would go to the other four teams (playing every non-peer team once in three years).
Option 1 (every team has a fixed crossover) is very useful for preserving rivalries, but with geographical divisions most of the meaningful rivalries are already played within divisions. Moreover, there are two problems with fixed crossovers. First, if they are imbalanced (like Nebraska playing PSU while Wisconsin plays Minnesota), it gives one team (Wisconsin) a permanent advantage. Second, if every team must have a fixed crossover, it enshrines some meaningless matchups (like PSU-MSU).
Option 2 (equal distribution of crossovers) is very useful for minimizing the time required to play every team in the conference. However, the B1G divisions have put Purdue in the West and Indiana in the East, necessitating a fixed crossover. This limits the even distribution of crossovers, complicates the timetable and increases the time between rematches.
Option 3 (parity scheduling) is very useful for increasing high profile games (which should please both fans and TV executives). It maintains a 3-year cycle for non-parity teams and increases the crossover parity matchups from three per year to five per year. Add this to the three parity matchups within each division and you get eleven high-profile games for the nine-game conference schedule.
It is interesting to note that Option 3 works very well with the fixed Indiana-Purdue crossover. Basically, every team uses one crossover for parity matches, one crossover for non-parity matchs and one mixed crossover (playing Indiana or Purdue one year in three and playing parity teams for the other two years).
LikeLike
StevenD,
“What is the best way to schedule the crossover games for a 14-team B1G?”
It depends on your desired outcome. If maximizing revenue is your top priority, you get one answer. If fairness is your top priority, you get another. If rivalries are #1, there’s a third answer. If it’s a combination of those things and others, then there are a very large number of answers.
“With three crossover games and seven crossover opponents to cover, it takes three years to play every school once (123-456-7xx). The question then arises: what do you do with the two leftover (xx) games?
One option is to assign those games permanently to one opponent, thereby creating a fixed cross over (123-145-167). Team 1 is played every year and every other team is played once every three years.”
An option the B10 rejected except for PU and IN.
“Another option is to spread the extra two games around all the crossover opponents (123-456-712-345-671). This increases the frequency of the crossover matchups; however, one school each round will still have to wait three years for a rematch.”
You say that like it’s a drawback. Isn’t only one school waiting 3 years better than multiple schools waiting 3 years or more? There mathematically isn’t a way to play 7 teams in 6 games, so at least 1 school has to wait 3 years.
“The third option is parity scheduling: the leftover games (xx) are assigned to crossover peers.”
No, that is a third option. There are others. A more general third option is biasing the schedule towards certain match-ups without locking them (this includes parity-based, but also keeping rivalries or any other way to pick favored match-ups). There is the fourth option of combining several options, like locking 1 match-up and either spreading the other games equally or biasing the remaining schedule. We know this because the B10 has chosen option 4.
“Option 1 (every team has a fixed crossover) is very useful for preserving rivalries, but with geographical divisions most of the meaningful rivalries are already played within divisions.”
Or with several other division methods, but I digress.
“Moreover, there are two problems with fixed crossovers.”
Only 2?
“First, if they are imbalanced (like Nebraska playing PSU while Wisconsin plays Minnesota), it gives one team (Wisconsin) a permanent advantage.”
Agreed, that was a downside to the old divisions. WI/MN and MSU/IN were unfair compared to the rest which were peer games more or less.
“Second, if every team must have a fixed crossover, it enshrines some meaningless matchups (like PSU-MSU).”
Assuming there are meaningless match-ups. With the current divisions, you might get:
OSU/IL – rivalry
MI/MN – rivalry
IN/PU – rivalry
MSU/WI – new rivalry
PSU/NE – rivalry (or at least a game both sides liked)
RU/NW – NYC vs Chicago (even though neither is actually in those cities)
UMD/IA – provides IA east coast access to keep up with their rivals (but otherwise meaningless)
“Option 2 (equal distribution of crossovers) is very useful for minimizing the time required to play every team in the conference. However, the B1G divisions have put Purdue in the West and Indiana in the East, necessitating a fixed crossover. This limits the even distribution of crossovers, complicates the timetable and increases the time between rematches.”
Yes, it prevents true equality but the rest can be equal (4/9) and IN and PU can play everyone else equally (1/3). See my option 4 above.
“Option 3 (parity scheduling) is very useful for increasing high profile games (which should please both fans and TV executives).”
And yet not all fans are pleased.
“It maintains a 3-year cycle for non-parity teams and increases the crossover parity matchups from three per year to five per year.”
That’s actually a secondary assumption. You could do more extreme parity-based scheduling or do it less than that. You are just taking one easy path.
“Add this to the three parity matchups within each division and you get eleven high-profile games for the nine-game conference schedule.”
That assumes all of those games are truly high-profile. I’d say that isn’t true right now. Who would call IA/PSU a high-profile game this year, for example?
Also, you fail to provide context. The divisions provide 6. A balanced schedule would provide 4 more on average. Your parity scheduling is only adding 1 game per year.
“It is interesting to note that Option 3 works very well with the fixed Indiana-Purdue crossover.”
So does a balanced schedule.
LikeLike
see http://compu-picks.com/General_Interest/B1G_Schedule_v2.html for some work I did on this particular question, with some sample rotations, in case you’re curious.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/09/barta-on-cfb-live-no-more-fcs-schools/
Iowa athletics director Gary Barta was on ESPN’s College Football Live on Thursday to discuss FCS-level schools on the Hawkeyes future schedules.
Monday, The Gazette reported that Iowa was in a wait-and-see mode in regards to future games with Northern Iowa (2014 and 2018), Illinois State (2015) and North Dakota State (2016). Iowa will play Missouri State this fall at Kinnick Stadium.
“This change, we’re all looking at the contracts we have in place,” Barta said on the show, referring to other B1G schools, “and we’ve agreed going forward we’re not going to be scheduling any other FCS schools.
“But with those on our schedule, we’ll either move them off and reschedule, or in the case of Northern Iowa, I’ve talked about the possibility of an exception — it’s not a done deal — based on the fact that they play in our home state.”
“With those future schedules, taking a look the possibility of an exception [for UNI] because they are an in-state school and because they’ve perennially been in the top 10 in the country at that level,” Barta said.
LikeLike
greg,
Personally, I have no issue with Iowa playing the games they already have scheduled. Those I-AAs are counting on the paycheck and I always hate it when schools break these contracts and leave the other school hanging. Now sure, those schools would have enough time to reschedule, but I don’t see the need to pay $250k per game and break these deals. I’m all for the B10 phasing out I-AA games, though.
The next bit of that article explains why:
UNI has been a traditional power in FCS. Iowans are aware of the quality teams that coach Mark Farley, a former UNI linebacker, has put out every season. Just in 2009, the Hawkeyes needed to block a pair of last-second field goals to hang on against UNI, 17-16.
So, it’s a nice matchup, but there’s also the fact that UNI is 20-66-5 against FBS schools all-time. Farley is 2-12 against FBS, with wins over Iowa State and Ball State.
Against the Big Ten, UNI is 1-17 with its only victory coming against Iowa . . . 11-5 in 1898 . . . when UNI was known as “State Normal.”
UNI is a I-AA power, and they are 2-12 in recent years against I-A schools. Overall they are 1-17 against the B10. They don’t belong on a B10 schedule, let alone a mediocre or weak I-AA.
LikeLike
Northern Iowa is basically comparable to a low-level FBS squad. For instance, Eastern Michigan is 0-23 all-time vs. the Big Ten. Western Michigan is 2-29. Ball State is 3-22.
If we’re going to let Ohio State feast on Ohio, and UM/MSU to snack on their in-state directional schools, I don’t take issue with Iowa/Northern Iowa. It’s basically a comparable match-up, even though UNI is I-AA.
I think you’d find other examples of nominal FBS schools that are not remotely competitive against Big Five opponents.
LikeLike
They still only have 63 scholarships, or 74% of what a I-AA has. PSU is undergoing historic penalties that will hold them to 65 scholarships. That gives you some idea how the NCAA views that size gap in scholarships.
I’m not disputing that UNI can play with the worst I-A teams. That doesn’t mean they should play the better ones.
LikeLike
Not that it matters too much, but the 63 are not head count scholarships like in FBS (where if you give a dime to someone it counts as one of your allowed 85 full rides). They can use the equivalent of 63 full rides throughout the team, but may (I can’t remember) be limited in disbursing it to no more than 85 individuals.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Not that it matters too much, but the 63 are not head count scholarships like in FBS (where if you give a dime to someone it counts as one of your allowed 85 full rides). They can use the equivalent of 63 full rides throughout the team, but may (I can’t remember) be limited in disbursing it to no more than 85 individuals.”
Yes, they are capped at 85 people for 63 total scholarships.
Click to access D113.pdf
15.5.6.2 Championship Subdivision Football. [FCSD] There shall be an annual limit of 30 on the number of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1), an annual limit of 63 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters, and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial counters) in football at each Football Championship Subdivision institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)
LikeLike
I don’t mind I-AA teams week 1. Actually, given the lack of scrimages and such, I’d rather Ohio State and most Big Ten teams open up with a I-AA team. After week 1 though, move up to someone else.
I do agree, Northern Iowa should be allowed for Iowa though.
LikeLike
Eric,
I’m all for opening with a cupcake, but find a I-A one.
As for making an exception for UNI, what about schools without a I-AA in their state to play? Why disadvantage them? Why not get UNI to join the MAC and solve IA’s problem?
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/09/pac-12-networks-murphy-stephans-on-plans-for-year-two-football-365-neuheisels-new-deal-and-more/
Some news about year 1 of the P12N and talk about year 2.
*** Fans who have access to a Pac12Nets regional feed and the national feed have probably noticed little difference between the two. Almost invariably, the same event (live or replayed) is on both channels.
That will begin to change next fall as the conference differentiates the regional feeds from each other — and, consequently, the regional feeds from Pac-12 National.
The addition of 200 live events to the programming schedule in 2013-14 will help the differentiation. There will be more shoulder programming, and I suspect we’ll see an increase in archival material, as well.
*** Please note: It was reported numerous times on the Hotline and elsewhere … also: here, here, here, here and here … that the Pac12Nets would broadcast 850 live events in the first year.
And we reported the figure because that’s exactly what league officials said (repeatedly): 850 live events in Year One.
Well, it didn’t happen.
Instead, the Pac12Nets will end up airing 550 live events in 2012-13, the last one on May 26.
That’s still a huge, momentous number. It’s also 300 fewer than we all expected.
The league’s explanation: Cost containment.
It’s hard to argue with that approach. The Pac12Nets had to work within their means — taking money from the schools to pay for going over budget was not an option.
And it should be noted that the Pac12Nets were contracted to show 550 events in Year One.
Apparently, 850 was a goal, not an obligation.
(Speaking of the budget, which I believe was in the $65-70 million range …
(Multiple league sources have told me that the Pac12Nets will turn a slight profit this year.
(My strong suspicion is that no money will be distributed to the schools, which didn’t plan to receive a payout of any size. Instead, I expect the profit will be plowed back into the television and digital networks.)
So the regional networks should start to grow in the next year or two. I’m curious how well they do.
Also, the P12N greatly overestimated what they could do (550 events versus 850? That’s a huge disparity.) and basically broke even for year 1.
LikeLike
“And it should be noted that the Pac12Nets were contracted to show 550 events in Year One.”
Bad PR. You don’t publicize your highest aspirations unless you are positive, much like the Dr. doesn’t guarantee complete recovery following injury (Rickey Blier was told just walking normally would be an achievement).
I also am interested to see how the channels differentiate in year two.
I find P12N more than breaking even in year one a notable achievement. It is what they said they hoped for. Obviously I’m not privy to internal workings but it appears that assuming construction, purchasing, marketing, hiring, startup, and operating costs has not been any riskier than anticipated.
LikeLike
…Rockey…
Sigh, predictive text. 😦
LikeLike
Actually, Rocky!:)
LikeLike
and Bleier…not Blier.
I’m going back to bed…try to restart the day.
LikeLike
I think this is funny.
http://twitter.com/kayleehartung/status/332922953060716544
LikeLike
@B1G folks that want the Sooners: We’re not coming to your conference. Sooner Fans do not want to go to the Midwest Conference. Sooner Fans like ruling the Big XII with Tejas. The conference which Sooner Fans want are the the Big XII (obviously = geographically makes the most sense), then the SEC West, and then the PAC South….with the B1G a distant fourth (in that order).
Sooners/Shorthorns belong in our own conference where we’re the Top Dogs, not tag-alongs in the B1G.
Just sayin’ and food for thought.
LikeLike
*conference(s)
LikeLike
And..what, you all would be top dogs in the SEC West/Pac South?
I mean, I understand not wanting to be in the Big Ten, but if your desire is to be top dog, neither of those other conferences (and divisions, in particular) would do that for you. Joining the Big Ten West would put you with Nebraska at the top of the division. You would have to contend with USC in the Pac South. The SEC West is even worse, with Alabama and LSU. I just don’t understand how you can lay those divisions as your preferences while wishing to be the top dog. It would never happen in the SEC. let alone the SEC West.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention, the Big Ten clearly doesn’t want Oklahoma either, so you don’t really need to worry about a handful of Big Ten fans here wanting OU to join the “Midwest Conference”.
LikeLike
I’m having a hard time understanding why some of the B1G folks on here still think that the B1G presidents would allow a non-AAU not named Notre Dame into the conference. I think it is pretty obvious that if a non-AAU school had a chance to get in, then FSU would’ve gotten in.
The only way that the B1G was going to get other ACC schools was to loosen FSU away from the ACC. You can’t tell me that the PTB in the B1G didn’t know that FSU (and thus all of the other ACC schools) was about to sign the GOR. I’m sure FSU made sure that message was sent to the B1G. So if the B1G wouldn’t take FSU with the stability of the ACC at stake, I don’t see OU ever being an option unless they were to somehow reach AAU status.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Agreed, bamatab.
LikeLike
Exactly. The Big Ten would clearly much rather wait and try and capture a school that is both athletically and academically valuable. No need to run through all the schools that fit the bill, as it has been done many times over, but it is clearly that neither OU nor FSU are among them at this point.
LikeLike
The BIG did research on Oklahoma as a future member so its not like it is impossible no matter how improbable it is. Oklahoma I think could come in as the last member situation or if they are needed to get the biggest fish in college athletics, Texas. I know the BIG wants AAU schools, but the conference knew very well that Nebraska was getting kicked out when they excepted them, as Nebraska’s AAU membership was being questioned as far back as the late 90’s. So Nebraska’s AAU memebrship at the time was merely political cover. The BIG would just need cover to bring in OU or FSU for that matter in the future.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey has the crucial insight. The Big Ten accepted Nebraska, knowing there was a distinct possibility that it would no longer be in the AAU. Two Big Ten schools cast what turned out to be the decisive votes, booting Nebraska OUT of the AAU. Ergo, AAU membership is not a litmus test. For “the right school,” the Big Ten will accept a non-AAU institution.
We don’t really know what happened with FSU. Probably, it would have needed to come with the right partners, and there is no evidence that those partners were ready to abandon the ACC. I certainly wouldn’t bet that the Big Ten would say no to a Texas/Oklahoma combo. Mind you, I am not suggesting that UT and OU would ever want this, or that they could even get away with leaving their less-desired in-state sister schools behind.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree with that. I think AAU status is a critical factor, but we can’t say that the Big Ten wouldn’t ever consider Oklahoma because we just saw a report where they examined that school. At the end of the day, I think any future Big Ten expansion needs another elite football brand name to work and not just adding markets in and of themselves. The Rutgers/Maryland expansion was acceptable when put into the context that it was part of a multi-step expansion plan that also brought in football power Nebraska. I don’t think it would behoove the Big Ten to move to 16 without one of those additions being another power program.
Oklahoma is an interesting target because adding them with Kansas would create a contiguous western front for the Big Ten. With all due respect to our Sooner friend Clay Hawkins, OU was more than ready to bail the Big 12 in both 2010 and 2011 to the Pac-10/12 (without Texas in the case of 2011) and it was reported that they tried approaching the Big Ten with Oklahoma State. That doesn’t sound like a school that cared at all about being the “big dog” in a conference or being in a “Midwestern Conference” (as if that’s a bad thing). Trust me – OU wanted out of the Big 12 very badly and would have taken Pac-12 or Big Ten invitations in a heartbeat (not just the fan-based wish of the SEC), but their options were limited because they couldn’t leave behind Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
But what we don’t know is what the homework really entailed. Was it examining where they stand academically to see how far they might be from AAU consideration? Was it being polite because a major school asked to be examined? Was it just seeing if they could be split from OkSU? Was it a cursory glance to note their poor academics and small market and tie to a worse school as well as their strong brand and TV ratings?
UT and OU as a pair is certainly possible from the B10 side of things and I think most people would support it. I don’t see it happening from the other side, though. I don’t think KU provides enough cover to take OU personally. KU is only on par with NE academically. That’s why FSU was a more realistic stretch target, since there were plenty of ACC schools that could provide academic cover for FSU.
LikeLike
The Big Ten accepted Nebraska, knowing there was a distinct possibility that it would no longer be in the AAU. Two Big Ten schools cast what turned out to be the decisive votes, booting Nebraska OUT of the AAU. Ergo, AAU membership is not a litmus test. For “the right school,” the Big Ten will accept a non-AAU institution.
None of that changes the fact that Nebraska did have AAU membership when they were added.
Frankly, based on the Big Ten’s history and statements had the expulsion vote taken place 4 months earlier it is unlikely Nebraska would have been admitted. (Hell, even UNL’s president admitted that had Nebraska not been in the AAU they probably would not have been invited)
LikeLike
I know the BIG wants AAU schools, but the conference knew very well that Nebraska was getting kicked out when they excepted them
A. They did not know that Nebraska was getting kicked out. In fact, the Big Ten had every reason to believe that Nebraska would survive that vote. If the CIC schools had stuck together they would have (and knowing what they know now, I’m guessing Michigan and Wisconsin probably would have flipped their votes).
B. As I noted above, it doesn’t change the fact Nebraska was in the AAU when they were admitted.
LikeLike
@frug: I’m having a bit of trouble following your logic. Are you suggesting that Michigan and Wisconsin voted against Nebraska staying in the AAU — while all the while hoping that Nebraska would, in fact, survive that vote? That’s a bit difficult to believe.
UM and UW may not have realized how close the vote would be, but when you vote against someone, the usual reason is that you want them to lose. It’s hard for me to see a strategic reason for the two schools voting the way they did, unless they actually wanted Nebraska OUT of the AAU, and were pleased with that outcome.
LikeLike
Marc,
Congressmen do it all the time. If you think the outcome of a vote is secured, then you feel free to vote your conscience. If the outcome is in doubt, then you toe the party line to get the big picture result you want.
I’m not saying that’s what MI and WI did, but it is certainly not unprecedented.
LikeLike
@Marc
Most likely they were trying to scare other schools at the bottom of the AAU metrics by trying to make the pro-expulsion side look as strong as possible. They didn’t necessarily want to eject Nebraska but they wanted to send a message.
Had they realized that their votes would be the difference between retention of expulsion I suspect they would have voted differently.
(In some ways it was like the block of liberal Democrats like Kucinich who were all set to vote against the Obama healthcare plan on the grounds it didn’t go far enough. Except unlike UW and UM they realized they would be the deciding votes and ultimately voted Aye begrudgingly)
LikeLike
@frug, @Brian: Those are interesting hypotheses. Nevertheless, most of the time, even in Congress, people vote for what they truly want.
Besides that, Congress is a poor analogy. All of the votes there are held in public, and this allows many kinds of tactical votes, e.g., voting yes for a measure you dislike because the party needs your vote; or voting symbolically, when you know the measure has no chance of passage. Also, in close cases members can switch their votes as they see what the rest of their colleagues have done.
The AAU vote against Nebraska wasn’t like that. Michigan and Wisconsin couldn’t have been so sure how it would turn out, and they had no option of switching at the last minute. Nebraska’s status had been studied and discussed to death: they had to have known there was a very strong sentiment among the rest of the members to boot them out, and that there was a serious chance of it happening.
So in the absence of some sort of statement by the two presidents, or people aware of their thinking, I would assume that Michigan and Wisconsin voted the way most people do in such situations: for their preferred outcome.
LikeLike
Sooner Fans like ruling the Big XII with Tejas. The conference which Sooner Fans want are the the Big XII (obviously = geographically makes the most sense), then the SEC West, and then the PAC South…
Fans may want that (and I’m not 100% sure they do), but they don’t get to decide. The OU administration does and they would rather not even be in the Big 12. I’m sure you remember David Boren’s attempt to move to the PAC12. If Boren had any interest in the SEC they could have easily taken spot #14.
I highly doubt the school of Barry Switzer is afraid of becoming a tag-along in Big Ten (or SEC, PAC) unless the famed “Sooner Swagger” has gone.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Spoken like a SUPER Walmart Sooner.
LikeLike
If OU or Kansas end up in the B1G I promise I’ll never post here again.
Won’t happen though. Zero chance.
LikeLike
So there is a price. Sadly the price is too high to pay, but now that a bid has been put on the table, maybe it will be possible to haggle.
LikeLike
Kansas won’t end up in the Big Ten because of KSU, just as Oklahoma wouldn’t end up in the Big Ten (even if it was AAU) because of Okie State. Funny how people here ignore those factors.
LikeLike
Uh, okay?
LikeLike
Michigan AD would like to play tOSU twice a season.
“He would like to play Ohio State twice in a season, but understands the priorities in remaking the football divisions. His three goals — playing OSU each year, playing MSU each year, finishing the regular season with OSU — were all met.”
http://www.freep.com/article/20130505/SPORTS06/305050097/big-ten-expansion-michigan-wolverines-michigan-state-spartans-Dave-Brandon
LikeLike
Pat,
I read that the other day. It sort of negates all the Chicken Little talk about a possible rematch, no?
LikeLike
At this point, they’re all just saying whatever they want.
We all know that the bean counters wanted Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State in a single division for one purpose: most possible big name matchups and to get those teams rotating through NYC/D.C. TV markets.
LikeLike
zeek,
“At this point, they’re all just saying whatever they want.”
He gets no benefit from lying about this, though. It shows that he doesn’t think it would be terrible for MI, the B10 and all of CFB for a rematch to happen the next week.
I think the main reason MI and OSU pushed to be together this time is that they were concerned they might be forced to move The Game. The more you add new schools who don’t understand and value the old traditions, the more you have to worry about things like that. The B10 dabbled with moving it last time and they didn’t want to risk it.
“We all know that the bean counters wanted Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State in a single division for one purpose: most possible big name matchups and to get those teams rotating through NYC/D.C. TV markets.”
We say that, but their parity-based scheduling counters that argument a little.
Balanced Divisions With Parity Scheduling
E – K1, K2, P1
W – K3, K4, P2 + P3
In division: 2 K/K, 6 K/P, 1 P/P
Crossover: 5/9 * (4 K/K + 4 K/P) + 1/3 * (2 K/P + 1 P/P)
Total: 4.22 K/K + 8.89 K/P + 1.33 P/P (14.44 big games)
NYC: 2K + 1P + 1/3 * (2K + 1P) + 5/9 * P = 2.67K + 1.89P
DC: 2K + 1P + 1/3 * (2K + 1P) + 5/9 * P = 2.67K + 1.89P
Total: 5.33K + 3.78P in new markets
New Divisions With Balanced Scheduling
E – K1, K2, K3 + P
W – K3, P1, P2
In division: 3 K/K, 5 K/P, 1 P/P
Crossover: 4/9 * (3 K/K + 7 K/P + 2 P/P)
Total: 4.33 K/K + 8.11 K/P + 1.89 P/P (14.33 big games)
NYC: 3K + 1P + 4/9 * (1K + 2P) = 3.44K + 1.89P
DC: 3K + 1P + 4/9 * (1K + 2P) = 3.44K + 1.89P
Total: 6.89K + 3.78P in new markets
Changes versus balanced divisions with parity scheduling:
K/K +0.11
K/P -0.77
P/P +0.55
Total big games -0.11
K in new markets +1.55
P in new markets 0
New Divisions With Parity Scheduling
E – K1, K2, K3 + P
W – K3, P1, P2
In division: 3 K/K, 5 K/P, 1 P/P
Crossover: 5/9 * (3 K/K + 6 K/P) + 1/3 * (1 K/P + 2 P/P)
Total: 4.67 K/K + 8.67 K/P + 1.67 P/P (15.0 big games)
NYC: 3K + 1P + 1/3 * (1K + 2P) = 3.33K + 1.67P
DC: 3K + 1P + 1/3 * (1K + 2P) = 3.33K + 1.67P
Total: 6.67K + 3.33P in new markets
Changes versus balanced divisions:
K/K +0.44
K/P -0.22
P/P +0.33
Total big games +0.55
K in new markets +1.33
P in new markets -0.44
Changes versus balanced scheduling:
K/K +0.33
K/P +0.55
P/P -0.22
Total big games +0.67
K in new markets -0.22
P in new markets -0.44
As expected, parity-based scheduling actually costs the B10 K and P games versus RU and UMD. The new divisions still make for 1 more K game against them (combined) but at the cost of 8/9 of a P game. That’s a gain since a K game has more value than a P game, but it’s not a very big gain. The other gain comes in total big games for TV, with almost 1 big game per year added.
LikeLike
Also the disaster attendancd of the conference championship last year was a reason to put all 3 in one division. Michigan, OSU, or PSU will more than likely win that division 99% of the time. Their fans will fill the stadium for the championship game themselves unlike Wisconsin and Nebraska fans last year. If when one of the those doesn’t, it will be such an accomplishment that the other teams fans in the east will think the championship game is a big deal enought to want to go.
LikeLike
I don’t think last year’s CCG had anything to do with it. OSU and PSU were both ineligible, a situation that is unlikely to occur again. Had the game been OSU vs. Nebraska, as it should have been, that’s about as good a game (on paper) as the league could hope for.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“Also the disaster attendancd of the conference championship last year was a reason to put all 3 in one division. Michigan, OSU, or PSU will more than likely win that division 99% of the time. Their fans will fill the stadium for the championship game themselves unlike Wisconsin and Nebraska fans last year. If when one of the those doesn’t, it will be such an accomplishment that the other teams fans in the east will think the championship game is a big deal enought to want to go.”
I draw the exact opposite conclusion from that. The CCG was proof you want OSU and MI split so there is one team that will fill the stadium in each division. I’m not convinced PSU fans will make the trip, and certainly the red hordes from WI and NE didn’t (nor WI and MSU the year before).
OSU/MI split:
OSU in CCG – 40%
MI in CCG – 40%
Both in CCG – 16%
Neither in CCG – 36%
New divisions:
OSU in CCG – 30%
MI in CCG – 30%
Both in CCG – 0%
Neither in CCG – 40%
Now add in PSU and NE:
Old divisions basically:
OSU in CCG – 40%
PSU in CCG – 30%
MI in CCG – 40%
NE in CCG – 30%
2 in CCG – 49%
None in CCG – 9%
New divisions:
OSU in CCG – 35%
MI in CCG – 30%
PSU in CCG – 25%
NE in CCG – 40%
2 in CCG – 36%
None in CCG – 6%
I agree with Marc that the CCG had nothing to do with it, but if it was a factor I think it goes against your argument.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22225609/nick-saban-is-in-favor-of-five-conferences-breaking-away
I’ll give Saban this, he’s never been afraid of a tough game. In response to the B10 agreeing to stop playing I-AA teams, Saban said:
“I’m for five conferences — everybody playing everybody in those five conferences,” Saban told AL.com. “That’s what I’m for, so it might be 70 teams, and everybody’s got to play ’em.”
Saban also went on to say that he’s in favor of the SEC adding a ninth conference game for the fans.
“Don’t they want to see good games and all that?”
That’s too NFL for me, personally. I like the chance for Cinderella upsets in September, then a conference grind as the weather cools. Maybe Saban should tell his AD to drop the I-AA games and put his schedule where his mouth is.
LikeLike
1AA schools are a financial thing more than anything. They’re cheap. It’s not that a program is afraid of playing 1A schools, it’s just that they’re trying to save money.
LikeLike
@Andy: It’s about bowl positioning. The current system doesn’t punish a school for playing meaningless guarantee games; or, to put it differently, the current system doesn’t reward schools enough for playing real games that they might lose.
Even your comment about saving money is dubious, because schools lose money by going to bowls. The school that schedules a I-AA paycheck game, and then just barely qualifies for a bowl, is a net loser, financially. But it adds to the prestige of your program, to say you went to a bowl.
LikeLike
It’s about how much you have to pay a school to play you. Playing Arkansas State and Toledo costs a lot more than playing Murray State, on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars per game.
LikeLike
@Andy: Among the various reasons that ADs give for scheduling these games, price is not the most commonly mentioned. Bowl positioning comes up a lot more. Also, many invited opponents decline, or won’t come without a return game that the first school does not want to give up. Murray State is cheaper, but it’s offset by the fact that many schools sell those tickets at lower prices, or fail to sell out the stadium for such an unsexy opponent.
LikeLike
And so of course Alabama schedules both an FCS school and a school one year out of FCS ~ like Tennessee and it seems half of the Big12.
I think that’s an ambit claim to actually push toward an agreement to not schedule any more FCS games. If “everyone else” in your division is scheduling the OVC, SWAC, SoCon or Southland, and you restricted yourselves to FBS schools, you’ve increased the cost of your payday games and possibly (depending on the FBS schools and FCS schools) the risk of a Cinderella upset at the same time … but if everyone agrees to stop scheduling FCS schools, then that can avoid a race to the bottom.
LikeLike
@Ross, no you read into my post. I was not suggesting that the Sooners would dominate the PAC12 South or the SEC West (although if OU and Texas did join the divisions would be reconfigured with true Southwest and Southeast divisions, Bammer to the Southeast, for example.)
OU wants to stay in the Big XII because this is where we’ll always be Top Dog (along with Shorthorn U.) Much like FSU wanted to stay in the ACC because FSU is THE team in the ACC. The Big XII has two at the top of the food chain, the Sooners and Horns.
Hope this helps. And no, Sooner Fans still not want to go to the Midwest Conference. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great conference with illustrious history/tradition, but it wouldn’t be a good fit geographically or culturally. No thanks. Shoot for Kansas or Iowa State. We’ll give ’em to ya.
LikeLike
@Mike, no it has nothing to do with fear.
You’re right Boren wanted the PAC, but he is in the extreme minority (I understand the administration has the most pull, however.)….really the Sooners only wanted the PAC if we could have the other Big XII South teams go with us when A&M was still in the conference. It would have sucked for fans.
The only semi-viable option that is best FOR THE FANS (not saying it is going to happen, but this is what the vast majority of us want) would be the SEC West. However, I still would not like that as it makes the Sooners look desperate. I don’t like the thought of arguably the most storied program in college football history looking desperate to get in another conference and away from the cancer that is Tejas (at least this is the perception).
LikeLike
These divisions would be interesting:
Southeast
Florida/Georgia/South Carolina/Kentucky/Alabama/Auburn/Tennessee/Vandy
Southwest
Texas/Texas A&M/Oklahoma/Missouri/Arkansas/LSU/Ole Miss/MSU
LikeLike
OU wants to stay in the Big XII because this is where we’ll always be Top Dog (along with Shorthorn U.) Much like FSU wanted to stay in the ACC because FSU is THE team in the ACC.
It’s ironic you’d say that, because FSU is not “THE team” in the ACC: North Carolina is, and FSU has long resented that. I think they would’ve accepted a Big Ten offer in a heartbeat, but they didn’t want the Big XII. The FSU president published a fairly long and detailed explanation of why the Big XII would not be a better home for FSU.
Without a Big Ten offer immediately forthcoming, FSU faced the possibility that additional ACC schools would abandon ship. Then, they’d be stuck with a damaged ACC, or jumping to the Big XII, where they’d rather not go. Having weighed both options, they decided that keeping the ACC afloat was their best bet.
LikeLike
@Marc,
UNC is “THE team” in ACC football? 😉 I don’t think so.
I obviously was referring to football.
FSU is the most valuable football commodity in the ACC. (I’m not talking about AAU status, academic status/research grants, basketball, or anything else….strictly football.)
Yes, FSU is “THE team” in the ACC when it comes to football.
LikeLike
@Clay: Yes, I had noticed that FSU is better at football than UNC! The words “in football” weren’t in your original post.
The key point is that FSU’s dominance of the ACC is not analogous to UT’s dominance of the Big XII. Historically, UT dominates the Big XII in every way, both administratively and athletically.
Sure, FSU is the ACC’s best football school, but the league’s center of gravity is in North Carolina, where basketball holds a much greater influence there than it does in the Big XII, which is very much a football-first league.
Remember, UConn came within a whisker of getting the ACC’s 14th spot, until the football schools agitated for Louisville. Of course, it’s notable that the football schools prevailed. But it’s equally notable that they had to stomp their feet to get noticed, a situation that would not exist in any of the other Big Five leagues.
LikeLike
@Marc,
Texas dominates the money stream and most likely has the lion-share of input (along with Oklahoma) when it comes to the future of the conference.
However, Texas does not dominate football on the field. The Sooners have won the Big XII 8 times. The Horns…..3 times.
LikeLike
@Clay: Dominance, in the context here, is financial, not in the won-lost column. That’s why Notre Dame has the influence they have, despite such mediocre results on the field over the past 20-odd years (aside from last year).
LikeLike
@Andy,
Your alignment would be the conference to end all conferences, for sure. It sure would be fun to have the opportunity to pound on Bama every now and then and play LSU every year. I know Sooner Fans would love these games, the bigtime week-in and week-out.
Obviously, I prefer the Big XII. However, the SEC West would be the next best option based on geography/culture if the Big XII falls apart.
Also, if the Big XII will be viable for the future, we HAVE to expand and get a championship game back or the B1G, SEC, PAC are going to leave us in the dust. With OK/TX in the conference, the Big XII will always remain a more valuable conference than the ACC, but not the other 3 conferences.
LikeLike
I know a lot of Missouri fans would welcome OU. Most wouldn’t want Texas but it would be hard to turn them down. It would also help us restore our recruiting in Texas.
LikeLike
Pingback: Conference De-Alignment–Part I of II | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Can one of lawyers posting here please help me with the GOR concpet. I know that you sign over the media rights to the conference. The rights you are signing over are just the rights to your home games, correct? To be binding the GOR must be separate from the conference affiliation, otherwise it would not bind you if you left the conference. So if it supercedes the conference affiliation, if you left the conference wouldn’t you continue to recieve your portion of the media revenues? Otherwise it seems like you have signed your rights away without compensation, and I didn’t think that was a valid contract.
LikeLike
They’re not signing away their rights without compensation: they’re signing away their rights in exchange for substantial television revenue, so that makes it a valid contract.
Now, the whole premise of the TV deal is that the league will remain intact: the ACC is worth a lot less if Florida State and Miami are no longer in it. So one of the things they agree to, is that if they leave they get nothing.
Obviously, if they could leave and still get the same revenue, then the GOR would serve no purpose whatsoever. The whole premise, is that their ability to get paid is contingent on their remaining in the league.
LikeLike
The revenue is tied to conference affiliation. Its not unusual for a grant of copyrights and similar media rights to have the revenue tied to some performance ~ which in this case would be participation in the conference and allowing access to your property to the conference media partner.
LikeLike
Pffftt.
De-alignment could only occur in an already dysfunctional conference. It is an act of desperation, not of those in the power leadership positions and totally ignores the non athletic benefits of/to conference membership. Those bound only by membership in a “sports club” might be susceptible in the future. But, the only example reveals that such action is a symptom of a bigger problem and certainly did nothing to stabilize/improve that conference. Next conference to engage in that is the next to die.
LikeLike
@Frank The Tank,
Please provide a link that demonstrates that Oklahoma/Okie-State propositioned the B1G when OU/OSU were in discussion with the PAC. That’s a new one.
You are absolutely right about OU Leadership (in particular, and Okie-State to a lesser extent, following Big Brother) wanting the PAC…..that is no secret. It’s very likely that Boren used all of that as posturing (“we’re not a wallflower” bs) to get Texas to concede a bit more on solidifying the conference.
OU Brass pretty much begged A&M to stay in the conference, but the Hissies were already gone to the SEC. OU’s reconvened discussion with L-Scott and the PAC was reactionary and posturing to tell Texas we don’t need you (which, for the OU Leadership turned out to not be true).
Moreover, the SEC came hard after OU when all this mess (yes, that is what it is) started three-four years ago. Boren told Slive no thanks. I know what the vast majority of Sooner fans want. It’s not the B1G. Again, no slight intended. It’s a great conference with great history/tradition. But it’s just not for Oklahoma. B1G Brass: You want Kansas and Texas then go for it. The Sooners will take Little Brother Okie State and go to the SEC West.
LikeLike
This is true. Slive first went after OU and then when OU said no they went to Missouri. Despite what many on here say, Slive didn’t go after any ACC schools during that round, but might have if Misssouri had said no or went to the B1G. More recently he seemed to have been working on UNC, and many thought it might happen but the GOR nixed that.
LikeLike
I think the SEC and OU talked but OU wanted OSU to tag along and the SEC said no. Simple as that. Now OU has tried to get into the PAC with OSU and that did not work either. At some point OU will have to make a decision if they want the B1G / PAC / SEC or if they want to be tied to OSU for eternity as the option of both seems remote.
LikeLike
Yeah, pretty much. But the SEC wanted A&M so there was no room for OSU, nor did they want them. Also the PAC would have taken OU and OSU if UT had come too.
LikeLike
While you are right that the SEC wouldn’t take OSU, it wouldn’t have really mattered. OU is like Texas in that they have zero interest in the SEC.
LikeLike
Some at OU do, some don’t. I hear plenty of OU fans say they wish they were in the SEC.
LikeLike
Clay – while your Sooners would be a welcome member of the SEC, I think your little brother is a deal killer, as it was in 2010 and 2011. I seriously doubt the SEC wants two schools in the state of Oklahoma if it doesn’t want two schools in the state of Florida.
LikeLike
@AfBR
The only double up the SEC wants other than UT, which isn’t happening, ever, is Duke to get UNC. Would you agree with that?
LikeLike
R – that’s what it sounded like. I would have taken Florida State. The ‘noles may not have brought new territory, but it would have made the SECN more valuable in Florida, and increased the value of the CBS Tier 1 and the ESPN/ESPN2 Tier 2 deals. Kind of like what Nebraska brought to the B1G.
I’d rather have two teams in Florida than any other state such as NC, TX, or OK. The SEC apparently disagrees.
LikeLike
I agree. They’re not taking two schools from Oklahoma. As much as the SEC would like OK, they’re already so stacked in marquee Football powers, that two schools from a small state is way too high a price to pay. UNC/DUKE are the final pieces of their puzzle, which, if it happens at all, could be far into the future.
LikeLike
Yep, that may be a deal-breaker. No question about that. However, Oklahoma would be such a good get/brand Slive might concede to round out the SEC.
(Plus, Oklahoma would DEMAND that it be allowed to use “SWC” as a conference/divisional descriptor so we don’t have to shout “SEC, SEC, SEC”…………….ok, calm down SEC homers, it’s just a little ribbin’.) 😉
LikeLike
On a Big XII related note, how or why did the BiG XII allow Louisville to move to the ACC, when Louisville came so close to having WVs spot? That would appear to be the second biggest mistake of realignment, right after the B1G taking Nebraska instead of Missouri. 🙂 I just reread Mr SECs recent post; here’s the link,
http://mrsec.com/2013/05/acc-schools-wise-to-stick-together-and-not-jump-to-big-xii/
LikeLike
A collective “D’OH!” on that one.
LikeLike
I alluded to this very thing (Big XII not taking Louisville when it had the chance) here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/college-football/1490882-realignment-rumors-45.html
LikeLike
On the flip side, a lot of people argue that the ACC screwed up when WVU was not a part of the expansion announced in September 2011 (Pitt/Syracuse). Either Syracuse or Pitt would have been left out at that time, or, more accurately, postponed. The theory is that the Big 12 would have replaced A&M/Missouri with TCU/Louisville in late 2011, and that the ACC would have replaced Maryland with either Pitt or Syracuse.
WVU would make a bit more sense than Louisville in the ACC, especially with the longer connection with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, and Miami, not to mention the better geographic fit.
But hindsight is 20/20, my friends. I’m just happy the ACC isn’t dead. B1G fans (or, more accurately, Jim Delany and the COP/C) are happy to be in the dominant conference financially with a big-bad east coast presence, regardless of the reduction of games between many of the old guard members.
LikeLike
Maryland’s departure was a move no one saw coming. The idea of “postponing” Syracuse or Pitt couldn’t possibly have occurred to them. You can’t call that a screw-up.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd,
Oh, I know. I just meant the net effect would have been a postponement.
I just think there’s frustration from some ACC fans that if we’re going to expand, they’d have rather had WVU than Louisville, while WVU fans may argue, “See, I told you the ACC should have taken us.”
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. We’re living in reality, not alternate reality.
LikeLike
It’s funny that some ACC fans are saying, “We should have taken West Virginia instead of Louisville”, and some Big 12 fans are saying, “We should have taken Louisville instead of West Virginia.”
Grass is always greener!
LikeLike
The ACC would have likely taken UCONN over WVU if the XII had gone for Louisville. Despite the travel WVU is better in the XII than the AACK. When the ACC expanded Syracuse was not going anywhere, while Pitt and WVU were known targets of the XII backfill. Therefore, if the ACC ever had interest in WVU it should have been invited with Pitt. Besides the fear of losing members to the SEC, the timing of ACC expansion might have been related to Pitt (expect WVU made the same call) telling the ACC they would have to bail to the XII unless the ACC made an offer.
LikeLike
I remember hearing that the TV people wanted WV over Louisville. They own their state while Louisville is second fiddle, and WV had the better national “name” in football at the time.
In hindsight, they should have taken both schools, TCU and told BYU “now or never”.
Of course maybe they did do that and BYU said “never”.
Right now, Louisville looks like it would have been the better pick over WV if only one could be chosen, especially for anyone has had to travel to Blacksburg. But, who knows, WV could be the better long term pick.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“I remember hearing that the TV people wanted WV over Louisville. They own their state while Louisville is second fiddle, and WV had the better national “name” in football at the time.
In hindsight, they should have taken both schools, TCU and told BYU “now or never”.
Of course maybe they did do that and BYU said “never”.
Right now, Louisville looks like it would have been the better pick over WV if only one could be chosen, especially for anyone has had to travel to Blacksburg. But, who knows, WV could be the better long term pick.”
Sure Morgantown is hard to get to and is farther away than Louisville, but I’d trust the TV people. They know who they’d pay the B12 more to have. WV is clearly the bigger FB brand. Let’s see how UL does in the ACC before getting too excited.
I agree taking both would have been good. Unfortunately the B12 had to add TCU to keep games in TX, meaning the B12 would need a 4th. With BYU saying no, they had no good options.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s all true. I wonder if adding TCU, West Virginia, Louisville and Boise State was ever discussed. Not sure how they would have divided those divisions if either BYU or Boise State were added. There is the obvious Texas and Oklahoma schools together vs everyone else. Can’t imagine that KU, KSU, and ISU would have been too pleased with that set up though.
LikeLike
Because expansion to 11 and 11 only makes sense only when you’re adding a school like Penn State, the Big 12 obviously needs two solid candidates in order to add anyone new.
BYU stands out as candidate #1 in a two-team expansion, provided that the Big 12 can convince BYU to forego independence. That will not be easy at all. But for argument’s sake, let’s say that BYU is ready and willing to join the league if/when it comes calling. Is the Big 12 ready to expand?
No, at least not yet.
I think that the Big 12 wants wait out the next few years. Without the threat of being raided, and without having to worry about the other four major conferences changing membership any time soon, it can afford to wait and expand carefully, rather than reactively. Right now, there is no equivalent to BYU in terms of how much pop can be added to its TV value, but one may emerge in the future.
Specifically, I think the Big 12 wants to see how Cincinnati does in the AAC. Cincy was second to West Virginia in Big East football during the post-Miami/VT/BC era. It has grown in stature as a football program and as an athletic department as a whole, but not to the level of Louisville. The Big 12 certainly wants to know whether Cincy will go on to dominate the AAC, or if it will fall into the pack while newbies like Houston, UCF, Tulsa, and ECU leverage their new league membership into great success.
Right now, for lack of a better way of putting it, Cincinnati is a kind of Louisville-lite. It’s good at basketball but not a powerhouse. It’s actually been better at football, but it has inferior facilities and lesser TV value. It’s in a bigger metro area and has better academics, but has less money and support. Really, if the Big 12 is going to expand, it needs to add two solid additions at the BYU/Louisville/WVU-level, rather than one at that level and another trailing behind.
LikeLike
@Michael: I can’t imagine that Cincinnati is high on the Big XII’s watch list. The fact is, for the foreseeable future, they’re going to be playing the vast majority of their schedule against opponents most of the country doesn’t care much about. For Cincinnati to create a major national brand with that schedule and their other built-in disadvantages is going to be very hard to pull off.
LikeLike
They don’t have to be a major national brand on the scale of college football’s kings. They would have to be on par with TCU, BYU, or Louisville, though. TCU isn’t a major national brand, but they are well-respected. They earned that respect while in the Mountain West. They were added by the Big East before the Big East lost Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, etc.
Cincy very well could do in the AAC what TCU did in the Mountain West. Only time will tell. In my opinion, they’re at the best starting position compared with other AAC members. They’re closer to WVU and to the rest of the conference than just about any other potential new member. Such travel-friendly location does matter, though it’s anyone’s guess how much. They’re better in football over the past five to ten years than any other AAC member. They don’t offer duplcate territory like Tulsa or the Texas schools. They’re expanding their stadium.
Look, I’m not saying they’re on the brink of an invitation to the Big 12. I’m just saying that they’ve been rising in prominence over the past several years, and if it reaches the same level as Louisville or TCU in spite of its conference, then the Big 12 will be taking a serious look at the Bearcats.
LikeLike
Look, I’m not saying they’re on the brink of an invitation to the Big 12. I’m just saying that they’ve been rising in prominence over the past several years, and if it reaches the same level as Louisville or TCU in spite of its conference, then the Big 12 will be taking a serious look at the Bearcats.
Here’s where I think that breaks down: WV and TCU were mandatory adds. After losing four schools in short order, the Big XII had to get back up to 10 quickly, and they believed those were the two best schools on the free-agent market. Getting up to 12 isn’t mandatory in the same sense; and therefore, it’s not good enough for Cincy to be merely “as good as Louisville or TCU.”
The right question to ask is: how good do the next two schools have to be, to improve the Big XII’s total TV payout by more than 20 percent? Because if the TV payout doesn’t go up by at least that amount, then the addition dilutes what they have, rather than improving it.
BYU might conceivably contribute their share, because they have a national following: they’re the Mormons’ Notre Dame. Cincinnati is not, and it would take a practically miraculous run of success on the football field to change that. It’s probably just not happening.
For expansion to be worthwhile, the Big XII needs an add like Florida State or Miami. We’re talking a totally different level than Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Well, UC would want to be on par with Louisville, at any rate, but they would primarily hope that there is a compelling enough 11th out there that they can slip in as a 12th on the basis of “well, among these available schools, this one is the best on offer … that is to say, do a Mizzou.
LikeLike
Nippert Stadium will keep UC from ever moving up. No major conference wants a school that can’t even seat 40k and doesn’t like to play off campus either.
LikeLike
I’ll give you that attendance & stadium size at Nippert would have to change, but playing off campus won’t be a factor. Sure, Cincy doesn’t like playing off campus, but if playing at Paul Brown is a condition for joining the Big 12, then Cincy is going to be playing at Paul Brown.
Let’s just wait and see. Cincy and other AAC members, especially UConn and USF, will be bending over backwards trying to strengthen their non-league schedule in order to help offset the weakness of their conference. If Cincy is highly successful–meaning 3 or 4 undefeated or one-loss seasons in a row–attendance should be very strong no matter how boring their home league schedule is.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“I’ll give you that attendance & stadium size at Nippert would have to change,”
Which it really can’t. There isn’t room for a sizable expansion.
“but playing off campus won’t be a factor. Sure, Cincy doesn’t like playing off campus, but if playing at Paul Brown is a condition for joining the Big 12, then Cincy is going to be playing at Paul Brown.”
I don’t know. Their current AD has been pretty vehement about not playing at PBS. Apparently the Bengals give them such a crappy deal that they actually make more money playing at Nippert. He really believes in playing on campus, too. They would probably do it, but I almost guarantee they would refuse to play more than 1 game per year at PBS (UT or OU, maybe WV).
“Let’s just wait and see. Cincy and other AAC members, especially UConn and USF, will be bending over backwards trying to strengthen their non-league schedule in order to help offset the weakness of their conference.”
I think most of them will focus on winning more than SOS. They’ll also need to make more money so they’ll schedule for that.
LikeLike
Let’s just wait and see. Cincy and other AAC members, especially UConn and USF, will be bending over backwards trying to strengthen their non-league schedule in order to help offset the weakness of their conference.
They’re already doing that. You know what the trouble is? The weakness of those teams is not a mere perception. They’re going to be underdogs in most of those games. Sure, there’ll be the occasional upset, as there always is in college football. The odds of one of them putting together a string of “3 or 4 undefeated or one-loss seasons in a row” is pretty low — even assuming (which I doubt) that that suffices to make them useful to the Big XII.
LikeLike
But the rules have changed a bit … now that there is no ranking hurdle for the best of the Go5 champions to clear to get into one of the big bowls, if they get into the Big Bowls and win enough of them, their record going into those bowl games won’t be so critical.
LikeLike
@Clayhawkins
“I know what the vast majority of Sooner fans want.”
How do you know what the vast majority of Sooner fans want? Scientific Poll? Message board rants? You know all sooner fans – t-shirt and otherwise? ESPN Poll? You know every single living Alumni and asked to get a view of what the “vast majority” want? Are you the official president of the Sooner conference realignment fan club? Maybe you and some others do not want Oklahoma in the Big Ten, if they could somehow garner an invitation. However, I doubt any of us can say with certain conviction what the vast majority of school constituencies want other than the academic types who would likely welcome an invite to a perceived better academic consortium.
LikeLike
As is often the case, the priorities of those who are actually navigating these colleges through the increasingly treacherous waters of academia 2.0, and the ‘football fans’ who think the SEC is ‘really awesome’ have little in common. I think Boren & Co. would do back flips to join the PAC or B1G (if Texas came along). The SEC is another matter. Boren is a Rhodes scholar who has really made elevating Oklahoma’s academic status a priority. That is antithetical to the SEC.
LikeLike
Newsflash: The SEC has more AAU schools than the Big 12, and the the average academic ranking of SEC schools is higher than the average academic ranking of Big 12 schools.
LikeLike
Not than the B12 OU was ready to leave if UT had chosen to also.
LikeLike
I suppose. I thought he was talking about now.
At this point the SEC is the better academic conference:
School/Federal Research Expenditures*/Total Research Expenditures/USNews Ranking
http://mup.asu.edu/research.html
Vanderbilt*/21/37/17
Texas A&M*/35/18/65
Florida*/42/21/54
Kentucky/59/46/125
Missouri*/69/77/97
South Carolina/75/98/115
Georgia/77/51/63
Mississippi State/79/84/160
Tennessee/87/94/101
LSU/91/67/134
Auburn/121/114/89
Arkansas/141/132/134
Mississippi/165/185/151
Alabama/194/NR/77
Texas*/24/30/46
Iowa State*/83/79/101
Kansas*/100/117/106
West Virginia/107/116/165
Kansas State/111/112/139
Oklahoma/130/157/101
Oklahoma State/134/124/139
Texas Tech/190/153/165
Baylor/NR/NR/77
Texas Christian/NR/NR/92
* = AAU
The Big 12 has one solid school in Texas. They then have Iowa State, a low end AAU school, and Kansas, pretty much the worst school in the AAU other than maybe Oregon. No real contenders for AAU membership outside of those three. Oklahoma is fairly weak. KSU and OSU even weaker. WVU and TTU are weaker still. Baylor and TCU are Christian schools, and fairly good as far as that goes, but they are not major research instittutions.
The SEC has four solid schools in Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Florida, and Missouri. All AAU. They also have a couple of schools that could conceivably one day reach AAU status (although probably not within the next decade or two) in Kentucky and Georgia. Beyond that South Carolina, Tennessee, LSU, and Auburn are all at least as strong or stronger than Oklahoma as far as academics. Alabama is a perfectly good undergraduate institution, they just do all their research up in Birmingham. Mississippi State does a lot of research but their undergraduate quality leaves something to be desired. Arkansas is at the Kansas State tier. Ole Miss is at the Texas Tech tier.
Overal, the SEC is clearly the better league academically. They’ve solidly claimed the spot as the 4th best academic conference at this point.
LikeLike
@Andy Is this where B1G fans get to laugh at conference dick measuring about who is the 4th and 5th best academic conference? Similar to how SEC fans laugh about others arguing who is the 4th and 5th best football conference?
If so… hahahahaha.
LikeLike
@Andy: Based on your numbers, there’s not a big difference between Missouri and Iowa State:
Missouri*/69/77/97
Iowa State*/83/79/101
The only significant gap is in federal research dollars. In total research and U.S. News Ranking, they’re so close that the differences are basically rounding errors. I don’t see any basis for calling Iowa State a low-level AAU school, unless Missouri is too.
You toss out words like “weak” too loosely. Oklahoma isn’t weak; it’s a solid non-AAU state flagship institution. Its U. S. News ranking is only a few slots below Missouri. Most students would get the same quality of education at either place.
Missouri does have a solid lead over Oklahoma in research dollars, although they’re close enough that I could guarantee you there are many fields where Oklahoma is better, even if it’s not most of them, and quite a few others where there’s basically no difference.
Aside from that…yes, you’re right: overall, the SEC is better in academics than the Big XII. So??
LikeLike
test-threading seems to be screwed up….
LikeLike
Ok, threading is working fine, just looked funny.
Blaples, yeah, I know that the B1G, ACC, and Pac 12 are the premier academic conferences at this point. That’s obvious. But the SEC is a clear #4 now. The only way they could rise to #3 is by adding schools like UNC, Virgina, Duke, Georgia Tech, or Texas, and by having schools like Georgia and Kentucky make strides. In all likelihood they’ll stay in 4th. But that’s better than 5th or 6th. Hopefully they’ll close the gap with third somewhat over time just by improving the schools they have.
Marc, yes, Iowa State’s undergrad rankings aren’t that far behind Missouri’s, that’s true. What I meant by low level is that they’re not quite at risk of losing AAU membership, but somewhat. If you go by research dollars, here’s where the AAU schools rank:
1 The Johns Hopkins University
2 University of Michigan
3 University of Washington
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 University of California, San Diego
6 The University of Wisconsin-Madison
7 University of Pennsylvania
8 Columbia University
9 Stanford University
10 University of California, Los Angeles
11 University of Pittsburgh
12 Duke University
13 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
14 Washington University in St. Louis
15 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
16 The Pennsylvania State University
17 Harvard University
18 Yale University
19 University of Southern California
20 The Ohio State University
21 Vanderbilt University
22 Georgia Institute of Technology
23 Case Western Reserve University
24 The University of Texas at Austin
25 California Institute of Technology
26 The University of Chicago
27 Northwestern University
28 University of Rochester
29 University of California, Davis
30 Emory University
31 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
32 University of California, Berkeley
33 Texas A&M University
34 Boston University
35 The University of Iowa
36 University of Maryland, College Park
37 University of Colorado Boulder
38 Cornell University
39 University of Florida
40 University of Virginia
41 New York University
42 University of California, Irvine
43 Purdue University
44 Carnegie Mellon University
45 Michigan State University
46 University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
47 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
48 The University of Arizona
49 Princeton University
50 University of Missouri-Columbia
51 University of California, Santa Barbara
52 Tulane University
53 Stony Brook University-State University of New York
54 Iowa State University
55 Brown University
56 Indiana University
57 The University of Kansas
58 University of Oregon
59 Rice University
60 Brandeis University
Missouri has a full 10 schools below them in research. ISU only has 6. Yeah, it’s subjective. Feel free to create your own terminology. Missouri is closer to the bottom than to the top, but they seem to be more solid. Especially considering they’ve been one of the bigger climbers in the last 20 years or so. Enrollment has expanded by 50% in the last decade, and research dollars were around tied with ISU 20 years ago and are now several spots higher. ISU’s mostly solid too, but less so.
LikeLike
And for the record, I’m not saying Missouri’s a great school by any means. Their business school is respectable, borderline top 50. Their law school is in decline, on the cusp of leaving the top 100. Agriculture is very solid. Vetrinary Medicine isn’t too bad. Journalism ranks anywhere from #1 to #3 depending on who you ask. Engineering isn’t anything that great because the UM System puts most of it’s engineering programs at the Missouri Institute of Science and Technology (formerly known as the University of Missouri at Rolla). Undergraduate rankings are frustratingly low considering Mizzou’s entering freshman average ACT score would rank within the normal range of B1G schools:
Northwestern 31
Michigan 31
Illinois 29
Wisconsin 28
Minnesota 28
Ohio State 28
Purdue 27
Indiana 27
Penn State 27
**Missouri 26
Iowa 26
Michigan State 26
Nebraska 25
Rutgers not reported
Maryland not reported
Enrollment has been steadily going up, ACT scores have been steadily going up, fundraising is up, contruction has been more active than ever, but I suppose it takes a long time to get those USNews rankings to budge.
But what makes Mizzou an AAU school is the School of Medicine. The UM System has two schools of medicine, one in Columbia and the other in Kansas City. The Columbia school is stronger. It ranks in the top 20 or 30 in a few fields. That’s what keeps us high enough in the research rankings to stay in the AAU. And it’s expanding all the time. They’re building another $200M facility as we speak.
LikeLike
@Andy: you have the rankings right. I just think it’s interesting that you called Missouri “solid” and Iowa “low end,” when they’re four places apart in a list of 60, and the higher of the two is 50th.
LikeLike
Well, technically speaking, any school starting with maybe #40 Virginia or #45 Michigan State on down is “lower end”, so in that case ISU and Missouri are lower end. I suppose I shouldn’t try to draw too fine a line between schools that are in the same ballpark. All I meant by “solid” is that they weren’t at any real risk of losing AAU status. But I suppose ISU is probably in that category as well, if not quite as solidly as Missouri. But Kansas is clearly a notch below, which is why I called them “pretty much the worst school in the AAU other than maybe Oregon”, and I stand by that. And Oklahoma isn’t anywhere near the level it needs to be for AAU membership.
LikeLike
Newsflash
SEC has more schools than the Big 12. 28.57% are AAU. 30% of Big 12 schools are AAU. The SEC isn’t anywhere near #4. The Ivy League and UAA are way ahead of the SEC.
LikeLike
For that matter the Big West has 3 schools rated higher than anyone in the SEC.
LikeLike
bullet, you conveniently ignored that not only does the SEC have more AAU schools, but their schools are better on average. I laid out a ton of stats to prove it and you seemingly ignored all of them.
Here, let’s look at them head to head:
Federal Research/Total Research/USNews Ranking
1. Vanderbilt*/21/37/17 vs Texas*/24/30/46, winner, Vandy – SEC
2. Texas A&M*/35/18/65 vs Iowa State*/83/79/101, winner, Texas A&M – SEC
3. Florida*/42/21/54 vs Kansas*/100/117/106, winner, Florida – SEC
4. Kentucky/59/46/125 vs West Virginia/107/116/165, winner, Kentucky – SEC
5. Missouri*/69/77/97 vs Kansas State/111/112/139, winner, Missouri – SEC
6. South Carolina/75/98/115 vs Oklahoma/130/157/101, winner, SOuth Carolina – SEC
7. Georgia/77/51/63 vs Oklahoma State/134/124/139, winner, Georgia – SEC
8. Mississippi State/79/84/160 vs Texas Tech/190/153/165, winner – MSU – SEC
9. Tennessee/87/94/101 vs Baylor/NR/NR/77, winner, debatable but probably Tennessee – SEC
10. LSU/91/67/134 vs Texas Christian/NR/NR/92 winner Debatable
11. Auburn/121/114/89 – nobody to compete with, but probably better than WVU or OU
12. Arkansas/141/132/134 – nobody to compete with, but probably on par with KSU and OSU
13. Mississippi/165/185/151 – nobody to compete with, but probably on par with Texas Tech
14. Alabama/194/NR/77 – nobody to compete with, but probably on par with Baylor
The SEC is better and it’s not close at this point. If it weren’t for your Longhorns, your best school would rank 6th or 7th in the SEC.
Ivy League, they’re not a 1A conference, but sure, if you want to count non-scholarship granting conferences, then Ivy is #1 above the ACC and B1G and everyone.
As for the Big West, that’s just a flat out falsehood. They don’t have 3 schools ranked higher than any in the SEC. That’s ridiculous. They have 4 CSU schools, all of whom would rank near the bottom of the SEC. They have the University of Hawaii, who would rank somwhere near the middle of the SEC. They have UC Riverside, who would also rank somewhere near the middle. They have UC Santa Barbara, who ranks just below Missouri in terms of research but somewhat higher in terms of undergrad education. UC Irvine is the only one who you could maybe make a claim like you did, but they’re still not on the level of a Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
Ah, UC Davis too. Still not on the level of Vandy. More on the level of Florida.
LikeLike
I know you enjoy looking dumb, but even you have to be smarter than to think the proper way to compare 10 schools to 14 is to use the top 10 of the 14.
A. Try pairing them based on the stats and just see where they fall.
B. Skip #3, 6, 9 and 12 to provide a more representative sample of 10.
C. If you’re so confident, skip the top 4 of the SEC.
I won’t even get into the debate about whether these are appropriate metrics or not, but just use the numbers you provided.
A. Match the stats
Vanderbilt*/21/37/17 vs Texas*/24/30/46
Texas A&M*/35/18/65
Florida*/42/21/54
Kentucky/59/46/125
Georgia/77/51/63
Missouri*/69/77/97 vs Iowa State*/83/79/101
South Carolina/75/98/115 vs Texas Christian/NR/NR/92
Mississippi State/79/84/160 vs West Virginia/107/116/165
Tennessee/87/94/101 vs Kansas*/100/117/106
LSU/91/67/134 vs Oklahoma/130/157/101
Auburn/121/114/89 vs Kansas State/111/112/139
Arkansas/141/132/134 vs Oklahoma State/134/124/139
Mississippi/165/185/151 vs Texas Tech/190/153/165
Alabama/194/NR/77 vs Baylor/NR/NR/77
Looks like the SEC has the edge at the top. Baylor and TCU are a different type of school so the first two metrics don’t mean as much for them.
B. Representative 10
1. Vanderbilt*/21/37/17 vs Texas*/24/30/46 – tie
2. Texas A&M*/35/18/65 vs Iowa State*/83/79/101 – SEC
3. Kentucky/59/46/125 vs Kansas*/100/117/106 – tie
4. Missouri*/69/77/97 vs West Virginia/107/116/165 – SEC
5. Georgia/77/51/63 vs Kansas State/111/112/139 – SEC
6. Mississippi State/79/84/160 vs Oklahoma/130/157/101 – tie
7. LSU/91/67/134 vs Oklahoma State/134/124/139 – SEC
8. Auburn/121/114/89 vs Texas Tech/190/153/165 – SEC
9. Mississippi/165/185/151 vs Texas Christian/NR/NR/92 – B12
10. Alabama/194/NR/77 vs Baylor/NR/NR/77 – tie
SEC wins 5-1-4.
Either of those would make a better argument than your list. Now, as to whether you chose appropriate metrics, that’s a whole different discussion.
LikeLike
Andy if you don’t understand how highly regarded the UC schools are, you shouldn’t be talking about academics.
ARWU 2012 (world university rankings)
UC-Santa Barbara #34 two spots ahead of Duke
UC-Irvine #45
UC-Davis #47
Vanderbilt #50
And the Pac 12 has 6 rated higher than Vandy.
The Big 12 and SEC overall are indistinguishable as far as comparing either one to the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC. It would be like a 3 star restaurant comparing itself to 5 stars and saying, well, we are a lot better than this other 3 star restaurant. Kind of like your silly trolling of Kansas and Iowa St. Troll Kansas on a Kansas or Missouri board. Fact is all 3 schools are in the bottom 10 of the AAU. But the AAU is an elite group of 60-65 schools. So that’s not too bad.
And Vandy doesn’t do a thing for Mississippi State’s reputation. Nor for Missouri for that matter.
LikeLike
Brian, yes, I was being lazy, just showing the numbers and expecting the audience to be able to see the obvious. But as you showed even with representative samples the SEC still wins.
As far as my metrics, sure there are lots of different metrics you can use. If competitively won federal research, total research, and USNews rankings don’t capture they whole story they do capture a good chunk of it. If somebody else wants to spend the time tracking down a bunch more other stats to compare feel free. I didn’t want to spend hours and hours at this.
LikeLike
bullet, as I showed, Missouri isn’t actually in the bottom 10 of the AAU, which is nice for us, I guess. Yeah, we’re very close to the bottom 10, but not in the bottom 10.
I agree that the SEC is not all that close to the top 3 at this point. I never argued that that wasn’t true. But there’s some separation between the SEC and the Big 12 now that the Big 12 has lost 4 AAU schools. I can see how that might bother you and you’d want to be dismissive of it. It’s true though. Facts are facts.
As for ARWU, if you use that metric then all of this will look way different. The ARWU rankings seem to have very little correlation with the USNews Rankings or the research dollar totals. The results often look pretty strange to me. I suspect their metrics are fairly useful near the top and then degrade into nonsense the farther down the list you go. But I admit I don’t know that much about them. Feel free to make your own argument using those numbers. Maybe the Big 12 does great in that ranking, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Brian, just looked at your numbers a little closer, and saw that you had Kansas above Missouri even though Missouri ranked higher by all three metrics. Funny. I wonder if you did it on purpose to troll me? Nah, couldn’t be. 🙂
LikeLike
bullet, before the counter-fire begins, yeah, ok, Missouri is bottom 10 by some metrics and not others. I suppose it’s a subjective statement. I’ll concede that by some measures Missouri is bottom 10. Fine.
LikeLike
Amazingly you are completely wrong yet again. First, MO was above KU in A. In B, I was looking for a match for UK and decided KU’s AAU status and higher USNWR ranking to go with lower research numbers was the best match. As usual, I paid no attention to MO whatsoever. I just looked at the numbers. The whole world isn’t a conspiracy against MO.
LikeLike
Andy, you have difficulty differentiating opinions from facts.
And on something as subjective as university rankings, there’s a lot of opinion involved. For example, how do you compare schools like TCU and Baylor to an LSU?
LikeLike
Newsflash: arguing over whether the SEC or the Big12 is the better academic Major Conference is like arguing over which mobile home in the park is swankiest.
LikeLike
Brian, you had Kansas tied with Kentucky, and you had Kentucky at 3 and Missouri at 4, so yeah, you pretty much did have Kansas ahead of Missouri even though Missouri rated higher in all three metrics. But I believe you that you did it by mistake.
LikeLike
bullet, yes, I realize that the USNews rankings are based largely on opinion. That’s why I included to separate dollar rankings. One of competitively won federal research dollars, and another of total research dollars. No opinion at all involved there. But yes, with TCU and Baylor and Alabama and Ole Miss, those schools basically don’t do any research so they’re tough to compare. Baylor is exactly tied with Alabama in USNews, and TCU is ahead of Ole Miss, so I guess you can do it that way. And again, you can bring in other metrics if you feel like it. Average ACT scores. Graduation rates. Endowment size. Whatever you want to do. I didn’t want to spend all day compiling stats. Point is overall the SEC is the stronger league academically at this point by the stats I brought, and I suspect it will be true of other stats as well, but feel free to prove me wrong.
LikeLike
Bruce, fair enough, although I’d say mobile home park isn’t very apt. Definitely not anywhere near where the B1G is right now.
Although if you just look at the research dollar numbers and the USNews rankings and ignore who’s AAU and who isn’t, here’s how the two conferences break down:
Vanderbilt – similar to Northwestern
Texas A&M – Similar to Illinois
Florida – similar to Maryland
Georgia – similar to Rutgers
Missouri – somewhere between Rutgers and Indiana
Kentucky – somewhere between Indiana and Nebraska
South Carolina – Similar to Nebraska
Auburn – Similar to Nebraska
Tennessee – Similar to Nebraska
Now, granted, there are 5 schools in the SEC that are not up to B1G standards (although Alabama is a decent undergrad school, they just do all their research in Birmingham, not Tuscaloosa), but does that constitute a “mobile home park”? Maybe, I don’t know. I’d say more of a middle class suburb.
And then over in the Big 12:
Texas – similar to Ohio State
Iowa State – similar to Indiana
Kansas – similar to Nebraska
The other 7 are not B1G calibre (although Baylor and TCU are decent private Christian schools).
LikeLike
Andy,
“Brian, you had Kansas tied with Kentucky, ”
Yes, and I even explained why last time.
“and you had Kentucky at 3 and Missouri at 4,”
That’s the order you put them in. Don’t blame me that you think UK is a better school than MO.
” so yeah, you pretty much did have Kansas ahead of Missouri even though Missouri rated higher in all three metrics. But I believe you that you did it by mistake.”
If there was a mistake, it was yours.
LikeLike
When I ranked them I did so based on research dollars. But when you did the comparison, you seemed to be using different criteria, thus the weird results. If I had ranked based on the criteria you seem to be using (factoring in more of the factors that USNews etc use, not just research $) then Missouri would be ahead of Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas would have been compared, and Missouri would have rated higher.
LikeLike
Although actually by that measure Georgia probably ranks ahead of Missouri, so probably it would just be a matter of swapping Kentucky and Georgia in those rankings.
LikeLike
Doesn’t look like my previous posted, so I’ll repeat.
Noone in academia views USNWR as valid at all. But to use those numbers, the SEC average is 99, Big 12 113. SEC median 99, Big 12 104. There’s really no significant difference. Especially when you consider the ties. Missouri is right in front of Iowa St. in the rankings, but is ranked 97 while Iowa St. is 101.
As for validity, Alabama is rated #77, ahead of 4 Pac 12 universities that are rated in the top 82 in the world in ARWU (Colorado-USNWR 97, ARWU 33; Arizona, USNWR 120, ARWU 77; ASU USNWR 139, ARWU 79; Utah USNWR 125, ARWU 82). And its known that a number of schools have falsified data, most recently Emory. Clemson was caught previously.
LikeLike
And Andy, it really sounds like you are bragging about going from a conference with 7 AAU schools to a conference with 4. If A&M and Missouri had stayed, the Big 12 would have still had 5 of the 10 + Baylor while the SEC would be 2 out of 12. The academics of their conference mates were irrelevant to Missouri’s and A&M’s decisions. Missouri is in a far weaker academic conference by any measure than it was in 2010.
LikeLike
And Texas is even worse off.
Once Nebraska and Colorado left the Big 12 it was basically screwed academically. Then A&M left and the choice was easy for Missouri.
LikeLike
Andy, another way of looking at those ACT scores is that Missouri’s average is one point above the absolute bottom of the Big Ten. Your spin is always entertaining.
LikeLike
It’s also true that Missouri’s ACT average is 1 point below 7th place out of 14, thus my statement of Mizzou’s ACT average being within the normal range of B1G schools. But nice try with your spin.
LikeLike
@Prophet,
Hey, after I saw your post and went out and took a very unofficial/unscientific (totally biased) poll. The results? My family still wants nothing to do with the B1G. ;-)~
As one heavily involved with the University of Oklahoma (generations of alums/donors, et al.) I think I have maybe a little more sense of what Oklahoma Fans desire. Also, I happen to live in Norman. It will always be home. Of the plethora of folks I know connected to OU, not one has mentioned the B1G as a desired landing spot if the Big XII dissolves. It’s as simple as that. If you are offended by that, well, I’m sorry that burns your biscuits.
*BTW, I would make a stellar Pres. of the OU realignment club. I’ll get right on that.
LikeLike
Correction:
*”I went out . . . “
LikeLike
Well, my biscuits are only singed – no permanent harm done.
LikeLike
Pingback: Conference De-Alignment–Part II of II | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
I find this analysis silly. No one in the B1G is talking about kicking out Purdue. They are a founding member with a ton of history in both basketball and football. We have all heard football drives the bus and IU is not a football school. If you are talking about Purdue leaving the B1G you need to talk about Mitch Daniels and his comments about reforms in America’s collegiate system. Still, I doubt if Daniels want to have an impact that he would allow Purdue to leave the seat at the Big Boys Table.
Basically, acaffrey is missing a lot of points to analyze: School population, non-revenue sport successes, endowment, history with the conference, basic geography. I doubt this writer knows that Purdue enrolls around 40,000 on its West Lafayette campus, that is rather conveniently placed between Indianapolis and Chicago.
I would say Wake Forest should be a little worried, but I don’t think Washington State or Iowa State have to fear much. Lastly, I doubt any of the SEC schools are remotely concerned.
LikeLike
Nobody is getting tossed.
This line of thinking coming from the ACC is the single biggest sign of possible weakness in spite of a GOR. But it’s simple fan thinking. If they got down to six teams, some fans of the top five would be looking to get rid of that “dead weight” sixth school…
acaffery should be a B12 follower with this richer shouldn’t share theory. I take that back. B12 wouldn’t toss ISU. They might not be protected if the conference collapsed, but they won’t be tossed.
LikeLike
Yes. Assuming the Big12 hangs together, the worst that will happen to Iowa State is getting put into a division they’d rather not be in.
LikeLike
Purdue has nothing to worry about, the same fear happened years ago, when it came to Northwestern ( a far worse program in sports than Purdue). When Penn State wanted to join the B10, NW was being warned they will be replaced if vote them in. When NW was assured they still will have a place in the Conference with an affirmative vote, they voted yes, and they are still here to this day. Does it mean Purdue should accept being on the bottom of the Conference? Not at all, they need to step it up like NW has in football (particularly if Notre Dame leaves the future Purdue schedule), but being kicked out? Not happening
LikeLike
Nor should it happen. Every school brings something to make the B10 what it is. I think we’ll see PU bounce back in FB and MBB fairly soon.
The only time a school should get the boot is if they just cash the checks but refuse to try to compete.
LikeLike
Northwestern was never getting thrown out of the BigTen. The only way they would have left before 1995 would have been if university leadership wanted to.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten is kicking out Purdue. Having said that, acaffrey has raised some interesting points that are worthy of discussion:
1) There’s a limit to how large a conference can get, because at some point the members would hardly ever play each other.
2) Accordingly, some leagues might be tempted to kick out unproductive members, to open up slots for those that would bring in greater revenue.
Fundamentally, acaffrey is correct that some schools are probably taking down a lot more in TV revenues than they contribute to their respective leagues. I could see a scenario where a league decides to get ruthless about that.
No, I don’t think the Big Ten would be the first.
LikeLike
Noone is getting kicked out. What will happen is a group of schools will leave like the MWC and basketball Big East.
LikeLike
Kicking someone out to make room would have a more significant impact in a smaller conference. Larger numbers dilute the effect of individual changes, at the top and bottom.
LikeLike
What would be easier, and thus more likely to happen than kicking teams out, is that the Kings would leave their old conferences behind and form either a new conference. Steve Rushin proposed just such an idea in Sports Illustrated back in ’94 when he postulated a four team ‘conference, “The Big Nasty”, where the top four teams would play each other to figure out the top four slots. I could see Fox, Comcast, or those guys in Dubai making a “Godfather” offer when the contracts come up in the ’20s to teams with big enrollments and/or followings like Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas, Florida/Florida State, LSU, Alabama, Georgia, UNC, USC/UCLA, and Notre Dame to split off from the NCAA and create a literally made-for-TV conference.
That’s probably a more likely scenario than kicking out Wake Forrest and BC, Northwestern and Iowa, Baylor and Iowa State, Washington State and Oregon State, or what have you.
LikeLike
Beilein said one of the main topics at this years Big Ten spring Conference is basketball divisions. He’s all for it.
Also, BTN just hired Stephen Bardo to do basketball analysis on BTN (no doubt to appease FTT).
LikeLike
Divisions are a tough decision for other sports.
Hoops:
E – IN, MSU, OSU, MI, UMD, PSU, RU
W – WI, PU, IL, MN, IA, NE, NW
That’s completely skewed. All the extra DC and NYC access for one side is important, too. You won’t have different divisions for different sports, though.
A 20 game schedule I assume – home and home in division plus with 1 crossover team (IN/PU is locked, it rotates for everyone else), single games with the other 6.
Wrestling:
E – PSU, OSU, MI, IN, MSU, UMD, RU
W – IA, MN, IL, WI, PU, NE, NW
Those aren’t bad. Do 6 duals in division with 2 rotating duals with the other division (IN/PU locked). Maybe do parity-based scheduling since the B10 likes it so much. Have 1 dual truly rotate while the other pairs teams based on finish the year before (E1 vs W1, etc).
Others?
LikeLike
Divisions in basketball (or any sport) just means you play your ‘rivals’ more and the opposing division, less. I like the reduced travel for non-revenue sports but I don’t think it solves any issues with mens basketball which relies on chartered flights…
As a Michigan fan, I’ve always hated seeing the schedules that only had Sparty on the schedule once. In basketball, it would be nice to have designated rivals that you always play twice in a season. Purdue should always host Indiana and vice versa, Illini should always host NW, etc.
LikeLike
If they do divisions for basketball, I’m a very, very upset. We compete for a Big Ten title in the regular season, not a division title. The Touranment is already there. No reason for divisions.
LikeLike
I’ve heard there hasn’t been much push to do it for other sports. They still have to have the meetings and discuss the option, though. I’d prefer 5 home and homes (2 or 3 locked, the others rotate) and 8 single games for 18 total with no divisions.
LikeLike
Agree, lock a couple of home-and-home rivals in basketball and let the rest rotate more frequently without divisions.
LikeLike
That’s what the ACC is doing and has done since it expanded to 12. It’ll work fine.
LikeLike
I’m a bit surprised the Big Ten has not had locked-in home-and-home rivalries for men’s and women’s basketball; it’s been a staple of the ACC ever since it grew past nine members (11 in 2004-05, 12 through 2012-13, 15 beginning next season). With 14 members, how many guaranteed home-and-home rivals could each Big Ten team have for an 18-game conference schedule? Two? Three?
For Maryland, I would suppose two of its guaranteed rivals would be Penn State and Rutgers (not that thrilling for men’s hoops, but definitely good for women’s).
LikeLike
With 14 members, how many guaranteed home-and-home rivals could each Big Ten team have for an 18-game conference schedule? Two? Three?
Mathematically you could have up to five. The trouble is, most schools don’t have the same number of logical locked rivals. In football, before the Big Ten went to divisional play, each team had two locked rivals. Some of them made abundant sense, but others were just arbitrary pairings, such as Michigan State-Penn State.
I would suggest just one locked pairing per school, as follows: RU-MD; PSU-OSU; UM-MSU; IL-NW; PU-IN; MN-WI; NE-IA. All of those make some sense, either historically or geographically. That would leave four available flex games.
Going to two or more locked games would allow some logical rivalries to be played twice every year, such as Michigan-Ohio State. But it would also force them to create some contrived rivalries that have no real logic behind them.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
With 14 members, how many guaranteed home-and-home rivals could each Big Ten team have for an 18-game conference schedule? Two? Three?
Realistically, 2 or 3 with another 2 or 3 rotating. I’d guess they would lock 2, but that’s just a guess.
“Mathematically you could have up to five. The trouble is, most schools don’t have the same number of logical locked rivals. In football, before the Big Ten went to divisional play, each team had two locked rivals. Some of them made abundant sense, but others were just arbitrary pairings, such as Michigan State-Penn State.”
Any pairing with PSU was going to be arbitrary. The brand new member doesn’t generally have any built-in rivals.
These were the football pairings:
Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
The vast majority make perfect sense while preserving most rivalries.
“I would suggest just one locked pairing per school, as follows: RU-MD; PSU-OSU; UM-MSU; IL-NW; PU-IN; MN-WI; NE-IA. All of those make some sense, either historically or geographically. That would leave four available flex games.”
Typical. You always completely undervalue rivalries. And no, those don’t all make sense. OSU and PSU are in no way, shape or form hoops rivals. OSU’s hoop rivalries are with IN and MI (the order depends on who you ask). OSU takes hoops seriously. PSU doesn’t even try. You have to remember that hoops rivalries aren’t always the same as football rivalries.
Try this:
PSU – RU, UMD
RU – PSU, UMD
UMD – RU, PSU
OSU – MI, IN
MI – MSU, OSU
MSU – MI, WI
IN – PU, OSU
PU – IN, IL
IL – PU, NW
NW – IL, IA
WI – MSU, MN
MN – WI, NE
IA – NE, NW
NE – IA, MN
Or this:
PSU – RU, UMD, MI
RU – PSU, UMD, NW
UMD – RU, PSU, OSU
OSU – MI, IN, UMD
MI – MSU, OSU, PSU
MSU – MI, WI, IN
IN – PU, OSU, MSU
PU – IN, IL, WI
IL – PU, NW, NE
NW – IL, IA, RU
WI – MSU, MN, PU
MN – WI, NE, IA
IA – NE, NW, MN
NE – IA, MN, IL
“Going to two or more locked games would allow some logical rivalries to be played twice every year, such as Michigan-Ohio State. But it would also force them to create some contrived rivalries that have no real logic behind them.”
Stop beating that dead horse. Your “solution” is worse than the supposed problem. Basketball has 18 games (or more) in conference. An extra locked game here and there won’t hurt anybody.
LikeLike
Typical. You always completely undervalue rivalries.
I don’t know where you got that strange idea. Actually, it’s quite the opposite: I value them more. Because there are so many basketball rivalries in the Big Ten that makes sense, I don’t see any particular need to pick two (out of the many that could be picked), and lock those, bearing in mind that every locked rival means fewer opportunities to play the others.
Your proposal, for instance, is to lock Ohio State with Michigan and Indiana (if there are two locked rivalries), or add Maryland (if there are three). Does OSU have a substantial history with Maryland? Obviously, it has a connection with Indiana in the same sense that all the other long-term Big Ten members do, but not substantially more so. Sure, fans would love to see OSU-IU twice a year, but not any more than MSU-IU, UM-IU, or Wisconsin-IU, or really, IU with any other good team. They’d all be big games.
Most of your proposed locked rivals have no particular reason for existence, above others that would make pretty much the same amount of sense. Locking one avoids absurdities like Northwestern and Illinois not meeting twice. Even with one locked, as you correctly noted, you’ll have some contrived “rivalries,” like PSU-OSU. The more you lock, the more often that occurs.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t know where you got that strange idea.”
From having the exact same discussion about football scheduling a few months ago.
“Your proposal, for instance, is to lock Ohio State with Michigan and Indiana (if there are two locked rivalries), or add Maryland (if there are three). Does OSU have a substantial history with Maryland?”
No. UMD doesn’t have connections to anyone. So thinking like the B10, I chose that based on proximity and pairing two good hoops brands for a high value game. If the whole point is to get the big brands into NYC and DC more often to build those markets, it would follow that the same reasoning should apply in hoops, especially since UMD is a hoops school.
“Obviously, it has a connection with Indiana in the same sense that all the other long-term Big Ten members do, but not substantially more so.”
Yes, it does. A large portion of the OSU fan base would tell you IN is a bigger rival in hoops than MI is. We share a long border, we gave them Bobby Knight and we’ve spent a long time fighting them for titles. IN would probably put IL as a bigger hoops rival, and MSU is a bigger brand, but I made the list so I get to make the choices.
One unusual thing about the B10 is how balanced the success has been.
School – NC/B10 RS Title/B10 T Title
IN – 5 / 21 / 0
MSU – 2 / 13 / 3
OSU – 1 / 19 / 4
WI – 1 / 17 / 2
MI – 1 / 13 / 0
PU – 0 / 22 / 1
IL – 0 / 17 / 2
IA – 0 / 8 / 2
MN – 0 / 8 / 0
NW – 0 / 2 / 0
PSU – 0 / 0 / 0
NE – 0 / 0 / 0
“Sure, fans would love to see OSU-IU twice a year, but not any more than MSU-IU, UM-IU, or Wisconsin-IU, or really, IU with any other good team.”
Which fans? Since when does want fans what matter to the B10?
“Most of your proposed locked rivals have no particular reason for existence,”
Says the guy that struggles to lock 1 rivalry per team and even then gets them wrong.
“Locking one avoids absurdities like Northwestern and Illinois not meeting twice.”
I had them playing twice.
“Even with one locked, as you correctly noted, you’ll have some contrived “rivalries,” like PSU-OSU. The more you lock, the more often that occurs.”
Locking one is actually the worst choice. Two lets you form triangles so you can use geography where no rivalries exist (the east). And don’t tell me that isn’t a valid reason for pairing schools, because that was the driving force in selecting divisions – getting more game against neighbors. I locked up to 3 and still didn’t have the absurdity of OSU/PSU.
LikeLike
One unusual thing about the B10 is how balanced the success has been.
School – NC/B10 RS Title/B10 T Title
IN – 5 / 21 / 0
MSU – 2 / 13 / 3
OSU – 1 / 19 / 4
WI – 1 / 17 / 2
MI – 1 / 13 / 0
PU – 0 / 22 / 1
IL – 0 / 17 / 2
IA – 0 / 8 / 2
MN – 0 / 8 / 0
NW – 0 / 2 / 0
PSU – 0 / 0 / 0
NE – 0 / 0 / 0
Very impressive — seven of the pre-expansion 10 have more than ten titles (including shared titles), while two of the other three have eight. Since the ACC champion is determined by the postseason conference tourney, I don’t have the regular-season list, but both it and the tourney list would be dominated by the Triangle schools, followed by Wake, Maryland and Georgia Tech as multiple tourney winners. UVa (1976), FSU (2012) and Miami (2013) have one title apiece, while Virginia Tech, Boston College and charter member Clemson still are seeking their first.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Very impressive — seven of the pre-expansion 10 have more than ten titles (including shared titles), while two of the other three have eight.”
Yeah, out of 140 total title shares, nobody has 1/6 of them but 6 schools have at least 1/10 (#7 is at 9%). That’s pretty balanced at the top.
The clock is ticking on how fast UMD can climb the list. And all those poor UMD fans thought they were joining a FB conference. The B10 is more diverse in hoops than CFB.
FB titles:
MI – 42 (out of 163 total)
OSU – 35
MN -18
IL – 15
WI – 14
IA – 11
PU, NW – 8
MSU – 7
PSU – 3
IN – 2
NE – 0
The Big 2 combine for just under 50% of all the titles. 22 times they decided the title between themselves in The Game and 27 other times The Game affected which B10 team won the title.
“Since the ACC champion is determined by the postseason conference tourney, I don’t have the regular-season list, but both it and the tourney list would be dominated by the Triangle schools, followed by Wake, Maryland and Georgia Tech as multiple tourney winners. UVa (1976), FSU (2012) and Miami (2013) have one title apiece, while Virginia Tech, Boston College and charter member Clemson still are seeking their first.”
There technically is no regular season champ in the ACC. They have never acknowledged one. It’s always been the tourney champ and only the tourney champ.
Duke – 19 (out of 60 total)
UNC – 17
NCSU – 10
WF – 4
UMD, GT – 3
FSU, Miami, UVA, SC – 1
Clemson, VT, BC – 0
The triangle teams account for over 75% of the titles. 8 times Duke beat a triangle mate for the title, NCSU did it 4 times and UNC did it 10 times. That’s 22 times among the triangle, or over 1/3 of all titles.
LikeLike
Unofficial ACC Regular Season championships by team
UNC – 29
Duke – 19
NC State – 7
UMD & UVA – 5
WF – 4
G-Tech – 2
Clemson, USCe & Miami – 1
FSU, BC, V-Tech – 0
So of 67 total title shares, UNC and Duke account for 48 (71.6%).
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/acc/schools.html
LikeLike
Whoops, I meant 74 total shares. That means that Duke and UNC “only” account for 65%.
LikeLike
“I don’t know where you got that strange idea.”
From having the exact same discussion about football scheduling a few months ago.
You misunderstood me: I was proposing the opposite. My suggestion was to play the rivalries more, not less. (I realize that a others misunderstood it too, so the fault was mine for not being clear enough. If we ever get back to football scheduling, I’ll try to find a way to make it clearer, but that’s not the subject at the moment.)
A large portion of the OSU fan base would tell you IN is a bigger rival in hoops than MI is. We share a long border, we gave them Bobby Knight and we’ve spent a long time fighting them for titles.
But do you think Gene Smith could pull off that swindle? Getting IN twice every year, while the rest of the Big Ten (other than Purdue) gets the Hoosiers only on rotation? I don’t think he can.
One unusual thing about the B10 is how balanced the success has been.
Precisely why multiple locked rivalries don’t really make sense.
“Sure, fans would love to see OSU-IU twice a year, but not any more than MSU-IU, UM-IU, or Wisconsin-IU, or really, IU with any other good team.”
Which fans? Since when does want fans what matter to the B10?
It doesn’t, but I cannot imagine the ADs voting for it either. While Gene Smith would love to schedule IU twice every year, so would everyone else. Purdue could make a special pleading; I don’t think any other school could.
“Most of your proposed locked rivals have no particular reason for existence,”
Says the guy that struggles to lock 1 rivalry per team and even then gets them wrong.
If you only lock one, just try to come up with pairings better than mine: I don’t think you can. Your response was to lock two or three, which is an interesting discussion, with different pros and cons. But if you only lock one, I think I got them right.
I realize you didn’t like my suggestion of OSU-PSU, and I can see why. But any other single OSU pairing (such as Indiana, Michigan State, or Michigan) disrupts some other “necessary” matchup. If only one is locked, who else do you think OSU could realistically get? Indiana??
“Locking one avoids absurdities like Northwestern and Illinois not meeting twice.”
I had them playing twice.
What I mean, is that I can see the argument against the current system, which allows in-state rivals (like UM-MSU, IU-PU) to not meet twice in certain years. Locking one solves that. Once you get beyond one, I can’t see the ADs giving priority to pairings like IU-OSU that, however much those two schools might want it, is inequitable to everyone else.
They might just choose to maintain the status quo, which is to lock nobody.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You misunderstood me: I was proposing the opposite. My suggestion was to play the rivalries more, not less.”
No, you weren’t. You proposed locking the fewest games possible so that the remaining games could be spread over more teams to keep more match-ups frequent. I, and others, pointed out there were way too many rivalries that needed to be preserved annually to make your scheme realistic. You obsessed over 1 or 2 “forced” games being locked while we complained about multiple vital rivalries being lost. This is the exact same discussion, and your point makes even less sense to me since there are 18 games.
“But do you think Gene Smith could pull off that swindle?”
I don’t think he can dress himself, but that doesn’t change my point. And it certainly isn’t a swindle.
“Precisely why multiple locked rivalries don’t really make sense.”
Wrong. There are completely unrelated issues. You lock rivalries to preserve rivalries. Two winning teams playing each other isn’t a rivalry.
Which fans? Since when does want fans what matter to the B10?
“It doesn’t,”
Then why bring up fans?
“Purdue could make a special pleading; I don’t think any other school could.”
Frankly, your opinion doesn’t matter. You’ve shown you don’t have the same view of rivalries as many other people.
“If you only lock one, just try to come up with pairings better than mine: I don’t think you can.”
I’m smart enough to realize locking one is a bad idea. A quick examination of the B10 membership makes that clear. Why would I waste time trying to maximize a bad plan? Locking 2 or 3 both clearly work better.
“I realize you didn’t like my suggestion of OSU-PSU, and I can see why. But any other single OSU pairing (such as Indiana, Michigan State, or Michigan) disrupts some other “necessary” matchup. If only one is locked, who else do you think OSU could realistically get? Indiana??”
If the B10 was dumb enough to follow your plan, better pairings would be PSU/RU and OSU/UMD. Again, you get big names in the new markets and PSU and RU can both suck at hoops together. OSU and UMD are both decent hoops brands and it might drive that market demand. It’s not like RU and UMD have any link.
“Locking one avoids absurdities like Northwestern and Illinois not meeting twice.”
I had them playing twice.
“What I mean, is that I can see the argument against the current system, which allows in-state rivals (like UM-MSU, IU-PU) to not meet twice in certain years. Locking one solves that.”
And yet you state that like it’s an attack against the plans I made. Why would you suddenly argue against the current plan when nobody else is even talking about the current plan?
“Once you get beyond one, I can’t see the ADs giving priority to pairings like IU-OSU that, however much those two schools might want it, is inequitable to everyone else.”
They just made exactly that choice in football. Equity clearly isn’t their top priority.
“They might just choose to maintain the status quo, which is to lock nobody.”
Of course they might. It’s a given that the status quo is an option.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be “very, very upset,” but I simply don’t see the need. In football, you need to identify one champion to take the Rose Bowl bid. In basketball, all you’re deciding is seeding for a tournament.
LikeLike
I don’t see the need either. Unless they go to twenty.
LikeLike
The response in the recent interview that was up on Youtube seemed very much along the lines of “How should I answer that? I don’t know of any other sports that should be in divisions, but maybe there is one.” … not ruling it out, but not saying anything to indicate it was likely.
And in any event, BBall divisions are much neater in a 12 team conference aiming at 16 games … home and away in division, home or away cross division, so five conference dates in-division run, six conference dates cross-division, and five conference dates in-division, sixteen games, division champions seeded one and two, or guaranteed seeded in the top four. If you want to go to 18, make two pairs of cross division rivals (either fixed or flex or one of each).
With 14 teams, you’re starting to compromise the in-division home and away round robin, and you don’t have the coherent cross-division part of the conference season because cross-division games are spread throughout the season. All up, its not something you are likely to jump to with 14 if you were not already doing it with 12.
LikeLike
… division champions seeded one and two, or guaranteed seeded in the top four…
That doesn’t really work so well: inevitably, you’d have years with two superb teams in the East and a mediocre division champ in the West. That can happen in football too, but the limitations of football scheduling leave you with no other choice. In a sport where every school makes it to the conference tourney, you’re better off seeding based on overall standings.
The Big Ten’s geography is also severely problematic, as most of the traditional powers are in the east. Beyond that, let’s say you take the football divisions and swap the two Indiana schools, for competitive balance:
East: MD, RU, PSU, OSU, MSU, UM, PU
West: IN, NW, IL, MN, WI, IA, NE
That’s still rather unbalanced. Beyond that, the western schools would practically never get Michigan, Michigan State, or Ohio State twice in a season (unless they meet in the tourney); and the eastern powers would practically never get Indiana twice. I can’t imagine the Big Ten ADs wanting that.
LikeLike
I’m against BBall divisions for the Big Ten, so I’m not all that invested in how the Big Ten should organize the approach that I hope they don’t take … but I know that some conference with BBall divisions has announced division winners guaranteed a minimum of #4 seed.
LikeLike
If you’re talking about Beilein, here’s one of his quotes:
“I think it makes sense,” Beilein said Friday in Ann Arbor. “It depends on how big (the league gets eventually), but the rhyme or reason of who you play and when you play is difficult. If you knew you were playing everybody (in your division) twice, I think that’d be helpful.”
LikeLike
Delaney 4:06 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFZTqUrz3c
“We’ve had a little bit of conversation with our coaches. My suspicion is that we’ll maintain a non-divisional approach in basketball. Its quite different in basketball than in football. In football you must determine a Rose Bowl representative ~ you have lots of bowl slots to fill, but you’re really trying to determine who that Rose Bowl representative will be, and if it happens to be a team ranked one through four, you have to work out how to determine that best. In basketball, we have a post-season tournament, not, it, now it was was a very good year, but we had seven teams play … so the divisional structure just doesn’t seem to fit as well in most sports, but I think we’ll rule on a case by case, sport by sport basis and take a look at the formats, and there may be some divisions, but I don’t expect to see one in the men’s or women’s basketball.”
… which, as I said, struck me as more being careful not to rule it out for the non-revenue sports while saying its unlikely in BBall.
LikeLike
Several ADs have said the same basic thing. Seeing how divisions haven’t worked so well in other conferences (SEC dropped them), I highly doubt the B10 would do it. I really wish they would learn from other conferences and lock some opponents, though.
ACC – 2 locked (history and geography)
P12 – 1 locked (geography makes it obvious)
SEC – 1 locked (geography, brand and history)
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“And in any event, BBall divisions are much neater in a 12 team conference aiming at 16 games ”
Except the majors all play 18 games.
“With 14 teams, you’re starting to compromise the in-division home and away round robin,”
No. You just play 19 games – home and home in division (12) plus singles crossover (7).
” and you don’t have the coherent cross-division part of the conference season because cross-division games are spread throughout the season.”
They could schedule it however they want. I fail to see any advantage in separating the season in chunks for in division and chunks for crossover anyway. All games count the same.
LikeLike
“Except the majors all play 18 games.”
Yes, but promoting some cross division match-ups to home and away doesn’t change the basic structure, now does it? No, of course it doesn’t.
“No. You just play 19 games – home and home in division (12) plus singles crossover (7).”
Except as someone noted, the majors all play 18 games. And you can’t go from 19 to 18 by promoting cross-division match-ups to home and away.
“They could schedule it however they want. I fail to see any advantage in separating the season in chunks for in division and chunks for crossover anyway. All games count the same.”
The advantage in that is that it gives dramatic shape to the season. The media value of the season, after all, is not what happened after it was over but people getting involved in the season as it progresses. Your failing to see that is neither here not there to the benefit.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Except the majors all play 18 games.”
Yes, but promoting some cross division match-ups to home and away doesn’t change the basic structure, now does it? No, of course it doesn’t.
Yes, it does when you advocate the plan in part on how neatly it makes a 16 game schedule.
“No. You just play 19 games – home and home in division (12) plus singles crossover (7).”
Except as someone noted, the majors all play 18 games. And you can’t go from 19 to 18 by promoting cross-division match-ups to home and away.
You don’t need to play 18, they just all wanted more than 16 but 20 has been seen as too many to fit into the schedule. Simple math says 19 is an easy fit for 14 teams in two divisions.
The advantage in that is that it gives dramatic shape to the season.
Oh, OK. Dramatic shape. Got it. Yeah, that’s vital. Nobody would watch any games and track the standings if crossover games were mixed in with division games. It’s the same weak argument that claims The Game shouldn’t be popular because it’s a crossover game in the final week.
The media value of the season, after all, is not what happened after it was over but people getting involved in the season as it progresses.
And since the overall standings are all that matter, why would people fail to get involved? Games are games, and divisions would mean rivals play more often. That’s what everyone claimed for football. Those are the more valuable games.
Besides, a scheduler could largely try to mimic your sill dramatic shape concept. 6 of 7 games could be divisional for 3 weeks (6 games), then 6 of 7 be crossovers, then 6 of 7 be divisional again.
LikeLike
“Oh, OK. Dramatic shape. Got it. Yeah, that’s vital. Nobody would watch any games and track the standings if crossover games were mixed in with division games.”
Are you in a competition over who can set up the most extreme straw man argument? Given that this is after I’ve argued that the Big Ten shouldn’t HAVE divisions, its absurd to suggest that I argued that nobody would watch the games without that as part of the mix.
As far as the premise that everybody in a variety of media sports who schedules those kinds of cross-over games in phases doesn’t have a clue what they are doing and aren’t getting any additional media value from doing so on the strength of the deep analysis that you “don’t see it” ~ fine. We can agree that you don’t see it. We’ll disagree on the premise that everyone who does it that way is making a mistake.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Are you in a competition over who can set up the most extreme straw man argument?”
You’re the one that threw it out there.
“As far as the premise that everybody in a variety of media sports who schedules those kinds of cross-over games in phases doesn’t have a clue what they are doing and aren’t getting any additional media value from doing so on the strength of the deep analysis that you “don’t see it” ~ fine. We can agree that you don’t see it. We’ll disagree on the premise that everyone who does it that way is making a mistake.”
Not everyone does it. The NFL doesn’t, for example, and they are the kings of selling out for money. I also chose the NFL since 16 games is similar to the 18 of MBB.
Cleveland’s 2013-4 schedule:
AFC
AFC – N
NFC
AFC – N
AFC
NFC
NFC
AFC
AFC – N
bye
AFC – N
AFC – N
AFC
AFC
NFC
AFC
AFC – N
Where is the dramatic shape? Are you claiming the NFL schedulers have less of a clue than others?
LikeLike
“everybody … WHO schedules …”
“Not everyone does it.”
Proving that everyone who does it is wrong by pointing out that not everyone does it? I’m pretty sure that’s one of those types of arguments that have earned one of those latin names.
Fine, if you think that is a coherent argument, we’re not going to get anywhere by discussing it.
LikeLike
The fact that a league like the NFL doesn’t do it supports my argument that it doesn’t clearly have value. It’s not just me saying there isn’t value in it, it’s the smartest and richest league in the US. They have experts paid just to make an optimum schedule for making money, and they don’t buy your dramatic shape hypothesis.
LikeLike
Richard,
You’re the resident bowl guru. Do you agree with this guy’s assessment of what the new deals will be for the B10?
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/5/10/4317914/2013-bowl-draft
1. CFP/Rose/substitute
1a. Orange vs ACC #1
2. Cap 1 vs SEC #2
3. Outback vs SEC #3
4. BWW vs B12 #3
5. Holiday vs P12 #3 (B10 splits spot with B12 – no replacement when B10 isn’t here)
6. Pinstripe vs ACC #5
7. Heart of Dallas vs B12 #7
8. Independence vs ACC #8
9. Pizza vs MAC #1
LikeLike
This is as good a prediction as any.
The #7 bowl will actually have anywhere from the seventh to the ninth pick, depending on how many Big Ten teams go to the playoff bowls/Orange Bowl. In 14-team Big Ten, that team should be 8-4 at best, 6-6 at worst. It’s worth asking: would it be better for such a team to go to the Heart of Dallas Bowl, or to somewhere more within driving proximity, such as the Military or Liberty Bowl? Even for well-traveling Big Ten fans, there does come a point where they’re not willing to travel huge distances for mediocre teams.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“This is as good a prediction as any.”
I have 2 main issues with it, not having done any research on the subject. First, I don’t see the B10 sharing the Holiday Bowl but having no other bowl to take that team the other years. That essentially slides all the other bowls up a notch half the time. Second, I don’t see the Independence as a choice. It’s a bad bowl in a bad location and neither conference is local.
“The #7 bowl will actually have anywhere from the seventh to the ninth pick, depending on how many Big Ten teams go to the playoff bowls/Orange Bowl. In 14-team Big Ten, that team should be 8-4 at best, 6-6 at worst. It’s worth asking: would it be better for such a team to go to the Heart of Dallas Bowl, or to somewhere more within driving proximity, such as the Military or Liberty Bowl?”
I proposed the Military Bowl, but he contends they’ll stick with the ACC. I was thinking the home team plus RU nearby, and both should be available at #8 fairly often, would be attractive. Also a rare chance at PSU, especially as they come off their penalties. Maybe a split?
LikeLike
I do have a small quibble with his predictions, particularly for non-Big Ten bowl games.
For the Alamo Bowl, I think the Pac-12 will have trouble staving off the SEC, which lost both its Cotton Bowl tie-in and its Chick-fil-a tie-in to the CFP. His argument is that the SEC will have to dig down to the Belk Bowl to get a replacement.
But overall, it’s a decent prediction.
My favorite part is at the bottom where the graphic listing the bowl matchups for the New Orleans, godaddy.com, and a couple other bowl games is a gray-shaded block saying, “NOBODY CARES.” It’s funny because it’s true.
LikeLike
Michael – I’m hearing that the SEC picks up the bowls in Houston and Charlotte to replace DFW and Atlanta.
LikeLike
Yeah, that what this guy predicted. I think the SEC might add the Independence, too.
LikeLike
This would be my personal preference for the bowl lineup based on some reality:
1. Rose vs P12 #1
1a. Peach/Cotton/Fiesta vs ??? (P12 matchup not promised outside of Rose, unfortunately)
1b. Orange vs ACC #1
2. Cap 1 vs SEC
3. Outback vs SEC
4. Holiday vs P12
5. BWW vs B12
6. MCC vs B12
7. Pinstripe vs ACC
8. Military vs ACC
9. Pizza vs MAC
I know we probably won’t keep the MCC, so I guess I’ll have to settle for the Heart of Dallas. We probably won’t get the Military either. The Music City would be a decent replacement.
LikeLike
What I’ve heard based on reliable sources:
*B10 will keep the Citrus Bowl (cap one) vs the SEC, however if the B10 ‘earns’ an Orange Bowl invite, it’ll lose the Citrus Bowl to the ACC. Same will be true for the SEC with the Citrus Bowl; so we’ll be sure to see a lot of the ACC in the Citrus or better yet, B10 teams in the Orange Bowl…
*B10 will land the Holiday Bowl vs the Pac 12…
*B10 will certainly drop the Gator Bowl but is likely to keep the Outback vs the SEC…
Pecking order of these bowls are largely based upon negotiations between the bowl committees and how much they payout to the conferences, e.g. if Pinstripe Bowl wants to pay big money they could get a much higher spot, there will be some changes but the above looks quite close to what’s expected…
Message board rumors have the B10 likely losing one of the Texas Bowls vs the Big 12, Heart of Dallas and Texas Bowl. Not sure if the B10 prefers Houston or Dallas. it likely depends as much on negotiations as much as B10 preferences…
LikeLike
Houston has the better stadium and better weather. It’s not even close.
LikeLike
Thanks Brian.
I agree that there is no way that Delany sends the B10 to the Independence. A bowl that needs to be flown to has to be a big city with plenty of flights.
Also that if the B12 gets slots in both the Alamo and Arizona bowl (beating out Pac #3 for that slot, which they might not do), there’s no way Big10 #5 shares the Holiday with B12 #4 (which now is down to only 2 schools that the Holiday would really want, both of whom are likely to be gone before the Holiday picks). I think the BE/AAC could hold on to the Russell as their premier bowl (or maybe the Liberty takes that).
After the first 6 are determined, I’d like the B10 to hang on to Houston. The SEC almost certainly will be there, but Big10 #6/7 may well beat out B12 #4/5 for several reasons:
1. The SEC would already be providing a hometown team (the Houston bowl would actually be the first SEC bowl tie-in in the pecking order in the SEC west!)
2. 6-7/14 is akin to 4-5/10 & the B10 brings a TV viewer base that is several times larger than the B12’s.
3. Houston is one of the few bowls that doesn’t rely much on traveling support to fill up the seats. They get a lot of local support (Texans just like to watch football).
Unlike the author, I think that the B10 will land the Military bowl for spot #8 or will possible rotate with the AAC (Liberty or Military for #8)
#9 gets Pizza! Pizza!
Oh, and I think the B12 replaces the ACC in the Sun, especially if the ACC #2 is heading to the Cap One or Outback most years (due to the SEC or B10 #2 heading to the Orange). I do think that it would be the Outback who would be keen to replace SEC #4 or B10 #4 with ACC #2, while the Cap One likely would want to see the B10-SEC matchup, as even B10 #3 or SEC #3 is better than ACC #2, though who knows; maybe adding ND to the lineup tips the scales.
Assuming that what WMWolverine heard is right,
For the B10,
2 bowls in FL
3 bowls out west
1.5 bowl in the south central US (Texas & Memphis)
1.5 bowls on the East Coast
1 bowl in the Midwest
4 bowls are within driving distance of at least some B10 fan bases. 5 of the others are within driving distance of a ton of B10 alums/retirees in FL and AZ.
Virtually every bowl is in a fertile recruiting region (arguably only the AZ and Detroit bowls aren’t, and they’re still better than, say, El Paso).
LikeLike
Wow! Just read Frank’s tweet. ACC after Orange gets relegated to the Russell(!) (Guess ND wasn’t much help.)
Gator stays B10? Or B10 shares Gator with B12? The other shared bowl being the Holiday (or Houston)? In either case, Houston stands a good chance of being a B10 bowl (at least part of the time). DC and/or Memphis seems likely as well now.
LikeLike
Gator/Music City? Etch….
LikeLike
For the love of God can we please drop the Gator? Jacksonville sucks. The stadium sucks. The bowl sucks. We already have 2 other FL bowls.
LikeLike
Brain – the Independence Bowl is currently in the SEC lineup.
LikeLike
Oh, OK. That guy had it marked as ACC vs MWC. ACC vs SEC makes more sense. CUSA/AAC are the only other reasonable options there to me.
LikeLike
Johns Hopkins report coming soon: “Pietramala Confirms Conference Recommendation Coming Soon”
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/09/pietramala-confirms-conference-recommendation-coming-soon
“JHU President Ronald Daniels formed a seven-member Blue Ribbon Committee that includes Jerry Schnydman (’67), David Cordish (’60) and Chris Watson (’05) to analyze the impact of Johns Hopkins joining a conference in men’s lacrosse. That committee is due to make its recommendation to Daniels on May 15, according to this story on the Hopkins website. From there, the decision will be made whether to explore conference affiliation.”
LikeLike
BTW, of the three “Big Ten and soon-to-be Big Ten” seeds in the NCAA tournament, only one won its game ~ Cornell @ (6) Maryland, 16-8; Yale @ (8) Penn State 10-7; (3) Buckeyes v Towson 16-6.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/cutting_the_chord_as_sports_br.html
Bundling, cutting the cable cord, subscription fees, SECN, netflix, a la carte anti-trust. . . must read for FTT followers.
LikeLike
Alan,
Nice article. I look forward to the day when conferences just bring their games straight to the customer. I’d much rather pay the B10 than ESPN.
LikeLike
I don’t know if anyone here cares about softball, but they just announced the brackets. A record setting 11 SEC teams made the tournament. 7 of the top 16 seeds are SEC.
2. Florida
6. Missouri
7. Tennessee
9. LSU
10. Alabama
12. Kentucky
16. Texas A&M
Next best was the Pac 12 with 3 seeded teams:
3. Oregon
5. Arizona State
11. Washington
LikeLike
Plus, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi St, and South Carolina were regional qualifiers. 11 of the 16 SEC teams made the tournament. That’s pretty impressive.
The PAC 12 has 8 out of 12, with Arizona, California, Stanford, Oregon St., and UCLA as regional qualifiers – in addition to the 3 above.
Big 10 has 4, ACC has 4, and Big 12 has 3.
LikeLike
11 out of 14
LikeLike
Derp. Most have been a Freudian slip – my secret desire is for the SEC to add UNC and Virginia Tech….
LikeLike
11 out of 13
Pretty sure Vanderbilt does not have a softball team but Alan or Bamatab can confirm. When Nebraska was beating Vanderbilt for the NCAA bowling title seems somebody mentioned they did not have several of the women’s sports the rest of the SEC did and I think gymnastics, softball, and volleyball were mentioned.
LikeLike
Also, B1G has 2 of the 16 seeds in #8 Michigan and #14 Nebraska
B1G schools in tournament
Michigan
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Did not see future members Maryland or Rutgers in the 64
LikeLike
duff- you are correct. Vandy doesn’t field a softball team.
LikeLike
If the AAC experiment is successful, wouldn’t expansion into the West be back on the table? It will likely take a couple of seasons to determine whether it’s a success or not, but AAC expansion with Boise St., BYU, UNLV, San Diego State, and Air Force or Colorado State could make a major splash in realignment.
LikeLike
It already failed. Boise will almost certainly make more in their MWC deal.
LikeLike
The MWC was on the verge about 3 years ago. It had TCU, Utah, and BYU all knocking on the door. But for the massive realignment shift, the former MWC could have added Boise State and Houston, and it likely would have received an automatic invite (under the old BCS system) and risen to a higher tier in prestige and money.
The MWC now has too many bottom-feeders (which was the former MWC biggest problem – now it’s exaggerated) and its markets are too small, so it will never be able to go anywhere as a conference. The AAC, although unlikely, has some major markets that COULD lead to a big TV payday, in 5-10 years – if 3 or 4 AAC teams perform well and perhaps add a couple of other strong teams from the MWC.
Is there still a chance for another major conference to rise from the best of the Group of Five? Or have the Power Conferences all but ensured that the rise of a new power conference is impossible?
LikeLike
Never say never, but at the very least not in the next ten years.
LikeLike
MWC wasn’t actually close. I know people SAY they were, but it wasn’t actually close. The MWC lobbying arm was aggressive about selling that story, but an AQ was always unlikely. As far as higher tier of prestige/money, TV deals reflect fundamentals of the programs far more than they do bowl status. The MWC’s crappy TV deal was a reflection of the fundamental value of its programs (i.e. low).
As far as whether another major conference could “rise”, it’s nearly impossible to see it happening. One of the five losing “major” status and/or imploding is a materially likelier scenario.
LikeLike
You need a combination of the AACK!! experiment succeeding and the MWC failing, because the Western Experiment required a substantial gap between the two in order to overcome the greater geographic sanity of the MWC. The AAC could be doing better than the MWC in terms of grabbing the G5 top bowls spot AND in terms of getting more NCAA bids on average over the coming five to ten years, and STILL not generate a sufficiently wide gap to make the Western Experiment approach appealing to the schools being courted.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22230116/buckeye-assistants-get-raises-three-go-over-500000-per-year
An article that highlights the pay gap between the SEC and the B10 for assistant coaches. The B10 has been the last to accept paying AC’s more, and is still way behind the curve. That’s one thing Bielema was right about. Watch for the quality of B10 football start to improve as the AC pay goes up.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to see that these pay raises were a reaction to what Michigan Defensive Coordinator Greg Mattison is being paid per the article.
What’s curious is that UM OC Al Borges isn’t mentioned because his contract from January 2012 had him getting paid $650,000 per year with increases over the next two years of $50,000 annually. He also receives incentives for bowl game appearances ($10,000), Big Ten title game appearances ($39,000) and Big Ten titles ($65,000). See http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/16/al-borges-gets-a-pay-raise-from-michigan/
Now we’ll see if the other Big Ten programs are going to do something akin to this.
LikeLike
Based on history, the others will be slow to match. Maybe PSU and NE will fairly soon, but not the others. Oddly, Alvarez seems to be tight with the purse strings when paying coaches. maybe the new TV deal will free everyone up to pay more?
LikeLike
Borges should be paying them. Mattison is worth every penny.
On an unrelated note.
-Go Michigan women’s softball!
Which in turn is unrelated to
-Go Redwings!
LikeLike
I disagree with your assessment on Borges. Michigan’s still working through a lack of experienced talent on both sides of the football, although these past years’ recruiting efforts are going to start paying off in the near term.
I’ll hold off on commenting on Borges until he gets enough players to run his preferred offense. I thought he did an okay job with Denard Robinson at QB (no real drop off in ppg when compared to Rodriguez’s years, although you have to factor in schedule and look at the outliers). I was thoroughly impressed with how quickly he was able to get Gardner in synch after the Nebraska game.
With the Drake Harris commitment for the upcoming class along with Derrick Green and Shane Morris from last season, it’s apparent that Michigan can start getting the top end talent at the skill positions that they might not have been able to with DRob at QB. UM should have more of a vertical passing attack, play action, extensive use of tight ends, etc. In sum, all the things they weren’t able to do with Robinson at the helm.
I’ll add to your Go Michigan Softball! shout out. Stanford is going to win the Director’s Cup, but how the women’s softball team does (along with rowing, tennis) are going to be the final teams to add any points to keep UM in the top end of the standings.
LikeLike
I agree we haven’t seen a fully equipped Borges offense yet; however, that does not excuse some of his calls last year. The OSU game in particular sticks out as a game where there were very obvious poor calls that may have cost UM the game, but there were other games as well.
LikeLike
I’ve never really seen an offensive coordinator call a “perfect game”, but given some of the past OC’s at Michigan (I’m looking at you, Mike DeBord), Borges is a nice upgrade.
We’ll see what happens. During his five year tenure at UCLA, his teams average nearly 32 ppg and he had a couple season where they were over 40 ppg. He was also OC for that 13-0 Auburn team in 2004 that had some ridiculous talent on offense. Borges 2010 San Diego State team had a 35 ppg average, which is pretty good relative to the competition.
Last season, UM scored 29.8 ppg against a pretty stacked schedule. Against an easier schedule in 2011, the team scored 33.3 ppg. With Gardner at quarterback this season against what is a fairly favorable schedule, this could be a pretty good offense (provided the interior of the offensive line jells quickly).
LikeLike
Borges single handedly lost the Ohio State game for Michigan last year.
He’s obviously from the ‘This is my game plan and I’m sticking to it’ school,
which is a dream come true for any creative defensive coordinator in the 21st century.
The Alabama (D) players said that by the second half of the ‘Cowboys Classic’, they knew
every play Michigan was going to run. Let’s hope he’s a little more creative this year.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“Borges single handedly lost the Ohio State game for Michigan last year.”
Some people might think OSU had a little something to do with it.
“He’s obviously from the ‘This is my game plan and I’m sticking to it’ school,
which is a dream come true for any creative defensive coordinator in the 21st century.
The Alabama (D) players said that by the second half of the ‘Cowboys Classic’, they knew
every play Michigan was going to run. Let’s hope he’s a little more creative this year.”
Players say stuff like that after every win. Good film study should lead to relatively few surprises. That doesn’t always mean you can stop it. Good teams often dare you to stop what they do best, then make changes only if you do.
LikeLike
B10 AD’s too old-fashioned. Assistant coaches have been where the value is (biggest bang for the buck) for years now.
LikeLike
Frank:
I think that the B10 keeping the Arizona bowl is an almost certainty. The key question is whether a B12 that now is down to 2 top brands and has a population footprint that is a fraction of the other major conferences will be able to fend off an expanded Pac12 that has added 2 nearby mountain state schools.
See above for my other ruminations on the B10 bowl lineup.
For the B10, the key question is whether they can beat out the B12 for a spot opposite the SEC in the Houston bowl (or have to settle for one of the DFW bowls in a non-pro stadium).
B10 with 10 bowl tie-ins?
LikeLike
I’d guess 9, but maybe 10 if it’s shared.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76698/b1g-spring-meetings-day-1-notes
“The Big Ten’s bowl lineup will be changing beginning in 2014, and colleague Brett McMurphy has some more details here. McMurphy reports that the Big Ten and ACC will share tie-ins with the Gator Bowl and Music City Bowl during a six-year agreement, so three Big Ten teams would go to Jacksonville and three to Nashville in the span. They’ll face SEC opponents in both games. The Big Ten had a tie-in with the Music City Bowl from 2002-2005. As ESPN.com reported earlier, an ACC team could replace a Big Ten team in the Capital One Bowl when a Big Ten team makes the Orange Bowl. Other bowls the Big Ten could add to the lineup include Pinstripe (against ACC) and Holiday (against Pac-12). Don’t expect the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas to be part of the next Big Ten bowl lineup.”
Boo. The Gator Bowl sucks. Why can’t we get out of that bowl? I’d rather have the Music City full time and let the ACC plays in Jacksonville.
So we lose our Cap 1 slot if we get the Orange, but the SEC doesn’t? That may be good for our bowl record, but I like the Cap 1. I guess that’s their way of replacing the Peach Bowl, with 3 ACC/SEC games over 8 years.
I’ve resigned myself to the Holiday being added, but I still don’t think it’s a great idea. It’s too long of a trip for a mediocre team IMO. But if Houston is off the table, I’d prefer SD to the alternatives.
Looks like we’re stuck with the Heart of Dallas Bowl in another decaying stadium.
If we get a 2/2/2/2/1 split (ACC/B12/P12/SEC/MAC), I’d be mostly satisfied.
LikeLike
Well, WMWolverine’s rumor said if either the SEC or B10 puts a team in the Orange, their CapOne slot will be taken by the ACC. ESPN only mentions the B10, though. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
So given the above information, it looks like
#1 Rose
#2 Orange/CapOne
#3 Outback
#4 Arizona
#5/#7 Gator/Music City
#5/#6 Holiday
#6/#7 NYC
#8 Dallas(?)
#9 & (maybe) #10 Detroit + (maybe) DC
Memphis would be nice (even part of the time; maybe sharing Dallas or DC or Detroit with the AAC)? Not sure that will happen, though.
If the Russell jumped over the Gator/Music City in the ACC pecking order, did they just up their payout dramatically?
BTW, as for the plethora of FL bowls, note that we _did_ just add 2 East Coast schools . .
LikeLike
Richard,
“Well, WMWolverine’s rumor said if either the SEC or B10 puts a team in the Orange, their CapOne slot will be taken by the ACC. ESPN only mentions the B10, though. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.”
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it.
“So given the above information, it looks like
#1 Rose
#2 Orange/CapOne
#3 Outback
#4 Arizona
#5/#7 Gator/Music City
#5/#6 Holiday
#6/#7 NYC
#8 Dallas(?)
#9 & (maybe) #10 Detroit + (maybe) DC”
1. P12
2. ACC/SEC
3. SEC
4. B12
5/7. SEC
5/6. P12
6/7. ACC
8. B12
9. MAC
10. ACC?
ACC – 1.4-2.4?
B12 – 2
P12 – 2
SEC – 2.6
MAC – 1
“Memphis would be nice (even part of the time; maybe sharing Dallas or DC or Detroit with the AAC)? Not sure that will happen, though.”
Agreed.
“If the Russell jumped over the Gator/Music City in the ACC pecking order, did they just up their payout dramatically?”
You’d think so.
“BTW, as for the plethora of FL bowls, note that we _did_ just add 2 East Coast schools . .”
And a tie to the Orange Bowl. And before that last post, I was expecting that to lead to more games in FL, not be FL neutral. My issue isn’t with 3 FL games, it’s with the Gator Bowl. We already have games in Orlando and Tampa, but I’d take another one (Russell Athletic or Beef O’Brady) over the Gator. At least the Orange adds Miami into the mix. Besides, how often will RU or UMD make one of the FL bowls?
LikeLike
Right, Jacksonville isn’t exactly on my bucketlist. However, the B10 tried the CapOne+Russell scheme once and it wasn’t that great as a few B10 teams ended up visiting Orlando virtually every year (MSU was in Orlando 2 years in a row; Wisconsin was in Orlando 4 out of 5 straight years). Doubtlessly, that was great for recruiting, but not so much for getting fans to travel.
Still, I would have preferred Russell+MusicCity instead of Gator+MusicCity (actually, I would have even more preferred Russell+Houston), but what can you do.
The St. Pete bowl has the same problem of being in the same metro area as the Outback and their payout is crap.
LikeLike
I. Actually forecast the Arizona game to be vs. The Pac, now that the B12 doesn’t have a tie-in with the Fiesta.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I. Actually forecast the Arizona game to be vs. The Pac, now that the B12 doesn’t have a tie-in with the Fiesta.”
I actually had a question mark by that at first. I just don’t see us going to 3 P12 games from 1, or dropping to just 1 B12 game from 3. If we do add the Holiday Bowl, then I expect BWW to stay B12. Your guess is at least as good as mine.
LikeLike
My gut feeling is that Delany doesn’t take opponent in to consideration nearly as much as location and payout.
After losing Nebraska, TAMU, & Colorado and gaining TCU and a school far out east, the B12 is far less attractive to an AZ bowl. Especially if they send a top 3 pick to the Russell.
LikeLike
@Richard – I think you’re right about that. The reason why the Big Ten ends up playing the SEC so much is that’s exactly the pairing that brings out the largest payouts. It’s also why I’ve thought that Delany was a little bit disingenuous in his semi-complaint about playing so many Florida bowl games – at the end of the day, those bowls paid the most compared to what others would have paid for the same Big Ten tie-ins, so that’s who he went with. So, it’s not a surprise that the Big Ten is still keeping the Gator in the rotation simply based on the financials.
I’m still a bit skeptical that the ACC will end up replacing the Big Ten in the Capital One Bowl when the Big Ten is playing in the Orange Bowl, especially if the same swap doesn’t apply to the SEC. Delany is usually spot-on business-wise, but giving up any access to that particular bowl (which despite its poor physical stadium facilities is still the clear top non-College Football Playoff bowl in terms of sponsorship, exposure, payout and desirability as a winter vacation destination) would be a mistake. That story never really passed the smell test with me and it would make even less sense now that ACC #2 is locked in for the Russell Athletic Bowl in the exact same location.
LikeLike
Frank:
We’ll have to see.
It could be what the CapOne insisted on, however (as, otherwise, it would be a move down from B10 #2 to B10 #2/3). Plus, the Cap One is a notch above all the other major bowls in payout, so they are in a strong bargaining position. The question is if the ACC gets to keep their spot in the Russell if ACC #2 moves up to the CapOne. Maybe B10 #3/4/5 slides in to that spot?
LikeLike
Richard,
“My gut feeling is that Delany doesn’t take opponent in to consideration nearly as much as location and payout.”
That’s an accurate description of his history. I wonder if the past few years might have swayed him, though. Is the reputation hit the B10 took worth the extra money? What about the stupidity of 3 games at the same time on 1/1? Certainly that has to change as the CFP will own 12/31 and 1/1. Will even the Cap 1 want to compete with them? Normally I’d say to just offset the start times, but that would run into the Rose unless the Cap 1 starts at noon while the Orange (or substitute) starts at 1:00. Some of these bowl will have to move back into December. We really haven’t heard any talk about that, though.
“After losing Nebraska, TAMU, & Colorado and gaining TCU and a school far out east, the B12 is far less attractive to an AZ bowl. Especially if they send a top 3 pick to the Russell.”
Which league travels better? That will be the concern for Phoenix. AZ and ASU wouldn’t travel until game day probably. SoCal fans wouldn’t need to escape the weather. There are more cold weather B12 teams whose fans might fill up hotel rooms. Anyway, I’m just guessing.
LikeLike
Not the best possible bowl lineup, but clearly better than any conference’s other than the SEC’s.
The ACC, B12, and Pac can’t compare.
Of the bowls that payout enough to cover travel expenses and still leave money left over (by tier):
Rose: B10 #1 v Pac #1
Sugar: SEC #1 v B12 #1
|
|
|
|
|
Orange: ACC #1 v SEC #2 / B10 #2 / ND
|
|
|
|
|
CapOne: SEC #2/3 v B10 #2 / ACC #2
|
Outback Bowl: B10 #3 v SEC #3/4
Russell(?)*: ACC #2/3 v B12 #2/3
Alamo: B12 #2/3 v Pac #2/3
Arizona*: B10 #4 v Pac #2/3
Gator: SEC #4/5 v B10 #5 / ACC #2/3
(* I’m projecting that the Pac pips the B12 for the Arizona bowl and also that the Russell jumps its payout as there are reports that the Russell gets the best ACC team that isn’t taken by the Orange or Cap One)
Of the top 9 bowls with tie-ins, the B12 and Pac have 3 slots, the ACC usually has 3 but sometimes only 2 slots, and the B10 and SEC have 4/5 slots.
Granted, perhaps the Charlotte and Houston bowls jump their payouts as well, in which case the SEC would have more slots, but the B10 would still be in second place. If the Pinstripe, Music City, and/or Holiday also jump their payouts, the B10 would still be first or second.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Not the best possible bowl lineup, but clearly better than any conference’s other than the SEC’s.”
As usual.
I wish they had softened it a little bit more, but two factors will helps there:
1. The CFP will take 2 SEC teams more often than not.
2. The Orange/Cap 1 split will help prevent an uphill match against the SEC.
3. More diversity of opponents should make it easier. The ACC and P12 haven’t been as deep as the B12 or as strong at the top as the SEC.
Getting more diversity of opponents is great for fans. Until we see the match-ups we won’t know for sure if they make the slate easier or not.
Current:
1. P12 #1 – same
2. SEC #2 – add in ACC #1 3/8 of the time (easier)
3. SEC #3/4 – same
4/5. SEC #6 – goes to P12 #3? (about the same)
4/5. B12 #4 – same
6. B12 #6 – same
7. B12 #8 – goes to SEC #?
8. MAC #1/2 – moves down to #9
Adding NYC just makes sense (so would DC if it happens). Nashville will be a nice change. We had it for 4 years before (2002-5), but MN went 3 times and WI once so most fans will be new to it.
Overall, it should be a little easier and a lot more interesting. Maybe some of the games won’t be on 1/1 at noon for a change.
LikeLike
I like the Heart of Dallas Bowl. Granted I’ve never traveled to any bowl game, but I like the idea of playing in the Cotton Bowl on (or maybe around in the future) New Years Day. Something historic about that.
LikeLike
Well that’s the thing. It should be about the fans going to the games. Houston is 7-8 degrees warmer than Dallas on 1/1 on average, plus Houston has a roof in case of bad weather. Reliant is a new stadium, with all the amenities while the Cotton Bowl is old but recently remodeled. Whether Dallas or Houston is a better destination city I leave up to the individual.
LikeLike
It sounds like some progress has been made between DePaul and McPier development regarding the new arena proposal. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130513/BLOGS02/130519946/
It’s not going to be easy but if they can get this arena built it will be good for the Blue Demons. The sooner they can get out of Rosemont the better.
LikeLike
Reincarnating Ray Meyer would be even better for them.
LikeLike
I read the article and quite naturally a big issue is the impact on The United Center, it should not be the priority number one. The main concerns should be. 1:Will it help DePaul compete in the Big East (similar to what a Wrigley upgrade should do, which is help the Cubs bury the goat once and for all). 2: What will the impact be on the City and being competitive going forward. The reality is this is Chicago we are talking about, so there should be enough room for both venues ( a new DePaul facility and The United Center) to be profitable ( both for sports and for events such as concerts). Here in New York, the Barclays Center is doing very well, as is Madison Square Garden. In fact, once the New York Islanders leave Long Island for Barclays (Brooklyn), there may be a smaller venue built on that site (multiple bidders came in with plans). In addition to that, work is underway in Brooklyn to renovate the Loews Kings Theatre which after it is finished in 2015, will create the second biggest concert facility in the Borough (after Barclays). There is also a deal in place to add the biggest skating facility in the World in The Bronx (a place where the Islanders will practice), and a renovation of the National Tennis Center in Queens. We will also be adding a golf facility in The Bronx (2014), that is PGA Tour caliber, and maybe even a new Professional Soccer facility in Queens ( by Citi Field and the Tennis Center). The key for Chicago is to get this and a Wrigley Field renovation agreement completed before Interest Rates rise ( which will increase construction costs tremendously). Lets see if it can be done?
LikeLike
@David Brown – My thoughts:
(1) The new arena will help DePaul if only because you couldn’t get much worse than the Allstate Arena (which is outside of the city, not easily accessible from the DePaul campus, and looks every bit as old and outdated as it really is… and not in a charming Wrigley Field or Palestra way). While DePaul’s main campus is in Lincoln Park, it also has a significant presence in the South Loop, which is relative close to McCormick Place, so it’s definitely better for students. More importantly, there is going to be a new Green Line El station opening up next to where the proposed arena will be, which is very much a bigger deal for student accessibility in a place like Chicago than actual distance/mileage. I think that DePaul with a great new arena directly in the city (and maybe more importantly, in close proximity to where the top recruits they’ll be going be going after actually live) sets the stage for the program to become successful again. DePaul’s arena situation will become an asset as opposed to a liability, so that can only be a good thing. Of course, the school still needs the right coach to make it fully pay off.
(2) There’s more than enough room for another venue in Chicago. In fact, that’s the main reason why this DePaul arena could get off the ground and make any financial sense. The Bulls and Blackhawks, who own the United Center 50/50, have made a *killing* financially because the local competition is so weak. The only other arena in the area that has NBA/NHL-level capacity is the aforementioned Allstate Arena, which is about 3 decades behind the UC in terms of amenities. Allstate Arena gets a decent number of concerts and shows simply because the UC’s schedule is completely booked and they can compete on price, but it’s far from a strong alternative. A new McCormick Place arena is a much more formidable competitor, but I think it will be a healthy competition because there are more than enough events to split up. There are several markets that are smaller than Chicago (e.g. San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix) with a lot stronger arena competition by comparison. Of course, that’s exactly why the Bulls and Blackhawks offered DePaul to have free rent at the United Center for the next 20 years – they know that they have a de facto monopoly on large-scale arena events in the nation’s 3rd largest market and taking DePaul away as a tenant would have killed the McCormick Place arena plan. In contrast, NYC (as you’ve mentioned) has MSG and the Barclays in the city plus the relatively new Prudential Center in Newark close-by. Meanwhile, LA has the Staples Center and Honda Center plus Pauley Pavilion and the Galen Center (the latter two being comparable in size to the proposed DePaul arena).
LikeLike
Could the Big Ten women’s tournament follow DePaul to this new downtown arena? From a Maryland point of view, it would be good to have rotating sites, and if a new arena is built in Baltimore (a city that needs one desperately — its current arena, built in the early ’60s, is at least a decade older than the now-demolished Capital Centre/USAir Arena near the Capital Beltway), it could be an occasional venue. Same thing with the arena in Trenton.
LikeLike
Frank: I always like your input on issues, particularly as it relates to local Illinois issues ( Illini, Cubs, White Sox, NW, etc), And I thank you for it. You are 100% correct that the recruiting of local Chicago guys is huge, and if there is a new facility for DePaul, it will make hiring the right coach (and of course, recruiting) that much easier. Being a Penn State fan , I can tell you that playing in the Jordan Center (complete with blocked off seats), makes recruiting a nightmare (even Pat Chambers with Philadelphia ties has found it tough to do so), and hoops is close to not only being eclipsed by the hockey program and the Pegula Ice Arena, but even wrestling in Rec Hall. I hope for DePaul’s sake they get the new arena.
LikeLike
Ouch! Article about how Cincinnati has ended up in the AAC, despite their best efforts to land in a better conference: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130512/SPT0101/305120023/ACC-proved-out-UC-s-league?gcheck=1
Not sports-related, but for those of you who would love to see Harold Camping’s media empire crumble, you probably might get your wish: http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_23224368/end-world-oaklands-family-radio
LikeLike
If Fox Sports 2 launches in August as well we might see the rivalry between ESPN and Fox Sports heat up real quick. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fox-sports-2-fuel-20130514,0,7752654.story
LikeLike
That’s why I believe Fox will pay whatever it takes come Big Ten contract time.
LikeLike
On a side note, that’s probably the biggest long-term benefit that the Big Ten has with being aligned with Fox.
The SEC already had ESPN and now has that even moreso with the SEC Network.
The Big Ten (like the UFC) will get a big boost if FS1/2 take off and become prominent sports networks.
It’s going to be an interesting time for sports fans to say the least.
LikeLike
ESPN still has some pretty big advantages here if they want something. They’ve got higher ratings= more ad revenue. More importantly, they’ve got a huge advantage in subscriber fees for the near term.
LikeLike
Indiana is in position to win it’s first BIG 10 baseball championship since 1949….I sure hope they don’t pull a Missouri and choke it away……….
LikeLike
shroom – congrats. Indiana is also well-positioned to host a regional in the NCAAs, and has an outside shot at being named a top eight national seed. Their RPI is 15, and the Hoosiers are ranked in all the polls anywhere from 15 to 21. The Hoosiers have a big mid-week game against a talented, but struggling Kentucky team that is battling to make the tournament. A win would go a long way to locking down a regional for the Hooisers. A new stadium also helps.
LikeLike
IU may be a little better than #15, as they have really dominated the Big 10 statistically. They are first in most ofensive and pitching categories. They lost 3 straight one run games at MSU, so their record is only 15-7 in the Big 10. Minnesota is 12-7. Relative weaknesses are probably lack of a stud #1 starter and a mediocre defense.
LikeLike
Thanks for jinxing it
IU dropped the game to UK tonight and that was with UK making 4 errors. Granted it is only a single midweek game but it is at the end of the season heading to the post season and not an early non conference loss.
LikeLike
College Baseball Update.
With co-number one North Carolina dropping a series to unranked GA Tech over the weekend, Vandy is now the consensus #1 team in the country. With one series left against Bama, the Commodores are on their way to a historic regular season in the SEC. The schedule makers did help them out as Vandy didn’t play the top two teams in the West (LSU & Ark), but they are playing some great baseball. The SEC Tournament next week should be great.
LSU and North Carolina are ranked #2 or #3 in all the polls.
Seven of the top 8 national seeds are pretty much set with Vandy, LSU, UNC, Oregon St., Cal State Fullerton, Oregon, and Virginia. Contenders for the last national seed are NC State, Florida State, Louisville, UCLA, Arkansas and Indiana.
Along with Indiana, Pitt is ranked in all the polls anywhere from 16 to 23. Seton Hall snuck into the Collegiate Baseball poll at #24. No other northern teams are ranked.
Regarding attendance, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Miss State continue as the top five. LSU’s season attendance will exceed 400,000, with four home regular season games to go. Nebraska is #26, averaging 2,476 fans per game. Indiana is #39, averaging 1,495 fans per game.
LikeLike
Wiggins to Kansas (biggest hoops recruit since LeBron James).
Should be a big boost for Big 12 hoops next year, especially with all the NBA talent on OSU and Baylor as well.
Could be looking at 2-3 really strong Final Four threats in the Big 12 alone.
LikeLike
Is power shifting back to midwest basketball from Tobacco Road?
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisville are all back in the Final Four discussion now at the same time. Last 3 NC’s were not ACC and MD is bound for the B1G. Who besides UNC and Duke have been to the Final Four from the ACC since Georgia Tech in 2004? I can see Wiggins not going to Kentucky with everybody else there, but him picking Kansas over North Carolina was perhaps the bigger story.
LikeLike
KU was a big shocker. Most felt it was between UK and FSU, with UNC somewhat in the background. I still can’t believe it.
LikeLike
it’s simple. ku cheats. always have.
LikeLike
I for one am shocked Norris would go to a school that is going to get kicked out of the AAU any day now…
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/05/sec_and_big_12_begin_basketbal.html
SEC and Big XII now have a basketball challenge to go along with the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
To answer the inevitable question; no, KU-Mizzou and UT-A&M will not be played (at least not in the first year)
LikeLike
pretty dumb move. Those games would make a fortune.
LikeLike
The SEC used to have a basketball challenge (of sorts) with the Big East. And the Big XII used to have one with the Pac-10 (it ended about the time that Colorado and Nebraska left, I think)
I’m curious to see if any other leagues team up for challenges. The Pac is sort of the odd-conference out now and it is the only BCS league without a partner. They could team up with the new Big East, I suppose. But, a Big East – AAC challenge would be so much more fun…
LikeLike
CBS reportedly isn’t paying any additional revenue for SEC expansion.
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2013/5/14/4331338/new-sec-deal-with-cbs-is-for-same-money
LikeLike
No extra money (despite the proclamations of certain people around here), but they did lose their exclusive TV window so they are paying the same for less.
LikeLike
As several of us have pointed out, it didn’t make sense for CBS to pay more (unlike the claims of Clay Travis and other partisans). They get the same number of games, the games were already national and they weren’t likely to show the middle of the pack (by SEC standards) schools they added that often.
However, I’d be surprised if the SEC isn’t getting a pretty decent bump in 2024 when the 10 year extension starts.
LikeLike
CBS is only a fraction of the SEC’s money anyway. Most comes from ESPN. CBS is just one game per week.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76758/big-ten-ads-like-national-bowl-lineup
Latest on the B10 bowls:
Here’s what we know so far:
The Big Ten champion will be in the Rose Bowl unless the Rose Bowl is a national semifinal and a Big Ten team doesn’t qualify for the Playoff or isn’t placed in Pasadena. The Big Ten champion will appear in another major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton or Chick-fil-A Peach) in years it’s not at the Rose.
Actually, it won’t be the Sugar since it hosts a semi in the same years as the Rose.
The Big Ten will make at least three appearances in the Orange Bowl during the next 12-year cycle. The ACC champion will face a Big Ten team, an SEC team or Notre Dame — the highest-ranked squad of the three — in years where it’s not part of the Playoff.
3 minimum, 5 maximum (same as the SEC) while ND gets 0-2. the other 4 will be semis.
The Capital One and Outback bowls are expected to remain part of the Big Ten’s rotation. Colleague Heather Dinich recently reported that the ACC could take the Big Ten’s spot in the Capital One Bowl in years where the Big Ten has a team in the Orange.
As colleague Brett McMurphy reported Monday night, the Big Ten and ACC will share tie-ins with the Gator and Music City bowls during a six-year span. So the Big Ten will make three appearances in Jacksonville and three in Nashville — to face SEC opponents — between 2014-19.
Why stick with the terrible Gator? Why not do 6 years with the Music City?
Other bowls expected to remain in the Big Ten’s rotation include Buffalo Wild Wings in Arizona, Heart of Dallas in Dallas and Little Caesars Pizza in Detroit.
Nobody seems to be talking about the P12 taking over the BWW from the B12.
Likely additions to the lineup include the Pinstripe Bowl in New York and the Holiday Bowl in San Diego. Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said Tuesday that “everybody’s in favor” of the Pinstripe Bowl and “all of us are very positive about the Holiday Bowl.” Another bowl that could enter the mix is Kraft Fight Hunger in San Francisco. The Big Ten would face the ACC in the Pinstripe and the Pac-12 in the Holiday, although one or both bowls could be rotations like the Gator and Music City.
No to the KFH Bowl. 2 CA games is more than enough, and nobody wants to travel 2500 miles to watch B10 #9 play a bowl game. SF is a nice city, but it’s not exactly a warm weather spot in winter either with an average high of 56 degrees on 1/1.
I’ve been told the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas won’t be part of the next Big Ten lineup.
For those holding out hope, Houston is a lost cause.
LikeLike
“Why stick with the terrible Gator? Why not do 6 years with the Music City?”
Because the Gator will likely pay more. Personally, I don’t thinkt hat Nashville is that much better than Jacksonville.
“Nobody seems to be talking about the P12 taking over the BWW from the B12.”
It’s a B10 blog item on the B10. If the Arizona bowl hasn’t firmed up on whether to choose the Pac or the B12 to face the B10, I wouldn’t expect new information.
“No to the KFH Bowl.”
Agree, because the payout is terrible, however. . .
“SF is a nice city, but it’s not exactly a warm weather spot in winter either with an average high of 56 degrees on 1/1.”
SF has microclimates. Where Pac Bell Park is located, it probably won’t be warm, but watching the game (and seeing SF) would still be enjoyable.
LikeLike
Richard,.
“Because the Gator will likely pay more.”
Could be. We won’t know until the details come out. How much more would make it worthwhile?
“Personally, I don’t thinkt hat Nashville is that much better than Jacksonville.”
Being new helps. Being in a different part of the country helps (Orlando and Tampa >> Jacksonville). Being drivable for several fan bases helps.
“Nobody seems to be talking about the P12 taking over the BWW from the B12.”
“It’s a B10 blog item on the B10. If the Arizona bowl hasn’t firmed up on whether to choose the Pac or the B12 to face the B10, I wouldn’t expect new information.”
I’ve looked elsewhere and not seen anything about it, either. If the B10 bloggers were hearing it, they would have reported it. They report on expected opponents all the time.
“SF is a nice city, but it’s not exactly a warm weather spot in winter either with an average high of 56 degrees on 1/1.”
“SF has microclimates. Where Pac Bell Park is located, it probably won’t be warm, but watching the game (and seeing SF) would still be enjoyable.”
It’s not like I’m claiming that the mid-50s is cold. I’m just pointing out that the weather in LA and SD is more likely to motivate someone to travel 2500 miles at that time of year than SF’s weather would. The FL bowls are also warm. KFH is more on par with Heart of Dallas for weather, but Dallas is much closer. Music City, Pinstripe and Pizza will be colder, but they are also much shorter trips. Considering how low in the pecking order the KFH would be, who wants to travel that far for it?
LikeLike
“Considering how low in the pecking order the KFH would be, who wants to travel that far for it?”
The B10 does have alums everywhere in the country, though. Probably every school has enough alums in CA and AZ to fill at least half the bowl allotment.
Granted, many folks may not be excited about watching a 6-6 or 7-5 team, however, so I agree that contracting full-time with the SF bowl would be a mistake. Splitting SF with another bowl may make sense, as it would be a memorable trip for the student-athletes, cheerleaders, and other students involved (and could help in CA recruiting).
LikeLike
Richard,
“The B10 does have alums everywhere in the country, though. Probably every school has enough alums in CA and AZ to fill at least half the bowl allotment.”
True, and some schools are more national than others (NW probably has a large percentage of west coast alums, for example). I’m just not sure how excited they are for mediocre football. On the other hand, SF is a nice destination for a short trip up or down the coast.
“Granted, many folks may not be excited about watching a 6-6 or 7-5 team, however, so I agree that contracting full-time with the SF bowl would be a mistake. Splitting SF with another bowl may make sense, as it would be a memorable trip for the student-athletes, cheerleaders, and other students involved (and could help in CA recruiting).”
Yeah, I’m just picturing that same set of lower tier programs going there repeatedly and how quickly fan fatigue would set in. An interesting choice would be the Las Vegas Bowl. It’s a crappy game in a bad stadium, but it’s a solid destination for fans.
LikeLike
UNLV is supposed to be building a fancy new stadium soon. Perhaps to improve their image? And perhaps to improve the LV bowl’s also?
LikeLike
Hard to see the LV Bowl picking an also-ran B10 team over the MWC champ or a Pac team, though.
LikeLike
While less likely than the others, why would it be infeasible for a Big Ten champion to go to the Sugar Bowl? Suppose the semi-finals includes a Pac-12 champion ranked higher than the Big Ten champion, and they don’t pair up the two … wouldn’t that be the Pac-12 in the Rose and the Big Ten in the Sugar?
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“While less likely than the others, why would it be infeasible for a Big Ten champion to go to the Sugar Bowl?”
I was talking outside of the CFP. Inside, there’s a chance (make the CFP as #3 or #4 but the P12 champ doesn’t make it or is also #3 or #4, or have the P12 champ #1 and the B10 champ #2) but it’s unlikely since the committee would likely mess with the rankings to get P12 and B10 teams into the Rose Bowl in my opinion. To me a semifinal stops really being the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
But to the guy writing the ESPN blog, its likely supposed to be called the Sugar bowl regardless, so it would be the ‘Semifinal At The Sugar Bowl” that it would be referring to.
And yeah, of course if they can rig a Big Ten / Pac-12 Rose Bowl semi-final they will, which is another part of what makes the Sugar Bowl the least likely of the group.
LikeLike
Yeah, the odds of it get pretty small pretty quickly. That’s why I felt his list was misleading, because he didn’t distinguish between 3 equally likely options (Fiesta, Cotton, Peach) and a much more unlikely option (Sugar). But he was technically correct, yes.
LikeLike
And if he had given a list that was pragmatically the games most likely to occur but not technically complete, there would have been sports nerd rage. The question of which of the CFP bowl coalition bowls the Big Ten is likely to go to is something to delve into in a blog that focuses on that, not in the brief description as part of a bowl state of play rundown.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“And if he had given a list that was pragmatically the games most likely to occur but not technically complete, there would have been sports nerd rage.”
He could easily have added a few words or even a short sentence to clarify. For example:
“the Fiesta, Cotton, Peach and less frequently the Sugar Bowl. The Sugar Bowl is less likely because it hosts semifinals in the same years as the Rose Bowl, so the B10 champ would have to make the playoffs but not get put in the Rose Bowl.”
Yeah, all those extra electrons are clearly too expensive for ESPN to afford.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/14/source-b1g-to-send-3rd-pick-to-holiday/
An industry source said the Holiday Bowl and Big Ten are close to finishing a six-year agreement. The bowl will pick second in the Pac-12 and third in the Big Ten after the playoff and access bowls make their selections starting with the 2014 season. Officials cautioned that no deals are final, but they are optimistic.
LikeLike
So:
1. Rose – P12 #1
1a. maybe Orange – ACC #1
2. Cap 1 – SEC #2
3. Outback – SEC #3
4. Holiday – P12 #2
5. BWW – B12 #3?
6. Music City/Gator – SEC #7
7. Pinstripe – ACC #5
8. Dallas – B12 #6
9. Maybe DC or SF – low P12 or ACC
10. Pizza – MAC #1
LikeLike
I suppose the B10 could share DC & SF with the ACC. Then the gigantically money-losing (but fun for the students) trip to the Bay Area only happens 3 times in 6 years.
LikeLike
If true…
Advantageous Match Ups – 0
Even Match Ups – 4 (Rose/Orange/Cap1/Outback)
+1 Match ups – 1 (Music City/Gator)
+2 Match ups – 4-5 (Holiday, BWW, Pinstripe, Dallas, DC/SF?)
+9 Match ups – 1 (Pizza)
I like the bowl locations themselves but I really wish the Big Ten would put in some advantageous matchups so help it pad the wins.
Half the struggles that the Big Ten faces every year in Bowl Season is by their own design due to the pick order.
LikeLike
You have the Gator/Music City going the wrong way as that is advantageous to the B10.
Also, if B12 #6 goes to Dallas, that would be even as 8/14 is about the same as 6/10.
Also, if B12 ends up in the Arizona bowl, that could be roughly even as well, as 5/14 is 3.5 while the B12 would send #3 or #4 there. Even if Pac #4 goes there, it would be roughly even (5/14 vs. 4/12).
LikeLike
exswoo,
“If true…”
Those were all pure guesses by me after the first few, so don’t put too much stock in it.
“Advantageous Match Ups – 0”
Not true. #6 was against SEC #7 (more like #8 with the CFP/Orange taking another SEC team).
“Even Match Ups – 4 (Rose/Orange/Cap1/Outback)”
That’s what you want, fair games.
“+1 Match ups – 1 (Music City/Gator)”
Like I said above, this is a -1 match up.
“+2 Match ups – 4-5 (Holiday, BWW, Pinstripe, Dallas, DC/SF?)”
You are neglecting 2 things here.
1. You have to allow for math. The B10 is about to be bigger than the P12 and the B12.
#6/14 ~ #5/12 ~ #4/10. That makes the 2 B12 games even and the Holiday a +1.
2. Not all conferences are equally good or deep. I looked back through several years of Sagarin ratings and P12 #3 was on par with SEC #6, for example.
“+9 Match ups – 1 (Pizza)”
It’s the MAC. Any bowl-eligible B10 team should be able to compete with a typical MAC champ.
“I like the bowl locations themselves but I really wish the Big Ten would put in some advantageous matchups so help it pad the wins.”
So they should take less money to be in worse bowls? That’s a tough sell to the ADs. How about the teams improve and win more bowl games by merit?
“Half the struggles that the Big Ten faces every year in Bowl Season is by their own design due to the pick order.”
The problem is that the B10 is a bigger draw than all but the SEC for a bowl (plus whoever is local). That makes B10 teams in high demand, so they get promoted to better games. It’s a first world problem.
LikeLike
Pretty solid info that the SEC, B10 and ACC will share the Orange and Citrus…
What happens is that when a B10 team ‘earns’ an invite to the Orange (over the SEC & ND), it’ll lose it’s spot in the Citrus Bowl (aka Cap One) to the ACC; ditto for the SEC. Essentially the ACC has both the Orange and the Citrus Bowls as most years an SEC or B10 team will qualify for the Orange against an ACC program…
LikeLike
@wmwolverine – Thanks for the update. It would have been one thing if the Big Ten was the only one being rotated out (which ESPN had been suggesting), but if both the Big Ten and SEC are being rotated out, then that makes a lot more sense.
LikeLike
That’s pretty good for the Holiday. They had slipped to 5th in the Big 12 lineup, behind the BCS, Cotton, Alamao and BWW.
Big 12 is looking at Russell Athletic/Tangerine, Liberty and BWW. Alamo is expected to take the Cotton’s place. Meinke Car Care is probably in the mix. Big 12 had wanted a California bowl, but looks like they won’t get it.
LikeLike
Which would still mean the Holiday jumping their payout a fair bit to go ahead of the AZ bowl despite being unable to do so 4 years ago to get ahead of the Alamo Bowl because of their aging stadium & without another major bowl (like the Fiesta) to subsidize them. Color me skeptical.
Did SD tourist institutions suddenly come up with a bunch of money?
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130514/playoff-selection-committee/?sct=uk_t11_a4
Andy Staples applies the CFP methodology to the past 10 seasons and explains his decisions.
B10 teams:
2012 – none
2011 – none
2010 – none
2009 – none
2008 – none
2007 – OSU
2006 – OSU, MI
2005 – PSU
2004 – none
2003 – MI
LikeLike
Why we don’t want writers on the committee. Just a couple examples:
He doesn’t even consider KSU last year (leaving them out is ok, but not even considering them?).
2008 he picks USC over Texas because of their win over 10-2 Ohio St. (while Texas beat his #1 seed Oklahoma and lost to another 1 loss team).
LikeLike
(and of course 3 SEC teams in last year-given the limited ooc matchups, that’s just ridiculous).
LikeLike
He also includes this genius statement about 2008
That leaves Utah, Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech and Penn State battling for one spot. I’d like to think I’d be enlightened and take the Utes, who had the better résumé, but I’d probably get swept up in the competitiveness of the SEC title game and select Alabama.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/14/b1g-meetings-iowa-faces-narrow-parameters-for-non-conference-schedule/
So, here’s the non-conference deal for Iowa:
– Except for 2017, the Hawkeyes have FCS schools on the schedule every season through 2018.
– Iowa plays Missouri State this season, Northern Iowa in 2014 and Illinois State in ’15. All those games will be played.
– When the nine-game B1G schedule kicks in for 2016, Iowa has North Dakota State, back-to-back FCS champion. In ’18, the Hawkeyes have a contract with Northern Iowa. Those are in limbo, Barta said.
– Iowa State is will be Iowa’s premier non-conference game for the foreseeable future.
So, in 2016 with nine B1G games, Iowa’s non-conference schedules of the future will be home-and-home with Iowa State and two games that won’t be home-and-home, Barta said. Iowa’s budget dictates seven home football games. No bend there.
“We’ll have two games to fill every year and they won’t be home-and-homes, because I have to have seven home games,” Barta said.
This leaves no flexibility. That’s why no Iowa and fill-in your dream BCS matchup here. So, enjoy Pitt in 2014-15. Those games seem to be the last of their kind for Iowa.
LikeLike
Eh, some Big5 conference programs will still do guarantee games. WSU, for one. Maybe Colorado if they still have money issues. You should be able to get some AAC schools (like Cincy SMU(?), Houston(?)) every once in a while as well. Possibly one of the KS schools.
A neutral site game may also bring in as much revenue as a home game. If it’s in KC, it wouldn’t even have to be a road game.
If I was Iowa’s AD, that’s what I’d do–pay for a lower-major-conference/higher-mid-major brand or do a high-payout neutral site game every other year.
LikeLike
It’s a little like apples and oranges, but Michigan has been able to pay Colorado, Oregon State, Brigham Young, UNLV and Hawaii to play in Ann Arbor with no return date. I don’t know if Iowa could necessarily do that, but they may have room for one non-MAC level opponent if the budget permits.
LikeLike
While Iowa may be looking at having a prohibition against playing FCS schools, the same doesn’t go for Iowa State. They Cyclones have North Dakota State, South Dakota State and Northern Iowa on their future schedules in addition to the annual game with the Hawkeyes.
As far as Iowa is concerned, perhaps this is a time where they look at a 2 years on/2 years off deal with Iowa State in order to make room for a home-and-home like the one they’ll have with Pittsburgh. It’s up to them on how they want to go forward on this.
LikeLike
I don’t really see Iowa being able to sign a HaH with an opponent that is much better than ISU, so. . . . why? If the idea is to play high-profile opponents and/or in regions that Iowa doesn’t regularly visit, then schedule high-profile neutral-site games that bring in as much money as a home game.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76776/maryland-works-toward-financial-footing
Maryland is working toward reaching stable financial footing again.
“It isn’t finalized yet, but we’re looking at probably by 2017 or 2018 that we’ll be able to balance the budget,” athletic director Kevin Anderson said Tuesday, “and be stable financially.”
Maryland won’t get a full Big Ten revenue share until it has been in the league for five years, Anderson said. The same held true for Nebraska when it joined in 2011.
Anderson talked about the challenges the Big Ten presents for Maryland and the financial commitment the school must make to compete, especially in football. The Terrapins will be in the same division as Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State beginning in 2014.
“We’re looking at places where we might have to make more of an impact,” Anderson said. “At some point, we know we will have to make a bigger commitment than what we’re making now.”
Some Maryland fans initially expressed disappointment about the Big Ten move, as they’ll leave behind many of their longtime rivals in the ACC. But Anderson sees fans warming up to their new league.
“One of the things that excites them and our student-athletes is they know when they travel, they’re going to play in front of a lot of people,” Anderson said. “That hasn’t always been the case with the ACC.”
LikeLike
Hoke can’t seem to learn to not put his foot in his mouth when it comes to ND canceling the ND-UM series.
http://tracking.si.com/2013/05/13/brady-hoke-notre-dame-is-chickening-out-of-rivalry/
Then again, if his job’s is really in jeopardy, then he may as well go all-out.
LikeLike
UM people saying Hoke’s job is in jeopardy? I haven’t heard that.
LikeLike
Just me speculating. Sorry if I’m misleading here. However, I’ve read message board chatter being critical of Hoke. I have no real insight into the UM donor and alumni base over their views on Mr. Hoke.
LikeLike
Fairly hard to believe speculation. Hoke has UM recruiting at a level that they haven’t been at in close to a decade.
LikeLike
I don’t see that as him putting his foot in his mouth. He honestly believes that, and so do many MI fans. He was speaking to boosters when he said it, after all.
Is it true? Not entirely. ND certainly had viable reasons like schedule freedom (USC, Navy, 5 ACC, PU, MSU and Stanford = 10 games). But not wanting 1 more tough game on the schedule after agreeing to 5 ACC games might have been a small part of the decision, too.
It sounds like Brandon is in no rush to put ND back on the schedule.
As for Hoke, his job is completely secure. Any message board chatter otherwise is just loons sounding off.
LikeLike
I won’t mind this move by ND much if they replace M with an opponent of similar caliber; e.g. Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Oregon, Auburn, etc. I expect they will but provided they won’t, they are chicken…
Michigan meanwhile will play Ohio State, Penn State, a ‘top 15’ [VT & Arkansas are first programs to replace ND] program OOC every season, and likely 1-2 of Nebraska, Wisconsin & Iowa. Along with the rest the B10 schedule; Rutgers, Michigan State, Maryland, etc.
M has had lots of discussions with teams but they are having trouble finding partners that’ll work with them; they’ve reportedly tried setting games up with Tennessee, Georgia, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, LSU & Oregon to fill the hole ND left.
LikeLike
wm – as long as Les Miles is LSU’s head coach, he won’t play Michigan unless its in a bowl game. He has stated that he will never willingly stand on the sideline opposite his beloved alma mater. Now, Ohio State is a different matter.
LikeLike
Yeah, M is having difficultly filling the ’16/’17 dates with a ‘top 15’ program; games evacuated by ND dropping the series. We’ll see what Brandon can come up with. He’s tried hard to get a top team but little luck, we’ve played Oregon a lot recently and they are the name that keeps coming back up.
LikeLike
@wmwolverine-
Michigan already has its three non-conference games for the 2016 season. UM opens with Hawaii on 9/3, has an open date the next week (perhaps a conference game will go there), then plays Colorado on 9/17 and Ball State on 9/24.
With those three home non-conference games and with five home B1G games slated for 2016, Michigan will play eight home games that season.
For 2017, Michigan only has one named non-conference opponent. Cincinnati plays in Ann Arbor on 9/9. UM has four home conference games that year, and if the Wolverines wanted to play seven home games that year, the other two non-conference games also need to be at Michigan Stadium.
What’s interesting going forward about Michigan’s schedule is that it looks like the 2018 thru 2021 seasons will have alternating seasons of six and eight home games. Michigan has series with Arkansas (2018-Home, 2019-Fayetteville) and Virginia Tech (2020-Home, 2019-Blacksburg). Since Michigan is supposed to have five conference games in the even numbered years, then that sets up a situation with 8 home games in 2018/20 and 6 home games in 2019/21.
My guess is that Brandon will be okay with this because it could potentially even out the number of high level teams each year. Michigan plays Ohio State on the road during even numbered years and if the Big Ten has UM playing Nebraska or Wisconsin on the road those years as well, then they could have Penn State and Michigan State (along with Arkansas and Virginia Tech) in Ann Arbor those years.
2018 Home (8): Arkansas, 2 Non-Conference, Penn State, Michigan State, 1 B1G East, 2 B1G West (not Nebraska or Wisconsin)
2018 Road (4): @ Ohio State, @ Nebraska or Wisconsin, @ 2 B1G East
2019 Home (6): 2 Non-Conference, Ohio State, Nebraska or Wisconsin, 2 B1G East,
2019 Road (6): @ Arkansas, @ Penn State, @ Michigan State, @1 B1G East, @2 B1G West (not Nebraska or Wisconsin)
Replace Arkansas with Virginia Tech for 2020/1 and you can see why he might be willing to have alternating years of six and eight home games.
We’ll see in due course if this is what UM is going to do going forward. If Brandon is going to be able to schedule programs like Texas, LSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Miami-FL, Tennessee, etc., it could well be that he’s looking for teams that would be willing to play in 2017/2022 or he could just try and get them on the schedule from 2022 onward.
As far as Notre Dame is concerned, it has four home and four road games already in place between the 5 ACC games, USC, Stanford and Navy. It can have seven home games per year by having two more home-and-home series along with two buy-in opponents.
When ND got Texas on the schedule to open the 2015/6 series awhile back, I thought the Michigan series was in trouble then. This was done while the BCS setup was still in place, so it would have been problematic for Notre Dame to open the season with back-to-back games against UT and UM. ND also plays Texas in 2019 and 2020.
But when the Big East was teetering and Notre Dame went to the ACC, it just added another reason for ND to drop the Michigan series. I’m sure the two schools could have worked something out (apparently MSU and ND are trying to to keep their series going now that the B1G is going to nine games), but it doesn’t look like Notre Dame wanted to go that route.
LikeLike
ND’s too pretentious to go for two buy games a year…or NBC isn’t paying to show us beating up on Western Michigan. I’m not sure which but I lean toward the latter. That’s why the NDAD is going with the neutral site game along with the six home games: you get way better teams than with the typical 2-1 (for example the Hurricanes). There are few teams with the National status of Michigan, but I have high hopes Swarbrick will get us good games with teams like Texas.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – Notre Dame has actually been buying at least 2 guarantee games per year already. Remember that the Shamrock Series “neutral site” game isn’t actually neutral – it’s a Notre Dame home game for the purposes of ticket sales and TV rights. That has actually been a guarantee game without a return date for the opponent in most cases (although the Miami series is structured as a 2-for-1). So, ND does play 7 home games per year just like virtually every other power team, but one of those home games is played outside of South Bend.
LikeLike
@cutter: I think @wmwolverine’s point was that Brandon has had trouble replacing Notre Dame with comparable opponents. Michigan’s sexiest OOC opponents from 2015-17 are BYU, Colorado, and Cincinati respectively.
From 2018-2021, he’s got Arkansas and Virginia Tech home & home, which starts to get into the right zip code. But that’s still a three-year gap.
I won’t mind this move by ND much if they replace M with an opponent of similar caliber; e.g. Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Oregon, Auburn, etc. I expect they will but provided they won’t, they are chicken
Many of those schools schedule tough OOC opponents, but usually only one a year. Texas, for instance, has future home & homes with USC, Notre Dame, and Ohio State. Oklahoma has Tennessee, Ohio State, LSU, and Nebraska. Oregon has Texas A&M, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
It’s not so easy to find marquee opponents, not because they’re chicken, but because everyone wants to play them.
LikeLike
@Frank
In the first couple years of the Shamrock Series (2009 and 2010) ND was actually running 7 games in Notre Dame Stadium along with the neutral site game and 4 games on the road. Because of the embarrassment of having to get Western Michigan on short notice in 2010, the difficulty in getting name teams to come without a return date, and what I can only assume was pressure from NBC, ND has walked away from that strategy since then.
In the last decade, ND had six home games a year six times, including the last two seasons but not yet including next season, which will also have six true home games.
There appear to be no buy games on the 2013 schedule since it appears there will be a return trip to Philly for the Owls and IIRC the return date was scheduled with ASU before the ACC agreement meant that we had to buy out the Sun Devils. I don’t see return dates for NU in ’14 or UMass (UMASS?!? what? why?) in ’15. Knowing how cheap TPTB at ND can be, I’d be shocked to see more than one buy game a year for the foreseeable.
LikeLike
It was a joke, but he’s not wrong. For all the talk of rivalries, Notre Dame doesn’t really give a shit about your school unless you’re in prime recruiting grounds. Except Navy. Boy, I wish we could find a MACrifice game to glorify like they do with Navy.
LikeLike
metatron,
“For all the talk of rivalries, Notre Dame doesn’t really give a shit about your school unless you’re in prime recruiting grounds.”
Purdue? MSU?
“Except Navy. Boy, I wish we could find a MACrifice game to glorify like they do with Navy.”
Little Brown Jug ring any bells?
LikeLike
I’ve never seen anything to indicate ND *cares* about Purdue. They have clear sensible reasons to like what is normally a softer game, with no travel disruption or expense even when its away, to schedule in between tougher September games, and the fact that Purdue fans hate Notre Dame with a passion is also an attraction, since it boosts the ratings above what many games against soft opponents would get.
LikeLike
No school really deep down gives a shit about other schools, it’s a preference at best. As for “MACrifice” games to glorify, I think the closest would be the Iowa/UNI series…but you’ll never glorify any series that basically revolves around getting your bowl-questionable team a stacked shot at qualifying. Any shot of that happening was killed when no team made a specific commitment to any in-state MAC school for funding reasons or whatever 50yrs ago.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/14/podcast-hlas-with-big-ten-scheduler-rudner/
A 20:00 interview of Mark Rudner, the guy in charge of scheduling for the B10. It’s worth a listen. He discusses prime time games, how schedules get made and other stuff.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2013/05/big_ten_looks_at_changeup_to_b.html
Speculation of San Antonio back in the B10 bowl lineup? First I heard of it.
That would likely be sharing the Alamo with the Pac, but how would that work? Sharing the AZ bowl with the Pac as well vs. the B12? Hmm . . .
LikeLike
Conceivably, Pac #2&3, B12 #3&4, and B10 #4&5 could share the Holiday, Arizona, and Alamo bowls, with the Pac, B10, and B12 anchoring those 2 bowls respectively while the other opponent rotates.
LTP (a Northwestern site) says to expect 11 official tie-ins (http://www.laketheposts.com/index.php/2013/05/14/bears-sign-fields-b1g-bowl-shake-up-more/).
Not sure what that means.
If the Orange counts as a tie-in and the Music City and Gator also count as 1 each, that’s 9 slots (sometimes 10 if the ACC doesn’t take the CapOne slot when the B10 goes to the Orange).
If he’s not counting the Orange but counts the Music City and Gator as 1 each, then there are 10 slots or 9 slots with another shared slot + the Orange.
If he counts the Orange but counts rotating bowls as only 1 tie-in, then there are 10 more slots behind the Orange (and any number of sharing).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22132430/mountain-west-approaches-pac-12-about-west-coast-partnership
Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said his conference has approached the Pac-12 about what he calls a “best practices” connection — sort of a West Coast alliance for nonconference scheduling, sharing of officials, and bowl matchups.
Thompson said there’s nothing official but thinks the Pac-12 is receptive to the idea.
LikeLike
Said the man who negotiated the horrible TV deal with Comcast and established the now-defunct Mtn. Network. Of course he thinks the PAC 12 is receptive the idea.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76824/wings-bowl-likely-out-of-b1gs-next-lineup
The latest report is that the BWW is gone for the B10.
The Wings Bowl likely won’t be part of the Big Ten’s lineup beginning in 2014, according to sources. A lower payout from the bowl is a big reason why, and the Big Ten’s rotating tie in with the Gator and Music City bowls, which colleague Brett McMurphy reported Monday night, should fill the Wings Bowl’s spot in the rundown. The Gator Bowl and Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl previously had rotated the No. 3 Big Ten selection after the Rose Bowl. The Holiday Bowl is expected to get the No. 3 Big Ten pick, after Capital One and Outback. The next Big Ten team could go to the Gator Bowl or Music City Bowl, depending on the year.
Speaking generally about bowls, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said Wednesday that “some of the payouts changed a little bit.”
It’s still possible the Wings bowl could remain as the Big Ten finalizes agreements in the next few weeks. But the more likely scenario is that the Wings bowl, like the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas, isn’t part of the league’s lineup.
So lose 1 TX game and the only AZ game. Does this mean we get stuck in SF or can we get a game east of the Mississippi?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22247147/buffalo-wild-wings-bowl-negotiating-with-big-12-pac-12
CBS says the same thing.
It appears the Big Ten will not be a part of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl starting in 2014.
The bowl in Tempe, Ariz., is negotiating with the Big 12 and Pac-12 as yearly tie-ins, according to a source with direct knowledge of the situation. A deal is not done but appears probable.
So we traded the BWW for the Holiday basically. That’s a downgrade to me.
LikeLike
I disagree. San Diego in stead of Phoenix – a wash at worst.. Until the Alamo upped the antie the Holliday was first behind the Rose Bowl for the PAC.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I disagree. San Diego in stead of Phoenix – a wash at worst.. Until the Alamo upped the antie the Holliday was first behind the Rose Bowl for the PAC.”
It’s a matter of opinion, of course.
More B10 alumni – Phoenix
Shorter trip from the footprint – Phoenix
More neutral site – Phoenix vs B12
As for trading the B12 for P12, I don’t see a gain there either. If we end up with only 1 B12 game, I’ll be disappointed. I’d rather have 2 B12 and 1 P12 than the reverse.
LikeLike
“More B10 alumni – Phoenix”
Probably true, though SoCal has plenty too & SD is within driving distance of AZ.
“Shorter trip from the footprint – Phoenix”
I expect flight cost to be virtually identical, and no one who isn’t already out west would be driving there (besides maybe some UNL fans).
“More neutral site – Phoenix vs B12”
Eh, true. Not much of a concern of mine. Plus, only if we face one of the 2 SoCal schools (or maybe UDub, but that’s because they travel, not because they’re close) would there be a big disadvantage in fan support.
LikeLike
SD zoo? An ocean? Primary bowl in the city, not subsidized jr partner? 🙂
Either would be fine, and I don’t really care which conference the opponent comes from.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Probably true, though SoCal has plenty too & SD is within driving distance of AZ.”
And SoCal alumni can drive to Phoenix, too. The interstates do go both ways, right?
“I expect flight cost to be virtually identical, and no one who isn’t already out west would be driving there (besides maybe some UNL fans).”
But it isn’t identical, as I mentioned elsewhere. It’s a 20% difference from Atlanta.
“More neutral site – Phoenix vs B12″
“Eh, true. Not much of a concern of mine.”
But it is for a lot of people, including coaches and players.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“SD zoo?”
There are lots of nice zoos everywhere. It’s not a reason to pick a bowl site.
“An ocean?”
An edge for SD for those that like the ocean.
“Primary bowl in the city, not subsidized jr partner?”
Why should I care about that? Does the money spend differently if it’s the junior bowl and subsidized?
LikeLike
For who?
From a fan/tourist or student-athlete perspective & definitely from a recruiting perspective, SD is way better than Phoenix (and it’s not like flights to Phoenix are cheaper than they are to SD).
If the Holiday payout is above the AZ bowl payout, then SD is the slam-dunk better choice.
LikeLike
Richard,
“From a fan/tourist or student-athlete perspective”
Depends on what you like. The players stay in 5 star resorts and get to eat huge meals at great restaurants in either place. Beyond their scripted activities, they mostly hang out and do football.
” & definitely from a recruiting perspective, SD is way better than Phoenix”
Actually, the B10 recruits Phoenix about as much as the San Diego area.
“(and it’s not like flights to Phoenix are cheaper than they are to SD).”
Phoenix is about $100 cheaper (20%) from Atlanta for a bowl time trip right now, ignoring super discount airlines.
LikeLike
Once Phoenix is no longer a hub for US Airways, expect airfare there to increase.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2013/05/michigan_state_could_schedule.html
WSU’s AD still regrets losing the B10/P12 deal, and his reasons are one of my main reasons for hating that deal. This came up because WSU and MSU are looking to play a home and home series.
“I think we really missed the boat there, and I’m still a little bit upset about that because Cougar fans would have been assured of seeing Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska in Martin Stadium because they would have had to,” Moos said. “Now trying to get them there when they don’t have to is not easy. So I think we really missed an opportunity there.”
Sure, it’s a boon for the bad schools, but why would OSU, MI, PSU or NE want to play a home and home against a team as bad as WSU has been? They would all schedule better opponents outside of that deal than they would if forced to play the WSU’s.
LikeLike
Sure, it’s a boon for the bad schools, but why would OSU, MI, PSU or NE want to play a home and home against a team as bad as WSU has been?
Is it really that any worse than having to play Rutgers every year? At least with the scheduling alliance you would have been playing WSU (at most) 1 year out of 6.
LikeLike
“Is it really that any worse than having to play Rutgers every year?”
With the conference schedule, you have good and bad games spread over 8 or 9 per year. When you are limited to one or two OOC AQ games a year, being stuck with WSU is a major impact on your OOC schedule.
LikeLike
But you probably don’t expand and stay at 8 conf games.
How would it mean facing WSU more than 1 in 12 years?
LikeLike
Except the Big Ten would have stuck with an 8 game conference schedule with the PAC Alliance, meaning you would have the same number free OOC games as a 14 team Big Ten with a 9 game schedule.
So I ask again which is really worse; WSU once every 12 years* (at most) or Rutgers every single season?
*That was typo in my first post
LikeLike
frug,
“Except the Big Ten would have stuck with an 8 game conference schedule with the PAC Alliance, meaning you would have the same number free OOC games as a 14 team Big Ten with a 9 game schedule.”
You assume. Just like you assume the B10 would still be at 12. We can’t know that, however.
Even if the numbers are 4 and 8 in stead of 3 and 9, it doesn’t really change the point very much. 25% > 12.5% just like 33% > 11%.
“So I ask again which is really worse; WSU once every 12 years* (at most) or Rutgers every single season?”
Why is that the comparison? It should be having WSU, OrSU, CO, Utah, etc forced on you once every 12 years versus the free choice of the 56 or so BCS caliber schools not in the B10. Having WSU forced on you is worse than choosing WSU. Missing out on playing OU because WSU is forced on you is a big difference.
RU isn’t relevant to the discussion unless you’re making a list of the worst things ever. Only half the B10 got stuck playing RU, and some of them seem to like it. It’s also apples versus oranges.
LikeLike
frug,
“Is it really that any worse than having to play Rutgers every year?”
No, but you know how I feel about that. That’s not saying much. A league plan shouldn’t have not being the worst thing ever as a selling point. Playing WSU is worse than playing RU, though.
1. It’s 3000 miles away, not less than 1000, and 3 time zones different
2. The stadium is even smaller and crappier
3. We could have been playing someone much more interesting
4. You only get 3 OOC games, and the other 2 will be paycheck games
5. OSU has more alumni near RU than WSU
“At least with the scheduling alliance you would have been playing WSU (at most) 1 year out of 6.”
It’s still forcing a crappy game on OSU for no good reason, and WSU isn’t the only bad program in the P12.
LikeLike
B1G News! Rutgers hires Julie Hermann to be their new athletic director. She previously worked at Louisville’s athletic program.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/9277159/rutger-scarlet-knights-hire-louisville-cardinals-julie-hermann-athletic-director
LikeLike
Video of press conference: http://rutgers.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1506147
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76867/b1g-to-take-more-control-of-bowl-pairings
The B10 is looking to have more power in helping to slot teams into bowls rather than just letting the bowls do the picking.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the league’s athletic directors are trying to strike a balance with their future bowl partners.
They don’t want to tell bowl committees which teams they’ll be hosting each winter, but they also don’t want committees making selections without some clear guidelines in place. There have been too many bad matchups, too many repeat trips, too many empty seats and too many poor TV ratings numbers in recent years.
A shake-up to the process is coming for the next bowl agreement cycle, which will go from 2014-19, but how dramatic will be it be?
“We’ll probably be somewhere in between selection and a conference placement,” Delany said Wednesday. “So what we’ll do is give a lot of conditions to each bowl, and they will have to get conference approval for the selection that they choose. The goal is going to be that we keep these games fresh and also that the bowls create the best possible lineup. I think there’s been some fatigue as there’s a lot of competition for discretionary spending. I don’t think fans are going to be interested in going to the same region over and over and over again.”
To prevent this, the Big Ten will require its bowl partners (except the Rose Bowl) to select at least five different teams during the six-year cycle. They’ll be afforded only one repeat participant.
5 out of 6? I think I might have chosen 4 out of 6 but with a mandatory 4 year gap, so it could be:
A, B, C, D, A, B. I think 3 years of being elsewhere is enough. Even 3 out of 6 with a 3 years gap would probably be OK. The bigger picture is also not just bouncing around different bowls in the same area, like the Orange, Cap 1, Outback and Gator.
The Big Ten looked back at the last 18 bowl seasons, created six-year segments and looked at how the distribution would have worked if certain rules had been in place. The models estimated an average of nine bowl-eligible teams per season with two going to one of the bowls in the Playoff rotation (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A Peach).
It may be an optimistic estimate, but I’m glad they back-applied the concept to see how it would work.
Delany said the Big Ten’s full bowl agreement should be announced in the next two weeks after the league’s presidents see what the ADs are recommending. Other than the tie-ins with the Rose Bowl and, in some years, the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten will have “at least six other relationships, maybe more.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76872/osus-smith-favors-indoor-b1g-title-game
OK, maybe Gene Smith isn’t a complete idiot.
Gene Smith has advocated for more night games at Ohio Stadium, and he’s warming up to the idea of November night games.
But when it comes to the Big Ten championship game, the Ohio State athletic director wants to leave his winter gear at home. Smith is among several Big Ten ADs — Wisconsin’s Barry Alvarez is another — who want to see the league title game remain in an indoor venue.
The Big Ten in 2011 selected Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium, an indoor facility, to host its first five championship games. The league also considered a bid from Chicago’s Soldier Field, and Chicago will make a much stronger pitch for the game when it goes to market again.
“I love Indianapolis, it’s no secret,” Smith said Wednesday. “I love that facility. I love St. Elmo [steak house]. I love Ford Field, I love what Detroit has done with that Ford Field and what they’re continuing to do with the area contiguous to that facility. … I love the indoors. I’m one of those guys.”
Smith went on to say he also “loves” Soldier Field but thinks it’s a better venue to host neutral-site games during the regular season. Illinois and Washington will play there Sept. 14.
Other Big Ten athletic directors think an outdoor stadium would be fine for the first Saturday in December, but Smith maintains that indoor venues provide “the total package” for players, coaches and fans. Attendance for the first two Big Ten title games has been disappointing, although most fans who have made the trip to Indy came away pleased.
LikeLike
“Kyle Meinke @kmeinke
Dave Brandon speaking. Not a huge fan of the parity-based scheduling. Said his foremost concern is playing every B1G team over 4-yr period”
I realize those two things are not mutually exclusive, but it says something that even MI’s AD isn’t in favor of the plan. It sounds like Delany is the only one who knows about this plan as several other ADs denied any knowledge of it. Maybe if they actually explained the idea in detail before mentioning it publicly, it wouldn’t look so bad.
LikeLike
I’ve long said that I thought that the B10 would go with a balanced 36-year-long rotation, but with the top interdivisional matchups frontloaded.
LikeLike
You’ve also long said there’s no way the B10 is still at 14 by 2050.
LikeLike
Both can be true.
LikeLike
They can, but I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that the B10 finishes a 36 year scheduling plan if it expands in the middle of it. Frankly, I think it’s highly unlikely the B10 would finish the plan even if it stays at 14. Unless a lot of teams have changed their standing by then, the B10 would be offering 18 years of an inferior product to their TV partner. How would that make sense from either side? I think the end game is to stick with this scheduling concept indefinitely, just changing which teams are in which group every so often (every 18 years?).
LikeLike
They won’t be at fourteen by 2015 much less 2050.
Thank goodness the Big Ten has a pro-active visionary running the show and not one of you retrograde types.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“They won’t be at fourteen by 2015 much less 2050.”
So in the next 20 months the B10 will add more schools? From where (ACC, B12, Independent, other)? Care to name names? Do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence to indicate this will happen? Everyone involved has said expansion is dead for now, so why are they all wrong and you are correct?
LikeLike
Canada.
Maybe Mars.
LikeLike
Expansion or not, how many leagues have ever kept the same scheduling format for 36 years? Even with the most brilliant plan, someone will think up a better idea long before 36 years have gone by. Or they’ll think up a worse idea, but because they’re the ones in charge, they’ll implement it anyway.
LikeLike
“I can’t speak for others, but we’ve been focused on making a home in a new region, making new members feel at home in this region,” Delany said. “Everything we’ll do competitively and in television and in bowls is to bring, as quickly as we can, a level of comfort. The Eastern corridor is … the richest corridor in the world from the standpoint of financial institutions, political institutions, media institutions, and we’re new to it. So if we can build relationships, make friends and be impactful and relevant over time, that’s the goal.
“We’re not going to be changing the world, but we are looking forward to doing everything we can to build a presence in that place.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76834/expansion-not-dead-but-not-b1gs-priority
LikeLike
The next Big 10 target has been identified!
From the article, Michigan State AD Mark Hollis said that the Big Ten could pursue the University of Toronto, an AAU member.
(Alright I edited a little, maybe “joked” is a little more precise than “said.”)
LikeLike
The implication of the eastern emphasis is ultimately, its UVA or bust for Big 10 expansion. If AAU is essential as mentioned in the article, that leaves SUNY-Buffalo, Pitt, UVA, UNC and Duke with maybe Vanderbilt and Georgia Tech as possibilities, and of course, Notre Dame. In other words, UVA + an acceptable #16 (not Buffalo and probably not Pitt).
LikeLike
That might be too restrictive. Someone else might obtain AAU status in the next 10-20 years. The way money is made may have changed so that adding markets is of less importance. Buffalo could become a major school. The international barrier could come down and Toronto becomes an option. New B10 presidents could decide to separate the CIC from the B10, making non-AAU schools viable. VT could be good enough to take instead of UVA. The B10 could skip VA and go straight to NC for UNC and Duke. GT could bounce back athletically and be valuable enough to pair with an academically improved FSU. A lot can change.
LikeLike
Lots can change. The Big 10 could be broken up in 15 years for any number of reasons. The Maryland and Rutgers expansion could yield almost no intangible benefits and limited direct financial ones. But based on their current thinking, its UVA.
LikeLike
So there’s no way they might think skipping VA to get UNC and Duke or UNC and GT is acceptable based on their current thinking? There’s no way VT or FSU might improve enough to be acceptable instead of UVA by their current thinking? What if the B12 implodes? Current thinking wouldn’t let them take UT?
If your contention is that UVA is at the top of the list, then I don’t disagree. I don’t believe you can accurately say it’s UVA or bust, though.
LikeLike
Nah, it’s UvA or bust.
LikeLike
Maybe the Pac-12 and B1G can eventually come to a head in Berlin if the keep heading in the same direction.
LikeLike
Their current thinking is irrelevant, because they’re not expanding currently. Ten years ago, WV in the Big XII, Texas A&M in the SEC, and Maryland in the B1G, would all have seemed wildly unlikely. And yet, here we are.
If major expansion is on hold until the 2020s, it seems safe to assume that the landscape will have shifted considerably by then, in ways no one can now predict.
LikeLike
Virginia not being interested in the B10 ended the B10’s expansion plans. B10 only saw any interest in Georgia Tech (who was reportedly on-board) if the University of Virginia was on-board. They weren’t.
Discussions among athletic directors, more than a couple brought up contiguous B10 and Virginia was the only way to work further south. Even if North Carolina & Duke were interested, they weren’t possibilities without Virginia coming as well.
LikeLike
If a contiguous Big Ten was required, then Georgia Tech couldn’t possibly have been “on board” unless both Virginia and UNC were interested. And I would be very surprised if UNC showed any interest.
It’s hard for me to believe that they actually ever said that they would refuse UNC without Virginia. They probably didn’t even consider that scenario, since in the real world, if UNC and Duke abandon the ACC, then UVA won’t be far behind.
LikeLike
Well UNC was the least likely school to leave and I think everyone knew that.
LikeLike
I think the B10 would’ve taken GT as #16 if they could’ve had Virginia, Delaney loves the Atlanta market. Yes, I know it contradicts what I said above.
LikeLike
Just off the wire:
Big Ten women’s lacrosse conference is coming 2014-2015, per NU newspaper from NU wlax coach. I have to guess men’s lax can’t be far behind, though teams seem a little lacking. Right now, the Big Ten has Northwestern, Penn State, and Ohio State, who all play in the American Lacrosse Conference. Maryland and Rutgers both have teams, so that would make 5.
On the men’s side, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Maryland, and Rutgers have teams, which is again 5. Maryland is arguably the top men’s lacrosse program, and going indy in any sport is tricky. The minimum number for an auto-bid is 6. The ACC has played forever with 4, but 6 would be highly preferable.
Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins is independent in men’s lacrosse. Their wlax team is in the soon to be decimated ALC (with NU, PSU, and OSU). Also, BruceMcF linked an article above stating that the JHU president was supposed to receive the recommendation on conference affiliation today.
Smoke, fire, etc.
LikeLike
There’s been some talk Hopkins wants only its men’s team in the Big Ten, but perhaps Delany and the conference presidents put the pressure on to include both genders.
LikeLike
Big Ten forming a women’s league leaves American Lacrosse Conference without an auto-bid for the remaining three teams (Johns Hopkins, Florida, Vanderbilt). South Carolina was set to join ALC but it’s been three-and-a-half years since the delay to start up women’s LAX was announced. Not to mention, JHU has been planning to leave ALC to compete as an independent since June 2012:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-06-29/sports/bal-johns-hopkins-womens-lacrosse-to-leave-the-american-lacrosse-conference-20120629_1_hopkins-women-janine-tucker-american-lacrosse-conference
With JHU currently exploring conference affiliation for the men’s team, it seems likely the women’s team will follow suit:
http://web.jhu.edu/administration/president/lacrosse_committee/
LikeLike
Michigan will have a women’s varsity lacrosse team in the 2013/4 academic year, so that would give the Big Ten the sixth team necessary to form a league. See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/w-lacros/mich-w-lacros-body.html
The men’s side needs a sixth team and that’s where Johns Hopkins would fit in as an associate member of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Michigan is starting a wlax team in 2014 so another team is not needed for a women’s league. Also Hopkins was already planning to take their wlax independent before the Maryland and Rutgers moves to the big 10, so teams leaving the ALC is no concern to them.
The fact that we have yet to hear anything from JHU probably means the committee recommended the mlax joining a conference and the presidents are trying to work out all the details of what an associate member means, what rights Hopkins would have as one, and if the wlax are coming too.
I can’t wait for Hopkins to join the Big 10, start making money from the BTN, and finally annoy the rest of d3 enough to push through a sort of dayton rule for lacrosse. Then Hopkins would stop getting to have its cake and eat it too, and as a possible added bonus maybe the Big Ten is dumb enough to add a worse version of Northwestern.
LikeLike
Almost 2 billion dollars in research a year is not a worse version than Northwestern. Even if they went division 1 in all sports and became doormats, JHU would add incredible value to the BIG.
LikeLike
What is this “Dayton rule for Lacrosse”? Division Three fought the fight over the single sport Division One schools and its been settled, with a common rule for all D3 schools, back nearly a decade ago. Is there any reason to think they would re-open it just out of spite against JHU?
LikeLike
The Dayton rule was what put an end to schools playing d1 basketball and d3 football. It was named after Dayton because Dayton’s success at d3 football was the reason for the rule, but it also affected schools like Georgetown. I think BTN helping turn lax into somewhat of a revenue producing sport could re-open the issue. If the lax payout of the BTN is similar to the hockey one and JHU joins I don’t see how school like Middlebury let this go by without some controversy.
LikeLike
The thing is, the effort to push the Dayton rule to the other sports was already TRIED in the middle of the last decade and was defeated, with the eight Div3 schools with Div1 sports grandfathered in.
And JHU already HOLDS the ESPNU contract to broadcast all of their home games … indeed, part of the committee recommendations is that its a condition of considering a conference that they hold onto it. So there’s no change there that would justify re-opening a vote that was already taken among Div3 schools where the lacrosse / ice hockey / soccer Div1 schools position carried the day.
LikeLike
The fact that we have yet to hear anything from JHU probably means the committee recommended the mlax joining a conference and the presidents are trying to work out all the details of what an associate member means, what rights Hopkins would have as one, and if the wlax are coming too.
I think you’re right that the JHU committee probably recommended joining a conference, but I’m not so sure that they’ve already started negotiating with the Big Ten (or any league).
I can’t wait for Hopkins to join the Big 10, start making money from the BTN, and finally annoy the rest of d3 enough to push through a sort of dayton rule for lacrosse. Then Hopkins would stop getting to have its cake and eat it too, and as a possible added bonus maybe the Big Ten is dumb enough to add a worse version of Northwestern.
The exemption passed handily the last time it was considered. JHU and the other schools made a pretty compelling case that their other sports weren’t getting any advantage by having one program in Division I. To eliminate the exemption now would screw those schools for no good reason. It’s not as if they set out on an evil plan to gain an unfair competitive edge. These are long-standing programs that pre-date the modern structure of “Divisions”.
I’m not really sure what a school like Hopkins would do if the exemption went away. Its other sports are light years away from being competitive at the Division I level. BTW, Johns Hopkins isn’t a worse version of Northwestern, unless you mean at sports. If anything, it’s a better version of Northwestern.
LikeLike
@Joe – I have an inkling that the exemption with Johns Hopkins would actually be much safer if they joined the Big Ten, unless you think that the NCAA is more worried about pleasing the Division III schools compared to Jim Delany and his power conference counterparts.
LikeLike
The thing is, its not a “John Hopkins exemption” … indeed, its more a hockey exemption than a lacrosse exemption, since there is only one lacrosse school that it applies to compared to (AFAIR) three ice hockey schools. Indeed, cancelling the grandfather rule could well set off another round of ice hockey realignment, which ice hockey schools would probably call in some chips to avoid.
When the grandfather rule exemption was granted, it was done as internal Division Three business, but it seemed to be a big enough majority that the Division is unlikely to revisit it anytime soon, while there’s even less reason for it to be pushed by the NCAA as a whole.
LikeLike
They just aren’t going to throw out the grandfather rule and hurt schools that have invested in Division I. And there really aren’t many programs (between 30 and 50 as I recall). Plus, it take out about 1/3 of Division I hockey and kill the programs that got kicked out.
There’s no risk to Johns Hopkins. And if they wanted, they could afford to move up. Any number of conferences would take them. The Ivy might even expand for them.
LikeLike
Also the Ivy isn’t expanding even for JHU and MIT. They are way too proud of their traditions, have much too strong of a brand as it is now, and have no financial incentive to get bigger.
I can’t think of anyone respectable in FBS who interested in a d3 move up, and for FCS I can only think of maybe the Patriot League.
LikeLike
@Joe: In the scenario you’re talking about (and as I gather, eagerly hoping for), Johns Hopkins would be royally screwed. I don’t know what they would do in that unlikely case. The one thing I’m sure of, is that their colleagues in DIII would need to be in a really spiteful mood to pull that off. JHU’s Division III sports would get slaughtered in Division I, as I’m sure you realize.
LikeLike
Its only eight that are grandfathered, and at least one of those have dropped their Division 1 sport anyway.
You are thinking about the cross Division 1 / Division 2 competition in a sport without a separate Division 2 championship ~ with ice hockey the most prominent example. That’s not grandfathered in, that’s a general rule ~ if there is not a separate division championship in your sport, you are allowed to play up. So any Div2 ice hockey school can play up. However, since there IS a Div3 ice hockey championship, only the grandfathered Div3 ice hockey schools can play up.
Since its a numbers game whether there is a separate division championship, that allows less commonly played sports without the numbers for three divisional championships to fill in regular season competitions by pooling divisions. Same for fencing, which as a single championship sports would allow any Div2 or Div3 team to play up.
LikeLike
If JHU joins the BTN and gets a payout near what the hockey school are getting then I believe the issue will be reopened. Last time the issue was voted on one of the main arguments was that the d1 sports doesn’t give them an advantage, but after a move to the B1G it would be hard for JHU to say that again.
Click to access ncaaproposal65.pdf
“It is also clear on a national basis that the eight schools do not gain
any advantage in Division III competition by fielding one or two Division I
teams. NACDA Directors’ Cup rankings over the past eight years illustrate the
point. The multidivisional schools’ average finish since 1996 has been 83rd.”
I don’t know if moving to a conference where they will make more money is evil or not but it is probably not in the spirit of d3 and will most certainly annoy schools like those in the NESCAC. Last time this happened One of those (Middlebury) had the political might within d3 to force the issue.
http://insidecollegehockey.com/7Archives/Features/reform_0219.htm
“…To answer that part, Middlebury President John McCardell is the Chair of the Division III Presidents’ Council, and is leading the charge for this reform package”
The current Chair of the Division III Presidents’ Council is from Gustavus Adolphus College, a small liberal arts school in Minnesota. I have no idea how he feels about this issue, but he is from a 2,600 person school (half of JHU) that does pretty well in the Directors’ Cup standings( the d3 version of capital one cup). They placed 8th in the 2008–09, and 6th in 2002–03. You know who else does well in the directors cup? NESCAC schools and also JHU, who is currently in fourth and is still alive in baseball. Imagine the anger at some school if after this big move to B1G JHU wins the directors cup this year or in the next few years.
Click to access april11DIIIrelease.pdf
This is just a d3 issue decided by a vote of only d3 members so the Big Ten’s influence on d1 will not help Hopkins. Only way I see the Big Ten helping is if the they lobby their senators to pressure smaller d3 public schools to support Hopkins. Then again this is the same Big Ten where some member voted Nebraska out of the AAU so I don’t know if the Big Ten is going to go to that length for another new member.
Yes, if the anti-exemption schools bring up the issue as getting rid of all single sports exemption then they have to fight not only Hopkins but also the hockey schools. If instead they try to single out lacrosse as growing into a revenue producing sport for Hopkins they will not face as strong as a fight from the Hockey school, as none of those schools have any plans to move to a conference with its own network.
LikeLike
Last time the issue was voted on one of the main arguments was that the d1 sports doesn’t give them an advantage, but after a move to the B1G it would be hard for JHU to say that again.
Of course they could say it again, and they’d probably be right. I have trouble imagining that there’d be a groundswell of “Let’s screw Johns Hopkins,” so soon after the exemption was ratified by a wide margin. The reason the exemption was ratified was simple: the empirical evidence suggested that the exempted schools weren’t getting any advantage. That will probably remain true.
For what it’s worth, I can’t imagine the Big Ten network generating anywhere near the revenue for lacrosse as the figure that’s been floated for hockey (and even THAT figure has not been verified as true).
LikeLike
@Joe – Why wouldn’t have this issue have already come up with JHU’s current independent TV deal with ESPN if there is a supposed unfair advantage? That’s already going down the path of what you seem to be concerned about with JHU garnering revenue in a way that other Division III aren’t able to do. I understand your argument from a technical standpoint, but don’t think it’s going to work for the Division III schools in practicality and you’re overstating the potential fallout.
LikeLike
I said this is all dependent on JHU getting a BTN payout in the millions. I didn’t know the hockey number is unverified and if it turns out it was only rumor then by all means ignore me.
LikeLike
@Frank
I haven’t been able to find any figures for the ESPNU contract. I’ve read convincing arguments from people that think JHU is only getting exposure and not any money, but theres nothing conclusive. Also keep in mind that deal was sign in 2005 just one year after the last vote when their victory was fresh.
LikeLike
@Joe: Do you mind my asking your institutional affiliation? It sounds like you really, really hate Johns Hopkins.
LikeLike
@Marc
I don’t hate them. I just hate their special deal.
LikeLike
But how are they harming you?
LikeLike
It’s not about harm it’s about everyone having to abide by the same set of rules.
LikeLike
It’s not about harm it’s about everyone having to abide by the same set of rules.
Of course it’s about “harm”. Johns Hopkins had a top-tier lacrosse program long before the modern concept of Divisions was ever legislated. Obviously, without the exemption, either they would have had to drop Division I lacrosse, or they would have had to make huge investments in other sports where they otherwise have no desire to compete on that level.
Before you inflict that kind of pain on Johns Hopkins, you have to ask what harm are they doing to others? If there is none, then there’s simply no reason to alter the status quo, when doing so would hurt JHU while helping no one else. That was what the Division III presidents overhwelmingly concluded the last time they considered the issue.
LikeLike
If scholarships do not harm d3 then every school should be allowed to have one d1 team, not just schools that paid for high priced lobbyist in 04. History is nice, but having a level playing field in the present is more important
LikeLike
If scholarships do not harm d3 then every school should be allowed to have one d1 team…
“Grandfather clauses” are fairly common. They don’t condemn every existing building whenever the construction code changes. It’s a recognition that although the new rule may be better, applying it retroactively would be too costly.
History is nice, but having a level playing field in the present is more important.
When they voted, the D3 membership concluded that it is level already, and you’ve offered zero evidence that they were wrong.
LikeLike
“They don’t condemn every existing building whenever the construction code changes. It’s a recognition that although the new rule may be better, applying it retroactively would be too costly.”
This isn’t condemning an innocent building this is condemning one where the owners refuse to stop building new construction on.( moving to big money conference)
“When they voted, the D3 membership concluded that it is level already, and you’ve offered zero evidence that they were wrong.”
As I said this is all depended on them getting millions from BTN. I don’t see how anyone will be able argue there is a level playing field if they end up getting that them from BTN. Even in 2004 Hopkins had to hide their successful d3 teams behind those of the other exempt teams.
Click to access ncaaproposal65.pdf
“It is also clear on a national basis that the eight schools do not gain
any advantage in Division III competition by fielding one or two Division I
teams. NACDA Directors’ Cup rankings over the past eight years illustrate the
point. The multidivisional schools’ average finish since 1996 has been 83rd.
Members of NESCAC, a conference of small private colleges, and WIAC, a
conference of larger state universities, have averaged 63rd and 65th, respectively.
In 2003, the multidivisional institutions placed one school (Johns Hopkins) in
the top 30 of the Directors’ Cup rankings. NESCAC and WIAC each placed
four schools in the top 30”
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/15/big-ten-record-revenue/2164593/
The Big Ten Conference’s financial supremacy was on display again Wednesday when the league’s latest federal tax return reported record revenue and the largest single-year compensation figure ever for a conference commissioner.
The return also showed the league-owned Big Ten Network has progressed from start-up to overall profitability in less than five years.
The Big Ten’s return showed the conference with more than $315 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.
The Big Ten, which increased its annual revenue by more than $50 million in 2012, had total revenue that was $42 million more than the Southeastern Conference reported for a fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2012.
Going from $260M or so to $315M is pretty good. That’s almost 20% growth. More importantly, the BTN is now profitable.
The Big Ten’s schools — other than Nebraska, which was still not getting an equal share of revenues — each received around $24.7 million from the conference in 2012.
Do we know what NE has been getting each year so far?
To put that in perspective, just this one portion of Big Ten schools’ athletics revenue in 2012 was greater than the total athletics revenue of more than half of the NCAA Division I public schools, according to USA Today Sports’ recent analysis of the figures schools reported to the NCAA.
This is why a division split needs to happen.
Part of the Big Ten’s revenue increase came from the first annual profit share generated by the Big Ten Network, which the league owns almost equally with Fox. The conference’s tax return shows the activation of a holding corporation whose purpose is to receive taxable revenue generated by the network, and that the conference netted about $11 million in 2012.
This means that during fiscal 2012, the conference and Fox finished covering the venture’s start-up costs and began making money from the network, which launched in August 2007 as the first national conference-owned TV network geared around one conference. The network’s profits seem almost certain to rise in the future. The conference also receives an annual rights fee from the network, Traviolia said.
So everybody got about $1M in BTN profits last year and that will only grow as we get a full year’s worth of profit next year and don’t have any more start-up costs to pay.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/15/big-ten-breathes-life-into-next-round-of-bowls/
More bowl news:
The buzzwords you hear on the Big Ten’s new bowl lineup are “national,” “diverse” and “recruiting.”
The conference has seemingly achieved national with bowl deals from the Holiday Bowl in San Diego to the Pinstripe Bowl at Yankee Stadium in New York. The diversity stems from the less sexy word, “fatigue.” Many times schools ended up stuck in a Florida or Arizona cycle.
Let’s just check this out.
Old – CA, FL, FL, FL, AZ, TX, TX, MI
FL – 3
TX – 2
AZ, CA, MI – 1
New – CA, FL (Orange or Cap 1), FL, CA, TN/FL, NY, TX, maybe CA again, MI
CA, FL – 2.5-3
MI, NY, TX – 1
TN – 0/1
National – We add NY and TN but lose AZ. That doesn’t seem much more national to me. We already went coast to coast. We had TN before but dropped/lost it, so it can’t be a great prize. NY wasn’t an option before, plus we’ve expanded since the last deal.
Diverse – We’ve traded TX for CA in terms of large clumps of bowls but the rest is similar. Two states will host 5-6 of our bowls. We lost our desert access but gained NYC and TN (part time).
Recruiting – We lost a game in AZ, TX and half a game in FL and gained 1-2 in CA. TN isn’t a hot bed, and neither is NYC, plus it’s in the footprint essentially. I’m not seeing the gain here. Distance will keep CA from being a recruiting stronghold for the B10.
But there was some more news:
The next round of bowl deals will be for six years. Delany said that a bowl that signs with the Big Ten will have to pick five different schools in those six years.
…
Delany said the conference looked back at the last 18 years and broke them down into six segments. Along with the “five different schools in six years” parameter, another Delany mentioned was a school could play in Orlando and then Tampa the next year, but then couldn’t play in Florida a third consecutive year.
Will this rule also apply to CA (except the Rose as the third)? It’s a good idea to eliminate FL fatigue, but CA fatigue is probably worse due to distance.
LikeLike
NJ has talent, and an NYC bowl game will get coverage there.
AZ isn’t exactly a talent hotbed either.
For recruiting, getting the Alamo or Liberty would be great, but I doubt that happens.
Personally, I’m against the “third time” rule. Different cities in FL are different. Same with CA.
LikeLike
Richard,
“NJ has talent, and an NYC bowl game will get coverage there.”
Yes, but since it’s in the footprint the bowl only marginally impacts recruiting there.
“AZ isn’t exactly a talent hotbed either.”
I didn’t say it was.
“For recruiting, getting the Alamo or Liberty would be great, but I doubt that happens.”
I don’t think lower bowls really help with recruiting. No B10 caliber player aspires to be in the Liberty Bowl, and a player can’t count on a bowl for a chance to play near home.
“Personally, I’m against the “third time” rule. Different cities in FL are different. Same with CA.”
Traveling fans may have told them otherwise in regards to FL and TX.
LikeLike
I think they want the NY bowl to help grow the East Coast branding Delaney has been talking about.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I think they want the NY bowl to help grow the East Coast branding Delaney has been talking about.”
I’m all for the NY bowl, don’t get me wrong, I’m just saying it will only marginally impact recruiting in the area.
LikeLike
Its not just fans traveling from Big Ten country, its also expatriates from Big Ten country going to the game. First time in a while your school has been in Florida, it seems more likely that you’ll get fans traveling in from around the state than if you’ve been in Florida each of the last four years.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/15/pac-12-football-the-2013-non-conference-schedule-and-how-it-compares-to-the-sec-b1g-etc/
A look at OOC schedule by league for 2013. Wilner uses games against the Big 5 plus ND, UL and Boise as his metric for comparison. He didn’t give the numbers for the ACC, but I did a quick count.
P12 – 13/37 = 35% (1.1 per team)
SEC – 15/56 = 27% (1.1 per team)
B10 – 12/48 = 25% (1.0 per team)
ACC – 14/56 = 25% (1.0 per team)
B12 – 6/30 = 20% (0.6 per team)
The B12 needs to start improving things. It was one thing to be weak right after expansion when they had to mess up a lot of schedules, but now it’s getting sad. Actually, let’s not paint with a broad brush. Here are the B12’s future big OOC games:
UT – UCLA in 2014, ND and Cal in 2015-6, UMD and USC in 2017-8, ND in 2019-20, AR in 2021, OSU in 2022-3
OU – TN in 2014-5, ND in 2015, OSU in 2016-7, LSU in 2018-9, NE in 2021-2
TCU – MN in 2014-5, AR in 2016-7, OSU in 2018-9
ISU – IA annually
WV – UMD in 2014-7
KU – Duke in 2014, RU in 2015 and 2018
KSU – Auburn in 2014
OkSU – FSU in 2014, Boise in 2021
Baylor – next one is Duke in 2017-8
TT – none
It’s really just those bottom 4 who need to step it up.
Of course, another metric would be to look at the I-AA games. The ACC, B12 and SEC would do poorly there with the B10 slightly better and the P12 on top if I had to guess.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-big-ten-devising-ways-to-combat-bowl-fatigue-20130515,0,3385631.story
Phillips said dates with FCS foes might remain in play because of a “lack of inventory” of schools that would not require a home-and-home series.
Apparently 7 home games might even mean something to NW now.
LikeLike
@Brian – I’m not surprised. My feeling is that the Big Ten’s FCS scheduling rule is going to become like campaign finance legislation: everyone says that it’s a good idea publicly, but then those same people all try to find ways around the new rules as soon as they’re passed. If it’s a choice between 7 home games or refusing to play FCS schools, the ADs will choose 7 home games every time.
Plus, I can tell you that in the case of Illinois, playing one of the local FCS schools such as Illinois State or Eastern Illinois draws more ticket sales than playing a MAC/Sun Belt-type FBS team that would cost more in a guarantee game. Northwestern is in the same boat and Iowa might be finding a similar situation with a school like Northern Iowa compared to some of the alternative FBS options. The only ones that likely don’t care that much are the Michigan/Ohio State-types where paying for guarantee games is largely a rounding error since their ticket sales are guaranteed no matter who they trot out there as an opponent.
LikeLike
They can get the games. Its just a case of being cheap. They want to sell an Idaho St. that costs them 500k less at the same price as they would a school that has the same # of scholarships as them.
Fortunately, fans are starting to not show up for those games.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Brian – I’m not surprised. My feeling is that the Big Ten’s FCS scheduling rule is going to become like campaign finance legislation: everyone says that it’s a good idea publicly, but then those same people all try to find ways around the new rules as soon as they’re passed. If it’s a choice between 7 home games or refusing to play FCS schools, the ADs will choose 7 home games every time.”
Of course they would, but that’s a false choice.
“Plus, I can tell you that in the case of Illinois, playing one of the local FCS schools such as Illinois State or Eastern Illinois draws more ticket sales than playing a MAC/Sun Belt-type FBS team that would cost more in a guarantee game.”
More than NIU? I understand the appeal of local teams, and the cost benefit of a I-AA over a I-A.
“Northwestern is in the same boat and Iowa might be finding a similar situation with a school like Northern Iowa compared to some of the alternative FBS options. The only ones that likely don’t care that much are the Michigan/Ohio State-types where paying for guarantee games is largely a rounding error since their ticket sales are guaranteed no matter who they trot out there as an opponent.”
The problem with that argument is that everyone is about to get a sizable raise due to CFP money. That will be more than enough to cover the extra cost of a I-A over a I-AA, including any lost ticket sales.
LikeLike
The problem with that argument is that everyone is about to get a sizable raise due to CFP money. That will be more than enough to cover the extra cost of a I-A over a I-AA, including any lost ticket sales.
I am not in favor of playing I-AA opponents, but businessmen don’t like to leave money on the table, no matter how much they’ve already made. If it should turn out that they can make more by scheduling a I-AA, I don’t think they will be able to resist.
In the grand scheme of sports crimes, playing an intra-state I-AA doesn’t bother me that much. I certainly wouldn’t watch, but I’m not going to watch Iowa play Eastern Michigan either. If more fans will show up for Northern Iowa, then maybe Northern Iowa is the better game to have.
LikeLike
I don’t mind in-state I-AA’s much either, except for my team. But I do hate the trickle down effect that they have on my team. Playing a I-AA lowers your SOS and also hurts the SOS of everyone who plays you. That’s why I support the I-AA ban. Your right to play a crappy schedule ends when it hurts other teams. If TV will pay more and more teams can make the CFP because of the ban, then it’s a no-brainer for the B10.
LikeLike
Beyond that, even the schools willing to play home-and-home are limited. Many schools won’t schedule more than one of those in a two-year period, and the ones that will are in demand.
LikeLike
Not really if you’re willing to dig deep in the barrel. Are you telling me that there are AAC, CUSA, or MWC schools that would turn down a HaH with any B10 school?
The bigger concern is that cutting out FCS schools may not make business sense.
LikeLike
For example, asking a school like NU to bid for a guarantee game with a school like EMU (who would cost at least $1M) when a school like SIU is available for $300K and would increase ticket revenues just doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
Your cut of the CFP money will cover it.
LikeLike
Are you telling me that there are AAC, CUSA, or MWC schools that would turn down a HaH with any B10 school?
Probably not, but those games have to make sense. Many Big Ten teams aren’t willing to visit a mid-major. Michigan is traveling to UConn this year, and they are not very happy about it.
The bigger concern is that cutting out FCS schools may not make business sense.
Although, as a fan, I’d rather see sexier opponents, I think you’re right.
LikeLike
Long run these games hurt. When its over at halftime (or even the 1st quarter), it hurts the gameday atmosphere. Its also a case of asking a premium price for inferior competition. It breaks faith with the customer.
Imagine a local theater company selling season tickets and having a couple plays a year where they didn’t do much with the scenery and only had token appearances by the main players and instead used a bunch of backups. That’s basically what these ADs are doing.
LikeLike
Part fo the problem is that plenty of 1-A opponents are little better than the AA’s. Michigan fans aren’t going to care much if any more about playing Eastern Michigan than they would about playing Delaware.
LikeLike
It could make sense overall to cut out FCS schools but still fall apart because of boundary problems ~ since where it helps the most is in media value, but the benefit to media value is likely to be difficult to predict, while the financial benefit of scheduling an FCS payday game instead of a Mid-Major payday game is direct and up-front.
Its obviously easier if the Big Ten is the only conference pushing it through, and of course its the Big Ten where any benefit to media value is most likely to flow through, since marginal increases in media value can go into the BTN profit sharing.
LikeLike
Pac 12 has talked about it. They played very few prior to 2010 (4 in 2009, 2 in 2008), but most Pac 12 schools are playing FCS teams now.
LikeLike
BTW, it’s not so much that NU wants 7 home games every year–I think 11 HaH’s would be perfectly fine–but Phillips would rather not take a financial hit scheduling overpriced MAC schools rather than FCS schools for the 12th game.
LikeLike
B10 itself doesn’t want to give up home dates and give the tv rights to the opposition. It’s not just that the home dates are valuable on gameday, they hold tv value too.
LikeLike
LSU to add women’s sand volleyball.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=207680362
If the unis are anything like the beach volleyball’s unis in the Olympics, I’m guessing that this sport will be a revenue generator.
LikeLike
Saw an interesting site on another realignment page. You can search and see who colleges think their peers are, who thinks that college is a peer and the schools that match.
http://chronicle.com/article/Peers-Interactive-Data/134262/
LikeLike
Most select a few schools as their peer. Although there are exceptions. For example, there’s a certain school north of Arkansas that selects everybody and their dog (35 peers). They actually have a large number reciprocate-13: Iowa State, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, Arizona, Rutgers, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St., SUNY Stony Brook, Virginia and Pittsburg (so much for bashing of Kansas, Iowa State and Nebraska from their fans).
Georgia has a dozen schools listed as peers scattered around the country, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan St., Iowa, Maryland, Arizona, N. Arkansas, Ohio St., UC-Davis. But only 3 reciprocate-Iowa St., LSU and North Carolina St.
Texas has 11 listed-Cal, UCLA, Washington, Michigan St., Ohio State + 6 who reciprocate-Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and UNC.
LikeLike
None of the California schools selected any peers, so it’s a bit off.
LikeLike
Maryland selected five peers — UC Berkeley, UCLA, Illinois, Michigan and North Carolina. Only Ann Arbor reciprocated. A total of 39 institutions chose College Park as a peer.
In contrast, Iowa State chose 100 peers –– including such dissimilar institutions as Florida International, Georgia State, Virginia Commonwealth, the University of Toledo, eight University of California campuses and the CUNY Graduate Center. Some 33 named Ames as a peer, most of them Morrill Act-type state universities.
Read into that what you will.
LikeLike
bullet, you’re so butthurt that you can’t even type the world “Missouri” anymore, now we’re “a certain school north of Arkansas”. Hilarious.
LikeLike
People type that because you mentioned that when you visit this site, you search for the terms “Missouri” and “Mizzou” so that you can be sure to provide a glorious rebuttal to any perceived slight on your Tigers.
We’re all hoping if we don’t type Missouri or Mizzou, that you will just go away.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Except if you guys really wanted me to go away you wouldn’t troll me so much.
LikeLike
By the looks of Missouri’s list, it looks like they picked a bunch of large AAU schools as peers, which makes sense considering Missouri is a large AAU school. I guess they could have selected less of them, but it seems kind of arbitrary either way.
LikeLike
In fact it looks like Missouri’s peer list is just a list of all public AAU schools.
LikeLike
Also some other schools, including Arizona, picked the exact same list. So there seems to be the mentality among some that the group of public AAU schools are an exclusive peer group.
LikeLike
Rutgers’ first five B1G games in 2014:
PSU
Michigan
@OSU
@Nebraska
Wisconsin
LikeLike
Ouch! Tough Start, Good home games
LikeLike
Sitting through a lot of bad matchups in 23 years as a Rutgers season ticketholder will all be worth it come that 2014 home schedule (let alone the fact it gives me a decent chance of getting away tickets for Neb and OSU).
LikeLike
Silver lining: Byes/OOC games before Michigan, OSU, and PSU.
LikeLike
Click to access football-20130516.pdf
Here’s the whole B10 schedule for 2014.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76936/big-ten-releases-2014-football-schedule
Here’s an analysis of the schedule.
Parity-based scheduling doesn’t start until 2016, and it’s pretty obvious here as the Big Ten is losing most of its exciting crossover games. We won’t see Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State playing Nebraska or Wisconsin in 2014 and 2015. Wisconsin and Michigan State, the pairing in the inaugural Big Ten title game, also won’t play. That’s too bad. I understand the need to build the brand in new markets with the new members, but those are a lot of good games to give up.
As I predicted, the B10 is preserving the lesser rivalries in preparation for the parity-scheduling to start in 2016. That why OSU/IL and MI/MN are paired. Meanwhile, RU and UMD get the big intro years like NE did. RU gets NE and WI, UMD gets IA and WI.
Also as I predicted, RU/UMD and MSU/PSU are the final games. Let the complaining commence.
The Big Ten season will kick off much earlier than normal as Rutgers makes its league debut against Penn State on Sept. 13. The game had been previously scheduled between the teams, and the league decided not to move it. The Scarlet Knights and Nittany Lions will kick off league play a full two weeks before any other squads. Three Big Ten teams — Michigan State, Ohio State and Wisconsin — won’t kick off league play until Oct. 4. Blame the double bye.
<i.Not surprisingly, the Big Ten is splitting the Ohio State-Michigan trips to Maryland and Rutgers. Maryland hosts Ohio State on Oct. 4 in its Big Ten home debut, while Rutgers hosts Michigan the same day. The Big Ten wants to get its most visible members into the new markets.
Nebraska fans likely won’t be thrilled with the schedule. Not only do they miss Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan, but the Huskers’ Big Ten home schedule — Illinois, Rutgers, Purdue and Minnesota — isn’t too appealing.
While Nebraska’s home schedule is a dud, Michigan State won’t have trouble selling tickets to a Spartan Stadium slate that features Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State. The Spartans must travel to all three venues in 2015.
That’s what happens when you get all the top teams in the first rotation.
Michigan will play its three biggest rivals — Notre Dame, Michigan State and Ohio State — all on the road in 2014. The Wolverines no longer will have a home/road split with Michigan State and Ohio State. Michigan also will make consecutive trips to East Lansing the next two seasons.
MI fans will probably complain even with ND dropping off the schedule, and I can understand why.
LikeLike
Similar thing happened with NE when they started B1G play, so not surprised. I don’t mind waiting until 2016 before parity scheduling recommences. However, the one thing to think about is how this would effect seeding for the CFP in 2014 and 2015. You know those ESPN hack writers won’t be less hostile towards the B1G. Another reason to ditch them after 2017.
LikeLike
Uh, the “hack writers” should have no influence on the CFP selection and seeding.
LikeLike
So I got in an argument with an A&M over the value of the A&M and Missouri additions in terms of markets and such. Did we ever receive clarity on the SEC’s ownership of the SECN? I had thought there were only rumors of 100% ESPN ownership. Do we have something more concrete?
LikeLike
Was that the lack of clarity? I’d thought that was directly announced, the lack of information was regarding the terms of the revenue split, which may take until corporate and public university accounting starts to release raw numbers before we get a handle on it.
LikeLike
ESPN owns the channel and pays the SEC for the content, just like their other media rights deals. The method and amounts of payment have not been revealed. But they now own the SEC tor a long time.
LikeLike
That’s what I was looking for. I remembered rumors of 100% immediately after the release, but I never saw an official word.
LikeLike
Missouri’s AD has indicated that the amount that SEC schools will get will depend on how many subscribers buy the SEC Network, so it would seem to be at least somewhat tied to a profit share rather than a set amount.
LikeLike
For its 2014 cross-divisional games, Michigan got Minnesota and Northwestern, which I think they’ve got to be pretty happy with, given the rest of the schedule. For some reason, Michigan State will be a road game that year. Historically (like, for the last 45 years), Michigan has had the Spartans at home in even-numbered years, and the Buckeyes at home in odd-numbered years. It also means that MSU will get Michigan at East Lansing two years in a row.
LikeLike
Hmm.
NOT parity-based scheduling.
OSU gets Illinois and Minny.
Michigan gets Northwestern and Minny.
PSU gets Northwestern and Illinois
UNL gets MSU and Rutgers.
Wisconsin gets Maryland and Rutgers.
LBJ & Illibuck are preserved.
What’s with the loading up of the eastern powers vs. the IL schools?
The conspiracy theorist in me is thinking that it’s almost like the B10 is trying to create a OSU/Michigan vs. UNL/Wisconsin title game.
LikeLike
Maryland’s inaugural Big Ten schedule, 2014:
9/27 at Indiana
10/4 vs. Ohio State
10/18 vs Iowa
10/25 at Wisconsin
11/1 at Penn State
11/15 vs. Michigan State
11/22 at Michigan
11/29 vs Rutgers
Only one of the eastern “kings” at home, but if the 2015 pairings are reversed, Wisconsin, Penn State and Michigan will be visiting College Park..
LikeLike
Vincent – it looks like the B1G really did Maryland a disservice by having the Terps open B1G play on the road. . . at Indiana. At least the first home game is against a B1G-time team.
LikeLike
Well, it gives them a decent chance to open with a win. It also let’s the focus be on the opening week for everyone and then they get their first high profile home game (a double header with OSU/UMD and MI/RU, as I suggested). It also may have been just an unavoidable by-product of other scheduling factors.
LikeLike
@Richard – It’s probably making sure that Ohio State and Michigan are getting continuous coverage in the Chicago market more than anything (both because those schools deem that to be important and it’s good for TV purposes).
LikeLike
They definitely set the first round of matchups to maximize TV coverage in various markets and the like (look at Rutgers’ schedule); naturally, that makes sense. It’s no different from what they did with Nebraska’s first two years of scheduling. This time they’re doing it with the entire conference.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Richard – It’s probably making sure that Ohio State and Michigan are getting continuous coverage in the Chicago market more than anything (both because those schools deem that to be important and it’s good for TV purposes).”
OSU doesn’t care that much about Chicago. It’s never been an alumni stronghold for us.
I think the reasons are clear:
1. They are doing 2 years of the opposite of their upcoming parity-based scheduling. The top 3 in the east (OSU, MI and PSU) are getting the bottom 3 in the west that aren’t PU (NW, MN, IL). This is a way to throw a bone to those schools since they won’t see the eastern kings much in the next two decades.
2. They also wanted to get the little rivalries in before the scheduling changes. Illibuck and LBJ get two last years of being annual.
3. Media concerns might be a factor, but not a major one.
LikeLike
I hope parity based scheduling is already dead, but really I doubt it starts until the 9 game schedule would start. In the meantime, they are trying to get in the games that have been awhile and probably also filtering in some of the minor rivalries, namely the Illibuck and Little Brown Jug (which I’m happy with).
LikeLike
I see.
B10 clearly not interested about ESPN getting big name matchups in the last years of their 10-year contract as they’ve scheduled the minimum number of king/prince interdivisional matchups possible (1) in UNL-MSU.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Hmm.
NOT parity-based scheduling.”
No, they said that would start in 2016 with the 9th game.
“LBJ & Illibuck are preserved.”
As I predicted.
“What’s with the loading up of the eastern powers vs. the IL schools?”
One last rotation of the lesser rivals against them before the parity-based scheduling reduces them to rare occurrences.
LikeLike
Really unhappy playing Sparty to end the season. I would have preferred anyone: Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, anyone but Michigan State. Throw in the fact we do not get Wisconsin & (or) Nebraska the first two years ( when we could use them for Recruiting purposes), means a grade of F for the B10 as far as I am concerned.
LikeLike
Its good to see that PSU fans still blame B1G for everything.
LikeLike
Somehow, I don’t think getting pounded by UNL and Wisconsin will help with recruiting.
LikeLike
“Really unhappy playing Sparty to end the season. I would have preferred anyone: Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, anyone but Michigan State.”
Yep, always a bummer to end the year with a loss.
LikeLike
Really unhappy playing Sparty to end the season. I would have preferred anyone: Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, anyone but Michigan State.
Clearly, the Big Ten wanted the season finale to be Rivalry Week, as it is in the rest of the country. There was simply no other game that would have made sense. If you get Maryland, then who does Rutgers play? If you get Pitt, then at least one Big Ten team would have to take a bye. (Anyhow, is Pitt even available that week?)
Throw in the fact we do not get Wisconsin & (or) Nebraska the first two years ( when we could use them for Recruiting purposes), means a grade of F for the B10 as far as I am concerned.
You’re getting Michigan and Ohio State, and on top of that, Rutgers and Maryland were added to the Big Ten specifically because Penn State wanted them. I realize there were other reasons, but that was one of the reasons. So you’ve got four schools on your schedule that you (supposedly) really, really wanted. And you also get to play in the Chicago market.
That’s a pretty good deal for a school on probation.
LikeLike
I would have had no problem playing Maryland or Rutgers on the road (such as on a Friday after Thanksgiving). I also understand we could not play Ohio State, Wisconsin or Nebraska. I would have even preferred Indiana or Temple to Sparty (at least ending with them would be new). MSU is a failed experiment, that bombed before and bombed again. It is like doing a sequel to “Green Lantern” or “John Carter” you will get the same results as before. I also love how Nitt Haters think the Terps or Scarlet Knights are real Penn State rivals. If they were, Sparty would not be our “rival” to end the season. Even Syracuse and West Virginia are thought of more then
those two. We have one real rival that dislikes us, and that is the Pitt Panthers, and even our biggest B10 “rival” (Ohio State) puts us behind Illinois. I must admit, OSU arrogance (THE Ohio State University) stirs up as much anger in me as do the Dallas Cowboys, Baltimore Ravens, Boston Red Sox, and New York Rangers. Finally, for those who think it is a big deal for PSU to be playing Michigan, I can tell you they stir up about as much passion in me as the Lions, Tigers, Red Wings or Spartans (none at all).
LikeLike
I would have even preferred Indiana or Temple to Sparty (at least ending with them would be new). MSU is a failed experiment, that bombed before and bombed again.
To the extent MSU “bombed,” I cannot imagine how Indiana would be any better, unless all you’re looking for is an easy win to end the season. And of course, in so doing, it would mean that Indiana and Purdue can’t meet, which is probably the finale those schools would prefer.
As I mentioned, if Penn State plays an OOC game, then it means at least one Big Ten team would have to have a bye on the last day of the season. Which school do you think would volunteer for that, so that Penn State could play Temple?
LikeLike
David Brown,
“MSU is a failed experiment, that bombed before and bombed again.”
Maybe if you stopped insisting of thinking of the last game as a rivalry and just accepted it as the last game on your schedule you wouldn’t get so aggravated. As you said, you don’t really have a clear top rival (Pitt, OSU) that is available that week. Some PSU fans have argued that UMD is a bigger rival than Pitt (E vs W fight, generally), so there would be no pleasing the PSU fan base anyway. Look at it as a warm-up game for the CCG.
“and even our biggest B10 “rival” (Ohio State) puts us behind Illinois.”
Actually, I’d guess the majority of OSU fans put PSU ahead of IL. I certainly don’t, but I’m pretty sure I’m in the minority. Certainly the younger fans put PSU ahead of IL since they never knew a B10 without PSU, and clearly PSU is a stronger program.
“I must admit, OSU arrogance (THE Ohio State University)”
Don’t blame us for the state making that the official name a long time ago. We didn’t add it and most of us don’t use it. It’s trolls or OSU haters that usually use it. OSU fans generally use OSU or Ohio State.
“Finally, for those who think it is a big deal for PSU to be playing Michigan, I can tell you they stir up about as much passion in me as the Lions, Tigers, Red Wings or Spartans (none at all).”
I would suggest you are an outlier amongst PSU fans, because many were very excited to play MI in those first 10 years and got upset when MI dropped off the schedule.
LikeLike
I have heard Philly fans favor Temple over Pitt for a rival (Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh), but never Maryland, even when we played them every year, they were an afterthought. As far as OSU is concerned, I did not know the story behind The Ohio State University ( I thought it was a bunch of post Woody Hayes fan boys), so I thank you for correcting me on this (I still do not like Ohio State ( although not on a Cowboy, Raven, or Red Sox level), but to be fair, OSU fans generally do not like the Steelers, Yankees or Penguins either). As far as Michigan is concerned, there was not as much anger in not playing UM as there was in Paterno not playing Pitt (For me, I would rank it number 3 behind Sandusky and not retiring as Paterno mistakes are concerned). My objection to Michigan State remains the fact that the people tried to force feed a “rival” down our throat with the awful “Land Grant” Trophy and even though it was rejected by many people (such as my self), they are trying again.
LikeLike
Personally, I call it the “Bowling League Trophy Game”.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“I have heard Philly fans favor Temple over Pitt for a rival (Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh), but never Maryland, even when we played them every year, they were an afterthought.”
I forget what site it was on, but there were some PSU fans saying they’d take either UMD or RU over Pitt but they preferred UMD. They put all 3 above MSU, I think.
“As far as OSU is concerned, I did not know the story behind The Ohio State University ( I thought it was a bunch of post Woody Hayes fan boys), so I thank you for correcting me on this ”
You’re welcome. I get tired of the false accusations of the OSU fans adding it to be arrogant, so I try to educate when I can.
“I still do not like Ohio State ( although not on a Cowboy, Raven, or Red Sox level),”
Nobody expects a PSU to like OSU.
“but to be fair, OSU fans generally do not like the Steelers, Yankees or Penguins either).”
We also hate the Cowboys and Ravens, so we have some common ground.
“As far as Michigan is concerned, there was not as much anger in not playing UM as there was in Paterno not playing Pitt”
That’s fair. I’m just saying there was definitely some reaction from the fans. You made it sound like nobody cared at all.
“My objection to Michigan State remains the fact that the people tried to force feed a “rival” down our throat with the awful “Land Grant” Trophy and even though it was rejected by many people (such as my self), they are trying again.”
I really don’t think anybody is trying to force you two to be rivals. You’re just the two odd schools left out when everyone else plays a rivalry game, so you get paired. The B10 has trophy games like nobody else. They aren’t all rivalries. IN and MSU have a trophy and neither side cares. PSU and MN have a trophy and nobody cares. PSU and MSU have the ugliest trophy ever. You don’t have to care about the “rivalry.” On the other hand, OSU and MI don’t have a trophy and it’s a huge rivalry. I think only MSU and PSU fans think the game is some forced rivalry, which is why you amuse the rest of us when you get so upset. Everyone else sees it for what it is – a scheduling necessity.
LikeLike
No trophy? When the Buckeyes win The Game, OSU wins The Whole State of Michigan as a trophy. OTOH, since we don’t give a damn about the whole state of Michigan, we never collect the trophy.
LikeLike
In my mind some of these trophy games (the Minn-PSU game comes to mind) were set up as a means to try and make these games a little more meaningful. I think that some of the schools in the B1G were trying to make PSU at least feel a little more welcome by trying to make the games at least seem a little bigger than they maybe were/are. Part of the problem is that many of these games were not/are not played annually. It’s hard to call any game a “rivalry game” if it’s not played annually.
I think that some of the PSU fans, for whatever reason, still yearn for the Notre Dame independence thing, and just refuse to give any credit to the rest of the schools in the B1G, or the conference itself with trying to make PSU feel like a part of the historic conference.
This is really one more reason that conference expansion has it’s issues… No matter what the conference, or maybe some of it’s schools/fans do, you’re just never going to please everyone…
LikeLike
In my mind some of these trophy games (the Minn-PSU game comes to mind) were set up as a means to try and make these games a little more meaningful.
Meaning can’t be wished into existence, and at some point trophy games are a joke if there are too many of them.
It’s hard to call any game a “rivalry game” if it’s not played annually.
Nevertheless, I think the Little Brown Jug and the Illibuck are genuinely valued by the four schools involved, even though those games aren’t quite annual, and are going to be even less frequent in the future.
I think that some of the PSU fans, for whatever reason, still yearn for the Notre Dame independence thing….
Some fans don’t understand the the reasons why independence was not economically practical any more.
This is really one more reason that conference expansion has it’s issues… No matter what the conference, or maybe some of it’s schools/fans do, you’re just never going to please everyone…
If pleasing everyone is the aim, then no one would ever do anything.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
It’s hard to call any game a “rivalry game” if it’s not played annually.
“Nevertheless, I think the Little Brown Jug and the Illibuck are genuinely valued by the four schools involved, even though those games aren’t quite annual, and are going to be even less frequent in the future.”
I think both of those games have lost a lot of value because the younger fans don’t care about them now. The BCS corrupted fans into only caring about major games, so historical rivalries that aren’t balanced lost value. Now that they’ll be reduced to 1/3 frequency, I doubt any young fan will ever care about either of those games again. The B10 is effectively killing those rivalries by 2034, thanks to RU and UMD (may they never win a game and quit the B10 in shame).
LikeLike
Also, be careful what you wish for. i project PSU to get the toughest schedule of all the Eastern schools over the first 18 years of the 9-game conference slate, playing UNL/Wisconsin/Iowa more often than OSU or Michigan.
LikeLike
Well, here’s hoping that the Big Ten has more expansion and that an acceptable scenario presents itself for Penn State’s final game of the season. 🙂
IRT to the schedule for the first two years, I wouldn’t worry about it because the top teams from each division are going to be playing one another on a regular basis starting 2016.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Well, here’s hoping that the Big Ten has more expansion and that an acceptable scenario presents itself for Penn State’s final game of the season.”
I don’t see an acceptable outcome for him because there are only 2 paths:
1. Add Pitt and #16. Games become PSU/Pitt and MSU/#16. Unfortunately, Pitt adds almost no new markets so they aren’t an option for now.
2. Add UVA and #16 (not UNC or any other UVA rival). Games become UVA/UMD, PSU/RU and MSU/#16. Unfortunately, UVA is highly unlikely without UNC, and that would result in UVA/UNC. Maybe UVA/GT would fit the bill, but the B10 couldn’t make it happen before the GOR.
Either way, he’s essentially requiring MSU to get screwed over (unless #16 is ND) so PSU can be happy.
LikeLike
Sparty can play Maryland or Rutgers to end the season (Penn State the other). I really do not care which my Nitts play, I simply am not in favor of Michigan State. I have said I would even prefer the Hoosiers because it is a new match-up. The funny thing about Michigan State is they care about us even less then we care about then. Their enemy is a certain school in Ann Arbor, while our biggest rival is located in another Conference (Pitt Panthers). All I have to say is thank God probation will end and the Panthers are coming back….. I never thought I would say it but I have missed them, and I pray they will never leave our schedule again.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Sparty can play Maryland or Rutgers to end the season (Penn State the other). I really do not care which my Nitts play, I simply am not in favor of Michigan State. I have said I would even prefer the Hoosiers because it is a new match-up.”
Please answer these questions relevant to the final games for PSU, MSU, RU and UMD:
1. Why should MSU have to suffer to appease PSU?
2. Which final game is the most likely to be important in the division race?
3. Which pair of final games have the most value to the B10?
“The funny thing about Michigan State is they care about us even less then we care about then. Their enemy is a certain school in Ann Arbor, while our biggest rival is located in another Conference (Pitt Panthers).”
And they are smart enough to understand that just because PSU is their final opponent it doesn’t change who their rival is. They know OSU is a bigger rival for MI, so MSU can’t finish with their top rival. They don’t like it, but they understand the reality. That’s why they appreciate having a brand name team to play in the final week.
“All I have to say is thank God probation will end and the Panthers are coming back….. I never thought I would say it but I have missed them, and I pray they will never leave our schedule again.”
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9273908/pittsburgh-panthers-hopeful-series-penn-state-nittany-lions-resume
It doesn’t sound like it will be annual necessarily, but the ADs do sound like they think it’ll be regular again. Pitt would welcome an annual series, but I doubt PSU would with the move to 9 games. 2016-2019 is set, and I wouldn’t be too surprised if it became a 2 on/2 off type of series. That would leave room to bring in other schools to keep variety in the schedule while maintaining the rivalry. That might let Pitt play WV home and home every so often, too.
LikeLike
Brian: MSU would not suffer playing Rutgers & Maryland ( some kind of alternating schedule would be a compromise). I am sure the B10 Network would not mind seeing Penn State on a Friday after Thanksgiving at either Maryland or Rutgers, or Michigan State playing the other one ( depending on which game is not on ESPN). As far as Pitt is concerned, The new people at Penn State such as Coach O’Brien know we need them, for fan interest and for recruiting purposes. Even the B10 knows this, which is why the ACC/Big 10 Challenge have us playing the Panthers instead of some lower seeded team. Under Joe Paterno, it was like nothing was wrong (“Paternoville” and the like), where he was above the University President ( Graham Spannier), who could not even fire him when he wanted to. He did not think we needed Pitt, and that was the Law ( fans be damned). For the first time I can remember, both sides need each other equally (no more “Backyard Brawl” or annual football games against Notre Dame for Pitt). By the way, Panther leadership seems more receptive to Penn State than West Virginia. Why? No idea, but it is what it is. One more point: With the change in the rules about no more lower division teams being on the schedule, and MAC teams not exactly being cheap to schedule as a Home Game, a lot of the incentive of not playing teams like Pitt or maybe even for OSU playing Cincinnati Home and Home (Paul Brown of course), are lessened. My gut feeling is there will be 13 Games on Schedules going forward, because of: 1: The large amount of money being paid by Networks, they need content for their dollars. 2: The need for 7 home games to help with Athletic Dept budgets. 3: The power of the NCAA is lessened ( particularly when it comes to Power Conferences). I strongly suspect, that B10 Schools ( particularly Iowa not playing Northern Iowa and Minnesota same with North Dakota), must be getting something very profitable in not scheduling lower Division Schools. I think it is more money and that 13th Game.
LikeLike
MSU would not suffer playing Rutgers & Maryland (some kind of alternating schedule would be a compromise).
I think what Brian meant, is that MSU vs. Rutgers would be an utterly meaningless (to those schools) season finale. It would be just another conference game. Penn State has played MSU more all-time than any Big Ten opponent except Maryland, so there is some logic to that game. Brian is also right that a PSU-MSU match-up has a somewhat higher probability of having an impact on the division race than, say, MSU-Rutgers, which would probably be the noon game on the Big Ten Network.
With the change in the rules about no more lower division teams being on the schedule, and MAC teams not exactly being cheap to schedule as a Home Game, a lot of the incentive of not playing teams like Pitt or maybe even for OSU playing Cincinnati Home and Home (Paul Brown of course), are lessened.
I have to think that, for Penn State, the value of a 7th home game is more than the guarantee for a one-and-done. If Pitt is an annual series, then either PSU will have 6 games some years, or they can’t schedule any other team that demands a return game. I see that Syracuse is scheduled home & home vs. PSU in 2020-21. I suspect they won’t play Pitt those years, unless…
My gut feeling is there will be 13 Games on Schedules going forward. . . .
I also feel that this is probably going to happen, but it’ll take a while. As far as I can tell, there’s no groundswell yet, and given the glacial pace of change in college sports, you’re not going to see it soon.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“Brian: MSU would not suffer playing Rutgers & Maryland”
Of course they would. Don’t be naive.
1. They’d go from playing a king which will often be in the division race (and thus a high chance of the game getting national coverage) to playing a former BE or ACC school which rarely will ever sniff a division title and thus a noon BTN game nobody watches.
2. Both RU and UMD are much longer trips than PSU.
3. MSU has some history with PSU but none with RU or UMD.
“By the way, Panther leadership seems more receptive to Penn State than West Virginia. Why?”
Because PSU has been open to playing them and WV hasn’t since moving to the B12.
“With the change in the rules about no more lower division teams being on the schedule, and MAC teams not exactly being cheap to schedule as a Home Game, a lot of the incentive of not playing teams like Pitt or maybe even for OSU playing Cincinnati Home and Home (Paul Brown of course), are lessened.”
PSU/Pitt is very different from OSU/UC. UC’s rival is Miami. OSU has played UC 6 times. There is very limited benefit to OSU in playing UC.
“My gut feeling is there will be 13 Games on Schedules going forward, because of:”
Eventually, maybe, but not for a long time. The presidents control that decision and they don’t want a longer season. Any push for a 13th game would also have to come at the expense of the CFP being expanded. Given that choice, I think most fans would favor CFP expansion over a 13th game. The presidents will use those camps against each other to delay making either change.
“1: The large amount of money being paid by Networks, they need content for their dollars.”
They get plenty of value for what they pay, or they wouldn’t keep raising the contracts.
“2: The need for 7 home games to help with Athletic Dept budgets.”
Schools did fine before the 12th game existed, and they just got an infusion of CFP money. The problem is that the BCS combined with the 12th game led them to get used to cheap I-AA cupcakes and now they don’t want to pay for I-A teams. They can afford the buy games with their new CFP money, and their TV money is constantly increasing too.
“3: The power of the NCAA is lessened ( particularly when it comes to Power Conferences).”
No it isn’t. All TPTB are talking about forming a new division not leaving the NCAA. The schools are the NCAA, so any new group would be about the same.
“I strongly suspect, that B10 Schools ( particularly Iowa not playing Northern Iowa and Minnesota same with North Dakota), must be getting something very profitable in not scheduling lower Division Schools. I think it is more money and that 13th Game”
They will get more TV money. The new TV deal is coming up and an improved OOC slate across the board means more money for everyone. More CFP slots for B10 teams also means more money for everyone. It’s not like the B10 could promise a 13th game to the schools in return for the change in scheduling.
LikeLike
Yikes. Prospects of the P12 network looking less ROSEy by the day, according to Scott Pierce of the Salt Lake City Tribune. His tone seems overly pessimistic to me. Here’s the gist of it:
“The Pac-12, after a year [is] still not on DirecTV,” said Javan Hedlund, the MWC’s associate commissioner. “Everybody thought that, oh, the Mountain West should be on. They’re kind of learning that even the Pac-12 can’t get it done.”
Ouch. That hurts. But there’s truth to it.
To be clear, Hedlund wasn’t criticizing the Pac-12. He was simply making the point that getting distribution for a college sports cable network isn’t easy, even if for one of the nation’s top-five collegiate leagues.
And the situation may have become even more complicated when a new competitor entered the arena last week. As was long anticipated, the SEC Network will launch in 2014.
The rivalry on the field translates into rivalry in television distribution. Missouri athletic director Mike Alden told the Kansas City Star that according to “agencies that rate the branding,” the Pac-12 is not a one of the top 25 brands in sports. “I don’t even think it’s a top-50 brand.”
So getting P12N on cable systems in SEC country — and on DirecTV — is tough. Whereas, according to Alden, the SEC “resonates in California, it resonates in Nevada, it has more of a chance for greater exposure.”
Ouch. Alden is full of bravado, but he might be right.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 has a number of branding problems. The allegiance of college sports fans is built up over many years. The Pac-12 has only one great long-term football brand, USC, whose appeal is somewhat limited, compared to others in their peer group. Because it’s an elite private school, USC doesn’t capture the passions of its home state football fans (or even a substantial plurality of them), the way schools like Michigan, Texas, and Alabama do.
In the list of all-time wins, USC is 13th, and the next two Pac-12 teams on the list are Washington (29th) and Colorado (30th), neither of which has been good in quite a while. Oregon has been good lately, but they’re tied for 64th in all-time wins. They don’t have the decades-long success that produces the kind of rabid national fanbase that the major brands have.
In basketball, they have much the same problem. They’re fourth in all-time NCAA tournament bids (behind the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten), and their best basketball brand (UCLA) hasn’t made an Elite 8 in five years. In 2013, their conference received just five bids, compared to 7 for the Big Ten and 7 for the ACC.
LikeLike
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/56268629-77/directv-network-pac-sec.html.csp
Here’s the link.
There was also this:
“The bigger concern for P12N, however, may be that the SEC Network could change the business model. There are reports that ESPN, which owns SECN, will charge 80 cents per subscriber per month to cable network in football-mad SEC country — and maybe as little as 15 cents to systems elsewhere.”
LikeLike
They don’t share a business model, only the medium.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was quoting it for the prices.
Maybe he was thinking that the low out of footprint price would impact the P12N’s plan to charge DirecTV so much?
LikeLike
I think you’re right. That’s the implication.
LikeLike
The Mtn couldn’t get on much of anywhere during the whole span of its existence. The PTN got on virtually all cable companies in their footprint, as well as Dish and (starting this summer) U-Verse. There’s a fair amount of sour grapes at work.
As far as actual pricing issues go, I could be wrong but I’m pretty sure the league already has a policy of one set of rates inside the footprint and another outside, whether it’s with Dish, DTV, Cable companies or anyone else.
And as far as the SECN goes, they’ll probably have the same type of issues as everyone else has. Carriage isn’t easy. They’ll probably get pretty good distribution inside their footprint in the year plus between now and the start of broadcasting, but it seems unlikely they’ll get all of Florida and especially not all of Texas. Certainly could be wrong, of course.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22256534/big-ten-2014-schedule-winners-and-losers
CBS rates the winners and losers from the B10’s 2014 schedule.
Winners – OSU, PSU, WI, IA
Losers – RU, UMD, IN, IL, MN
Pencil in WI vs OSU in 2014 based on the schedule.
LikeLike
Easily one of the worst Michigan home slates ever. I am not sure I agree with the 8/6 split DB seems to be going for, but I at least appreciate getting Arkansas/VTech at home in years where we play at MSU and at OSU. Will be tough to have both on the road together.
LikeLike
Ross,
“Easily one of the worst Michigan home slates ever.”
App State – revenge game against I-AA
Miami (OH) – MAC
Utah – P12
MN – LBJ
PSU – king
IN – they might be decent by then
UMD – But we are all thrilled to play our newest members, aren’t we?
Yeah, that’s not great. You play at all 3 of your top rivals. I wonder why they chose to synch OSU and MSU for you guys rather than MSU and PSU.
“I am not sure I agree with the 8/6 split DB seems to be going for, but I at least appreciate getting Arkansas/VTech at home in years where we play at MSU and at OSU. Will be tough to have both on the road together.”
Is that his plan, or is he just stuck with it until he can start scheduling future series and change to a constant 7 home games? You have to think he’d prefer a steady income stream rather than such a large difference between years.
LikeLike
Well I do believe he knew about the odd/even years for 5/4 conference home games prior to scheduling Virginia Tech, so I am not entirely sure, but the way I had seen it discussed made it seem like something he was partial to.
LikeLike
OK. It was an honest question from me. I figured he didn’t know which way the 5/4 split would go until after scheduling those games. Maybe he does like it that way, but it seems unusual to me.
LikeLike
I am not sure I agree with the 8/6 split DB seems to be going for. . . .
I think Brian is right: Brandon booked the Arkansas and VT series before he knew what the conference schedule would be. I suspect he’ll go back to 7 home games every year starting in 2022.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
He did book the Arkansas series before knowing a lot of specifics regarding the conference schedule. That home and home series for 2018 (Ann Arbor) and 2019 (Fayetteville) was announced in early November 2012, just weeks before the announcements were made about Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference.
At that time, having Arkansas play in Ann Arbor that year made sense because the Ohio State game was going to be in Columbus. The way the schedule was working up to that point, Michigan would also have had to play Nebraska in Lincoln that year while the Michigan State game would have been in A2.
The Michigan-Virginia Tech games were announced on 9 May–just a handful of days prior to the Big Ten announcing its 2014 schedule. I think it’s fair to say that Brandon knew what the rotation for the Eastern division would be and he certainly was aware that the East Division was going to host five conference games during even numbered years.
I imagine Brandon’s larger strategy here is to divide up the higher-end/rivalry games as much as possible so he doesn’t have the same situation he does now (with Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State either all at home or all on the road). Given the B1G’s strategy starting in 2016 to have parity scheduling, I suspect he knows that he’s going to have Nebraska and Wisconsin on the schedule pretty regularly as well.
2018/2020 (5 Home B1G Games/8 Total Home Games)
Home: Arkansas/Virginia Tech, Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, 2 B1G West Teams, 2 Non-Conference
Away: at Ohio State, at Michigan State, at Rutgers, 1 B1G West Team (at Nebraska or at Wisconsin?)
2019/2021 (4 Home B1G Games/6 Total Home Games)
Home: Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, 1 B1G West Team (Nebraska or Wisconsin?), 2 Non-Conference
Away: at Arkansas/Virginia Tech, at Penn State, at Indiana, at Maryland, 2 B1G West Teams
My guess is that Nebraska or Wisconsin is going to be at 1 B1G West Team that will be an away game in 2018/20 and a home game in 2019/21. While playing at Ohio State, Michigan State and Nebraska/Wisconsin in 2018/2020 is a tough road slate, it’s somewhat offset by having those eight home games in those seasons.
We’ll see how this shakes out, but I think this is his scheduling strategy for Michigan starting in 2018 and going forward. I realize this isn’t seven games per year, but it is 14 over a two-year period and it does make sure you get at least two high profile opponents at Michigan Stadium each season.
LikeLike
@cutter: We shall see, but I have trouble imagining that Brandon is happy with alternating feast/famine years. Then again, he has trotted out a number of dumb ideas, then backtracked after he realized the error. So who knows?
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd-
I don’t understand the reference to feast/famine years outside the context of having six or eight home games per year.
WIth the opening season game from last season in Dallas, Michigan had six home games last year and seemed to survive it quite nicely (that game nornally would have been played in Ann Arbor. This was a season where UM was on the road against Ohio State, Notre Dame and Nebraska, so the six -game home slate in 2012 was Air Force, Massachusetts, Michigan State, Iowa, Northwestern and Illinois.
If he’s looking at a a situation whereby Michigan plays at least two top-tier teams in Ann Arbor each year as I outlined above, then we aren’t seeing the feast/famine cycle that Michigan was recently on IRT Notre Dame, Nebraka & Ohio State.
I’d also add that Brandon’s trending away from having two MAC teams on the non-conference schedule (although there are two this year, one in 2014 and one in 2016). He was recently quotes as saying that September football in the Big Ten was getting “boring”. On his watch, Michigan has single home games schedule in the near term with Oregon State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Cincinnati, UNLV and Hawaii and a home-and-home with Utah.
So if he gets one MAC team on the non-conference schedule, one major home-and-home opponent, a good non-conference opponent who won’t need a return date and couples that with a conference schedule that is coordinated with the OOC slate to balance out the top-tier teams, then I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.
LikeLike
WIth the opening season game from last season in Dallas, Michigan had six home games last year and seemed to survive it quite nicely. . . .
When you’re the Michigan AD, your aim is to do better than merely “survive”. I don’t attend home games (as I no longer live in the area), but I heard and read a lot of grousing from Michigan fan sources about the 6-game schedule. Of course, fan opinion never matters if you can make more money, but I am not seeing how an 8-6-8-6 rotation helps him do that. All it does is to invite complaints every other year.
LikeLike
I know the writer is saying Rutgers is a loser with the 2014 schedule because it is so tough (and it is), but the fanbase is giddy to go from a 2013 home conference slate of USF,Cinn,Houston,Temple to PSU/MI/WI/Indiana.
LikeLike
Right: this is not about winning and losing. Rutgers already knew that by moving to the Big Ten, the schedule would get a lot harder. That’s what they want.
For that matter, when the ADs voted for 9 conference games, they knew that some teams would have an extra loss every year, since for most schools the conference slate is tougher than the non-conference slate.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22206559/report-big-ten-schools-to-receive-257-million-this-year
I know the B10’s payout has been discussed before, but I don’t remember this one detail being stressed:
The paper reports that Big Ten schools will receive a $25.7 million payout from the conference following the 2013 season. Of that $25.7 million, $7.6 million is coming from the Big Ten Network.
Last year Big Ten schools each received a payout of $24.6 million with $8.1 million coming from the Big Ten Network. This is the first time the payout each school receives from the Big Ten Network has decreased from the season before, but it has nothing to do with the network’s revenue, which is increasing. No, it’s due to Nebraska getting its cut now that it’s been in the conference for two years.
Emphasis mine.
2 things:
1. The paper went back and corrected that $8.1 to $6.6M from the BTN with the other $1.5M coming from Fox. That means that either the BTN payout went up from 2012 to 2013 or that it will be $6.1M instead of $7.6M with the rest being from Fox.
2. The big fact is NE is now getting a full share after just 2 years. Couple that with the BTN now officially making a profit (all start-up costs are paid, so now the B10 schools get profit sharing) and things are looking good.
LikeLike
It is hard to tell what the first part of your number 2 actually means if anything. Nebraska is not getting a full share conference distribution, other reports have made that clear. So even if Nebraska is getting a full 1/12 share of BTN revenue, which I’m honestly not sure can be deduced from the conference’s 990 form, we really don’t know that there is any meaning there.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“It is hard to tell what the first part of your number 2 actually means if anything. Nebraska is not getting a full share conference distribution, other reports have made that clear.”
OK, but this article and others are saying NE is now getting a full share. Feel free to share a link that shows they’re wrong. I have no stake in the result. I was just impressed that NE was getting a full share after only 2 years.
LikeLike
The original plan was 5 years, not 2. It would seem to be news if the deal got switched for some reason. I would tend to think that this is an error, but I don’t know either way.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/06/big-ten-members-in-line-for-record-payout/
LikeLike
I seem to recall Nebraska got a deal where they received a reduced payout UNLESS additional revenue was generated. And I think the ccg paid for them. They had a floor, which was what they would have made in the Big 12. Whenever someone pulls Nebraska’s info, we’ll find out.
LikeLike
@bullet
We don’t know that is the case for certain. The reporting from Nebraska’s end has been crap, and everyone signed NDA’s. Combined with the fact Nebraska doesn’t appear on the Big Ten’s IRS mandated financial reporting forms, it makes information much less hard numbers sketchy at best.
Based on official comments though we do know Nebraska would never receive less than they would’ve in the old Big XII. That was assuming everyone stayed and the old television contracts were in place. The Big Ten fulfilled that promise from what we know with the 2011-2012 payout reported on Nebraska’s athletic department site.
The conference championship game may have gone for more than what was anticipated, but a base figure and any additional anticipated revenue from ABC/ESPN and rights fees from FOX for BTN would’ve been anticipated in Nebraska’s buy-in structure.
But if it was a buy-in to establish equity in BTN as the conference and everyone has said then…
@Andy,
It has been widely reported Nebraska wouldn’t get a full distribution until 2017. But if it is to establish equity in the network and but the new school on equal footing as the existing schools it makes a heck of a lot more sense that it is actually a dollar figure. Thus revenue would be withheld based on financial projections over the next 5 years to pay $X in total. Thus if anything materially changes say BTN is more profitable than expected or the conference gets any increase from the media partners for the additions of Maryland or Rutgers, Nebraska would could potentially see more revenue and or a quicker path to a full-revenue share from the conference.
LikeLike
@Brian,
“OK, but this article and others are saying NE is now getting a full share”
I’m not sure that is what the article actually says though. I certainly can see one interpreting that from what is written. How would the author know that as a fact though? The problem is the Big Ten is obscuring what Nebraska is actually getting paid. For FY 2011-2012, Nebraska (somehow?) doesn’t appear on the conference’s IRS Form 990, which is where many of these articles about conference distributions are derived from.
The author appears to be speculating that Big Ten revenue per school declined because Nebraska is getting a larger share, which very well could be accurate. Television revenue accounts for 70-75% of the Big Ten’s distribution and if Nebraska is getting an increasingly larger share of revenue through 2016 as we believe to be the case, odds are it is coming from tv money.
“Feel free to share a link that shows they’re wrong. I have no stake in the result. I was just impressed that NE was getting a full share after only 2 years.”
I can’t do that. Like I said above, the conference somehow obscured what Nebraska was given last year. I’m not sure how they pulled it off. Based off of the Nebraska Athletic Department website though we think they got paid $15.4 million, roughly 63% of what the existing 11 schools got. I can’t prove their wrong, because we don’t have access to hard data, but I’d be willing to wager quite a bit of money that Nebraska didn’t get a fully equity share of the entire and likely won’t until the planned 2017.
I guess the other way of looking at this is to assume Nebraska had to “pay” roughly $50 million (no math behind that number I’m tired) estimated over the 6 years to establish equity in BTN. If said payoff was fulfilled you are basically saying the conference somehow made another $40 million in one year more than they anticipated at a minimum, and likely significantly more assuming the additional revenue was shared equally among the schools, and the payouts don’t reflect that.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“I’m not sure that is what the article actually says though.”
OK, let me quote one of the other articles I read over a span of a few days on the same subject:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22256443/report-big-ten-earns-record-revenue-delany-paid-28m
Budget projections show the Big Ten is expecting to distribute $25.7 million in 2013, an increase of just over $1 million per school despite Nebraska claiming a full league share for the first time.
Is that explicit enough?
“How would the author know that as a fact though?”
Because he’s a reporter and talked to someone that knew or found a document that said it?
“The problem is the Big Ten is obscuring what Nebraska is actually getting paid.”
That’s why I was wondering. I’m not claiming these guys are correct, just pointing out that all of a sudden multiple people are saying it. I have no way of knowing the truth because the B10 hides all the information it can.
LikeLike
Brian,
“Is that explicit enough?”
Not really, because Hinnen starts that piece by referring to the USA Today story that actually viewed the conference IRS 990 form. If you click on that link for Hinnen’s story, said USA Today report flat out says Nebraska isn’t getting a full share. I’m not sure he did any original reporting in that blurb. So I have no idea where Hinnen is drawing that conclusion from.
“Because he’s a reporter and talked to someone that knew or found a document that said it?”
Certainly possible, but like I said after reading that piece, I don’t think Hinnen has seen the 990, and the original reporting entity that has (which Hinnen links to) explicitly states Nebraska is not getting a full share.
“I have no way of knowing the truth because the B10 hides all the information it can.”
Yes they do for whatever inane reason. Illinois always leaks the television numbers to Stu Durango at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Michigan publicly releases their athletic department budget conference distribution included. And eventually as a 501c3 the conference’s 990 form is public record. I don’t understand the secrecy from the conference at all when the information is out there anyways.
Nebraska hasn’t been overly forthcoming either. Given the USA Today report though, I have a feeling Nebraska still isn’t on the 990 for the conference this year either, and that would really mean reporters have no basis to say Nebraska is getting a full share.
LikeLike
Here is the 990 for 2011-2012. This is what I assume USA Today asked for and got from the conference for 2011-2012. Nebraska despite being in the conference and presumably getting about $15.4 million from the conference somehow doesn’t appear at all.
Click to access 363640583_201106_990.pdf
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Not really, because Hinnen starts that piece by referring to the USA Today story that actually viewed the conference IRS 990 form. If you click on that link for Hinnen’s story, said USA Today report flat out says Nebraska isn’t getting a full share. I’m not sure he did any original reporting in that blurb. So I have no idea where Hinnen is drawing that conclusion from.”
You complained that the previous article didn’t actually say NE got a full share. If that quote isn’t explicit enough, I don’t know what could be. It says in black and white that NE got a full share. I’m not arguing that he’s right, just that articles are saying it.
And since you want to argue the point, how do we know the USA Today article is right? It didn’t report a different number for NE, just what everyone else made with a line saying NE didn’t make as much. To me, that tends to indicate that the writer didn’t actually know what NE got paid and just parroted back the common line about NE not getting a full share yet. If someone actually knew NE was making less, what hasn’t anyone ever reported the number? It’s all speculation on what NE is making.
“Nebraska hasn’t been overly forthcoming either. Given the USA Today report though, I have a feeling Nebraska still isn’t on the 990 for the conference this year either, and that would really mean reporters have no basis to say Nebraska is getting a full share.”
NE has to be on it. The fiscal year the form covered was 9/1/2011-8/31/2012. I would argue the reporters also have no basis for saying NE isn’t receiving a full share. They don’t know, they’re just counting on the original statement that NE would get paid less until 2017.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Here is the 990 for 2011-2012.”
No, it’s actually for 2010-2011 if you read the form. That’s why NE isn’t on it.
LikeLike
@Brian,
Nostradamus,
“No, it’s actually for 2010-2011 if you read the form. That’s why NE isn’t on it.”
Yeah that is really weird. The 2012-2013 990 was there yesterday and omitted Nebraska. The 11 “original” school payouts matched the USA Today report. I’m not sure why it was pulled.
“You complained that the previous article didn’t actually say NE got a full share. If that quote isn’t explicit enough, I don’t know what could be. It says in black and white that NE got a full share. I’m not arguing that he’s right, just that articles are saying it.”
I wouldn’t say I complained. I just said I’m not sure that is what the article actually says. I’ll give you your link says NE got a full share, but he provides no information correlating that. He links to a USA Today article stating the 2011-2012 payouts, but said article makes it clear Nebraska wasn’t getting a full payout.
“It says in black and white that NE got a full share. I’m not arguing that he’s right, just that articles are saying it.”
And I’m not saying it doesn’t, but again read that article. He isn’t presenting any information. He is basically summarizing a USA Today report, and based on the USA Today report he is summarizing it incorrectly. There is zero evidence Nebraska got a full payout.
“And since you want to argue the point, how do we know the USA Today article is right? It didn’t report a different number for NE, just what everyone else made with a line saying NE didn’t make as much.”
Because Nebraska didn’t show up on the 2011-2012 IRS 990 form that was briefly online. That said, given the USA Today story actually requested the 990 form from the Big Ten and got it, I’m inclined to trust them infinitely more than a CBS Sports story attempting to summarize the USA Today story. Nebraska’s own athletic department website says they made $15.4 million from the conference/NCAA in 2011-2012. So if you think they got a full-share, you are basically left with saying the Nebraska athletic department doesn’t know what they actually got paid.
“To me, that tends to indicate that the writer didn’t actually know what NE got paid and just parroted back the common line about NE not getting a full share yet. “
I’ll agree that the writer didn’t know what Nebraska actually got paid, see above. But then how does CBS magically know? Again Nebraska’s AD on their official website reports $15.4 million. CBS is reporting a full payout for that same year. I’ll trust Nebraska’s website and the previously reported 5 year buy-in plan a heck of a lot more than the CBS report which has no source.
“If someone actually knew NE was making less, what hasn’t anyone ever reported the number? It’s all speculation on what NE is making.”
UNL’s website has.
https://admin.xosn.com//share/ViewPhoto.dbml?&KEY=MCQGXNJQXHICMSF.20120830214138&USE_TITAN=&DB_OEM_ID=100&LOAD_IMAGE_ID=206978341&LOAD_IMAGE_SIZE=640
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“Yeah that is really weird. The 2012-2013 990 was there yesterday and omitted Nebraska. The 11 “original” school payouts matched the USA Today report. I’m not sure why it was pulled.”
I’ll take your word for it.
“I’ll give you your link says NE got a full share, but he provides no information correlating that.”
I agree. I was never trying to argue that he was or wasn’t correct, just that it was actually being said in the media. And for lack of any actual evidence on either side, it seemed an odd point for someone to take a stand on. You’re more likely to know the numbers than me, especially about NE.
“Because Nebraska didn’t show up on the 2011-2012 IRS 990 form that was briefly online.”
Which I didn’t see and the article didn’t quote.
“Nebraska’s own athletic department website says they made $15.4 million from the conference/NCAA in 2011-2012.”
See, that’s a source I’d trust. USA Today versus CBS is a toss up to me as they both screw up frequently.
“So if you think they got a full-share, you are basically left with saying the Nebraska athletic department doesn’t know what they actually got paid.”
Now if Gene Smith was there…
“UNL’s website has.”
But they don’t break it down, unfortunately. They could get a full share of the BTN and not from ESPN, or vice versa, or part of both. I realize the money is fungible to NE, but the source could make the difference in terms of which reporter is correct (1, both or neither).
LikeLike
“And for lack of any actual evidence on either side, it seemed an odd point for someone to take a stand on.”
Oh I agree, it is an incredibly odd point to take a stand on, especially because short of someone telling you it, I don’t think you can prove it. As you can see on the 2010-2011 990 I accidentally posted above, there really isn’t a complete breakdown of where the revenue comes from. For the BTN numbers we rely on the Illinois AD giving the data to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. We can then cross check the full tv numbers against Michigan’s budget next month.
“You’re more likely to know the numbers than me, especially about NE.”
I don’t think anyone knows much. Somehow the conference and Nebraska believe they’re exempt from FOIA for trade secrets or some BS on the details regarding the equity buy-in. And what we thing we do know is all speculation. Based on the Nebraska AD website though, said speculation appears to be checking out.
“See, that’s a source I’d trust. USA Today versus CBS is a toss up to me as they both screw up frequently.”
Oh I know… I’m just inclined to slightly more trust the USA Today report given they actually had the conference’s latest IRS form. I’m not 100% sold on the BTN profitability for the conference interpretation yet, but it would make sense given Mark Silverman’s 2009 or 2010 comments about profitability for the schools in the next “several years.” The holding company has been on the IRS form for the past several years and has shown no revenue, so if it did as the USA Today reporter suggests, his interpretation is probably correct. I’m still not sure where CBS get their information from and their article didn’t make the abundantly clear. Hinnen cites on of his colleagues reports.
”No, it’s due to Nebraska getting its cut now that it’s been in the conference for two years.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22206559/report-big-ten-schools-to-receive-257-million-this-year
But he as well as no information to report that; and that whole blurb is basically a rehash of the St. Louis P-D story, except the original source never reported Nebraska was getting a full share. I think it is probable that part or the reduced BTN payout was Nebraska earning more money. I also still pretty strongly think the $8.1 million was an anomaly and there is income there from something else i.e. the 2% ownership stake flip, which we know nothing about other than it happened.
“But they don’t break it down, unfortunately. They could get a full share of the BTN and not from ESPN, or vice versa, or part of both.”
Exactly and this is one of the main problems we have in trying to dissect things. A really wish the Big Ten would take a page from Allan’s and Andy’s SEC here and be a little more transparent. What does the conference gain from the secrecy when we have a pretty good idea of what Nebraska made in total from the school itself?
“I realize the money is fungible to NE, but the source could make the difference in terms of which reporter is correct (1, both or neither).”
Yeah all that matters to Nebraska is the dollar amount. Where it is coming from (or where the reduced payout is being withheld from) of is of little to no concern. And yeah the source of the revenue being withheld could make the difference for sure (I still don’t think CBS is in a position to know though). If my interpretation of Nebraska’s buy-in is correct, I’d expect Nebraska’s 2012-2013 distribution to be in the $17 to $19 million range. With the existing 11 schools each getting $19 of their $25.7 million from television, we know at least part (or all) of Nebraska’s withheld revenue must be from TV. This is probably coincidental, but $25.7-$7.6 million (BTN distribution for each of the 11) equals $18.1 million. If I were withholding revenue from Nebraska it would easiest this year just to take it from the BTN distribution. Given that Nebraska is still only at about 68% of the distribution if I’m right, I think it is a stretch that they’d be getting the full BTN share.
LikeLike
And I guess I’m not sure on your #1 either. That $8.1 million came out of no where last year. With the correction to the report that $1.5 million “came from Fox” I wonder if it wasn’t a one-off payment related to the ownership stake swap.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“And I guess I’m not sure on your #1 either. That $8.1 million came out of no where last year.”
When you get a chance, can you throw out the BTN numbers from the past few years and your projections for the next couple? I know you have that somewhere.
“With the correction to the report that $1.5 million “came from Fox” I wonder if it wasn’t a one-off payment related to the ownership stake swap.”
Entirely possible. They didn’t clarify.
I’m just interested in trying to get all the facts on our deals in one place. Feel free to correct anything they said that was wrong.
LikeLike
Brian,
“When you get a chance, can you throw out the BTN numbers from the past few years and your projections for the next couple? I know you have that somewhere.”
You know I love and live for the numbers. I’ll try and pull it up later today/tomorrow. The problem right now more than ever is we really don’t know what the numbers mean. If the BTN number is $7.6 million this year what did Nebraska get? If Nebraska is still indeed on a reduced payout for buying into BTN where is the money coming from and exactly where is the additional revenue from Nebraska’s reduced payout showing up for the existing 11 schools. Those basic issues get complicated even further next year. Do Maryland and Rutgers get Fox to increase the rights fees for equal 1/14th shares? Where is Maryland and Rutger’s buy-in coming from financially? If the Maryland upfront sweetheart deal is accurate where is that money coming from, etc?
Even broader the BTN numbers depend on what you believe the $2,8 billion/25 year estimate includes. Is it solely the rights fee from Fox or is it Fox’s original projection of the rights fee and anticipated Big Ten’s share of the profits? That alone will take a couple of years to answer definitively now that the network is reportedly profitable for the conference, and again the math gets harder to decipher with the 3 new schools.
“I’m just interested in trying to get all the facts on our deals in one place.”
I’m right there with you. Even with the transparent reporting from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Illinois every May, or the Michigan AD budget which they publish every June, the way the conference is secretly handling the new additions makes “facts” hard to come by right now.
LikeLike
I think from the income disclosures and the Forbes article and other comments its become clear, that $2.8 billion is the combination of the rights fees and estimated income. Those $7.2, $7.9, $7.6, $8.1 million figures are the full money coming to the schools from the BTN. That isn’t consistent with $2.8 billion being rights fees alone.
Now that doesn’t mean the $2.8 billion as an estimate is still valid. It may be higher now.
LikeLike
Nostradamus,
“You know I love and live for the numbers.”
You’re the resident go-to guy for this stuff. I always mean to copy it down and save it and then forget.
“I’ll try and pull it up later today/tomorrow.”
Thanks. No rush. I just wanted to ask while it was on everyone’s mind.
“The problem right now more than ever is we really don’t know what the numbers mean. If the BTN number is $7.6 million this year what did Nebraska get? If Nebraska is still indeed on a reduced payout for buying into BTN where is the money coming from and exactly where is the additional revenue from Nebraska’s reduced payout showing up for the existing 11 schools. Those basic issues get complicated even further next year. Do Maryland and Rutgers get Fox to increase the rights fees for equal 1/14th shares? Where is Maryland and Rutger’s buy-in coming from financially? If the Maryland upfront sweetheart deal is accurate where is that money coming from, etc?”
Someone needs to do a lot of FOIA requests. I have faith someone in DC or NYC will try to chase down the info. Why aren’t the Lincoln media all over this?
“I’m right there with you. Even with the transparent reporting from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Illinois every May, or the Michigan AD budget which they publish every June, the way the conference is secretly handling the new additions makes “facts” hard to come by right now.”
It really annoys me that a large group of state schools hides financial info like this.
LikeLike
Nebraska IS getting an increasing share. That doesn’t mean its a full share.
LikeLike
Except that this article (and some others I saw) are claiming NE is now getting a full share.
LikeLike
I posted a link above, the message got lost in the posting. Some articles are saying increased. I don’t see how Nebraska could have wiggled out of their 5 year reduced revenue deal. Seems very unlikely. But who knows?
Journalists are frequently lazy when reporting this sort of thing. I’d rather see an actual quote from someone who should know.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/15/b1g-meetings-no-divisions-18-games-for-hoops/
The B10 decided on no divisions and 18 games for hoops. There are no locked rivals still, but IN and PU are pushing to lock a few games (IN/PU, MI/MSU, maybe others).
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2013/05/michigan-ohio_state_once_india.html
A MI POV on locking hoops games.
The Big Ten isn’t going to add to its current 18-game schedule, and it isn’t going to move toward divisional play — nor should it.
But at some point, it has to start protecting its rivalries. Otherwise, the already barely meaningful college basketball regular season becomes completely meaningless.
If protected rivalries means less “competitive balance,” then so be it.
Ohio State and Michigan should play twice every winter. Michigan and Michigan State should play twice every winter.
And for crying out loud, Indiana and Purdue should get to play twice every winter.
The solution to this problem isn’t easy, and it’ll likely get more difficult when Rutgers and Maryland join the league in 2014. But it’s a problem that needs to be explored.
In fact, it needs to be a priority.
LikeLike
As much as I’d like to play Michigan twice every year (although no one else), I think this is a pretty good set-up. No divisions is definitely best and I think it’s fair the way they did it. The conference just needs to put the rivalry games toward the back end of the schedule and I’m satisfied.
LikeLike
Eric,
I think it’s fair, but dumb. All the other power conferences lock at least one rival. I’m just asking to lock a few games.
LikeLike
They should allow each school to specify one school they play twice a year. That gives two, one or no locked games for each school, based on how the picks roll out. Then schedule around those locked games.
LikeLike
Oh, and if multiple schools pick the same school, its not locked. Otherwise Indiana would have six+ locked games, which is not feasible.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/16/rivalry-weekend-to-end-b1g-slate-in-2014/
Some hope for PSU fans.
Penn State and Michigan State will end their seasons against one other for the first time since 2010. They played 18 consecutive seasons and were protected rivals under the 11-team structure. For the final 17 seasons, the schools ended their Big Ten seasons against the other school.
When the league split into Legends and Leaders divisions in 2011, the teams went opposite ways. They did not play in 2011 or 2012 and are not scheduled to meet in 2013.
Athletics directors at both schools said they like the series but wouldn’t consider it a priority to extend it as a permanent season-ending game.
“I think Penn State is a good game for us,” Michigan State Athletics Director Mark Hollis said. “I’m not sure that’s a game carries the tradition of making that a priority in the scheduling process. You’ll see it in some years, and you’ll not see it in some others. I really don’t know because we don’t have the ’15 schedule yet.”
“We haven’t talked about it directly, but that could happen,” Penn State Athletics Director Dave Joyner said. “It may vary some. In the (current) divisions, we were playing Wisconsin in almost every ending game. It wasn’t dictated it was going to happen, but it was going to go on for the next five or six years anyway.”
So maybe there will be a rotation among the 4 schools.
LikeLike
Penn State will always be screwed in rivalry week for a long time unless Notre Dame joins, which is never happening. Pitt went to the crapper a long time ago well before PSU joined the BIG. Pitts fans considered it a rivalry but no Penn Staters I know of. Rutgers and Maryland are just as good as Michigan State as far as hatred. OSU is a hated school but they have Michigan. Adding another eastern school in ten years like UVA doesn’t move the needle either, and if UNC comes with them there goes that rivalry. There just isn’t any options now or in the future for a true Penn State rivalry on the last weekend. Sadly it is one of the consequences of being the lone football giant in the Northeast amongst basketball schools, which made PSU join the BIG in the first place a long time ago.
LikeLike
Pitt went to the crapper a long time ago well before PSU joined the BIG. Pitts fans considered it a rivalry but no Penn Staters I know of.
It’s rather odd that the PSU-Pitt rivalry engendered that attitude. Penn State’s all-time winning percentage vs. Pitt is just .537, as against Michigan’s .671 vs. MSU, Iowa’s .673 vs. Iowa State, or USC’s .604 vs. UCLA. Hardly anyone would suggest ending those rivalries, just because they are one-sided. I think most Michigan fans would be pleased to play Michigan State for the next hundred years, and go 100-0.
Of course, Joe Paterno was not quite consistent about this, as he was happy to schedule Temple every year, in a game that was far more lopsided. Pitt may have gone “into the crapper,” but Temple was never any good. They’ve won just 3 games all-time vs. PSU.
LikeLike
Temple agreed to a 2 to1 home and away arrangement. Penn State offered the same for Pitt and Pitt rightfully refused. PSU started to add a bunch of cream-puffs to the schedule once they entered the BIG, mainly for the home paydays. Also Pitt voting against PSU entrance into the Big East, essentially killing Paterno’s dream of an eastern football conference, built some bad feelings between Paterno and Pitt and joining the BIG was an excuse to end the rivalry.
The PSU-Pitt rivalry didn’t die because of one teams domination. When PSU was an independent, the biggest games of the year were always the few ones against the nationally ranked teams. When Pitt fell from national prominence after Dan Marino left, the game also fell out of importance in the minds of fans. If your fandom started in the late 80’s early 90’s, the biggest game of the year was against Notre Dame. Pitt was an afterthought. Now this is just my opinion, but it is shared by most of the people I graduated with and those who started to watch PSU as kids in the 90’s. PSU has been in the BIG for so long now, that the days of their independence and the Pitt game mattering are long forgotten by Penn Staters while Pitt fans have a little brother jealousy thing going since PSU draws most of the attention in the state.
LikeLike
IDK that Penn State would be Notre Dame’s rivals even in that case. We have much more history and a even (an admittedly rather lame) trophy with Michigan State who would also be looking for a season ending rivalry game. I personally have to blame Penn State for not cultivating real rivalries for all those independent years.
LikeLike
ND versus PSU prints money.
http://voices.yahoo.com/college-football-penn-state-vs-notre-dame-top-490589.html
If the BIG is serious about getting ratings in the northeast this is the game. Anyway, its a mute point. ND is never joining the BIG. For the sake of cash flow, both teams should play each other every year in their non-conference schedule, but both teams would rather diversify their schedules. It’s dumb IMO, just as it was dumb for ND to drop Michigan.
LikeLike
For the sake of cash flow, both teams should play each other every year in their non-conference schedule….
I believe both Notre Dame and Penn State routinely sell out their stadiums, practically regardless of the opponent. (Or at least, Penn State did, before their recent troubles, and probably will again after the sanctions expire.) The article you linked mentioned $1,000 ticket prices via brokers, but the schools didn’t see that kind of money.
The drive for 7 home games makes your proposal unworkable. Even assuming that ND were amenable to it, PSU couldn’t schedule the Irish every year unless that were its only significant OOC opponent.
LikeLike
If you can trust “Sussy.” Personally, I’m shocked Penn State-Nebraska fell as low as it did last year. Apparently, the Land Grant Trophy also has a money printer attached to it somewhere: http://www.imakenews.com/psaanews/e_article001978639.cfm?x=bkD7y4D,bb2PvWbC,w
As for Notre Dame, setting aside their tradition tops their money, USC and Oklahoma both pulled in better ratings this year than Michigan and Michigan State. On the other hand, Pitt and BC brought in near-Michigan ratings, so making space in the schedule for an occasional home-and-home against Penn State also makes sense for them.
(Source: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/ )
That being said, unless PSU moves West Halls to California, Notre Dame will not be playing us in a regular season ending series. I suspect the previously scheduled Rutgers series is why we’re ending with the LGT series.
LikeLike
The need for 7 home games does kill that proposal. As far as monetizing the game, if they looked outside the box there is more money available to them. How much money would each school get if they scheduled a neutral site game every year in the meadowlands? Would they get more than a regular home game and if so enough to have only 6 home games every other year? I don’t know the financials. Michigan made $4.7 million when it played Alabama last year in Texas.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ycn-10140149
So how much does Penn State make for a home game?
LikeLike
And I believe Michigan lost money on that game vs. having a regular home game. I believe it’s something like 6-7M for a home game?
LikeLike
@ PSUhockey
Michigan’s lowest revenue game in FY08 brought $4.9 million in ticket sales alone to the University. (Source: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/football-revenue-and-away-games) Assuming that’s correct, I’d say Penn State probably clears $5M a game as well as of 2013, as both stadiums have a capacity over 100,000.
Please note that I have no idea how much additional costs would affect the profit margin. This is just a comparison in revenue.
LikeLike
With PSL (preferred seating licences), increasing ticket prices, M is getting beyond $7mil per home game.
LikeLike
Yes, I think we saw that spike for Michigan with the recent revenue figures that were released. I am not sure what the average home game is worth now, but I recall seeing that 6-7M number thrown around before.
LikeLike
Brian –
“I don’t know that even the B10 could justify having the divisions that out of whack. Of course, it also depends on who #16 is.
East – OSU, MI, ND, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, #16 [from ACC]
West – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU, IL, MN, IN
That’s just ridiculous.”
True, but how else could it be split? UM will have to be in a division with OSU so they could
1) keep their season ending game, and
2) not limit their games to the other division
UM wants to keep their date with Sparty. Sparty needs their dates with ND and UM. Penn State wants the Eastern games as well as their game with Ohio State. ND has minimal rivalries with any of the Western teams save Purdue. I know Iowa thinks they have one, Nebraska used to have one, and Northwestern is under the mistaken impression there is one due to geography, but in reality these are of little to no interest in to the NDPTB and likely they would demand eastern access like PSU as a condition of joining. This clumps the East we’ve suggested together.
The real issue for the B1G going forward with or without the Irish is how few and uninteresting the cross geographic division rivalries are. Besides Neb/PSU and PSU/Iowa, are there any interesting/competitive match-ups? No, Illibuck, the LBJ, and the OBS aren’t. I don’t know how many western division fans give $0.02 about any non-BIG TWO interdivision match-up…unless it’s one they might actually win.
That, and the demographics are why I am not 100% convinced even the B1G can survive as a
“So if PSU would agree to lock in Pitt long term (assuming ND is in the East with them), then it could happen.”
Which we agree won’t happen.
“OSU and MI wouldn’t abandon the rest of the B10. The bigger concern would be ND, PSU, RU and UMD moving as a block to a new group. It’s one reason why these divisions are such a bad idea, even worse if ND also joined the East.”
Don’t be so sure. Michigan’s left before, and that was before they had a group of rich schools ready and able to go with them. The cable pricing system that the BTN is relying on will likely be gone in a generation (or less, thank you, Sen. McCain). There’s no reason to break up the CIC. With a fairly stacked seven game conference schedule, finding seven interesting home games may become a lot easier (especially with the B1G West looking for those same dates).
What has Minnesota done for Penn State lately? What has Iowa done for Ohio State? What will Purdue do for Rutgers? Handling a generation of that may mean the end of the B1G?
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“I don’t know that even the B10 could justify having the divisions that out of whack. Of course, it also depends on who #16 is.
East – OSU, MI, ND, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, #16 [from ACC]
West – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU, IL, MN, IN
That’s just ridiculous.”
True, but how else could it be split? UM will have to be in a division with OSU so they could
1) keep their season ending game, and
2) not limit their games to the other division
UM wants to keep their date with Sparty. Sparty needs their dates with ND and UM. Penn State wants the Eastern games as well as their game with Ohio State. ND has minimal rivalries with any of the Western teams save Purdue. I know Iowa thinks they have one, Nebraska used to have one, and Northwestern is under the mistaken impression there is one due to geography, but in reality these are of little to no interest in to the NDPTB and likely they would demand eastern access like PSU as a condition of joining. This clumps the East we’ve suggested together.
There are a lot of ways to split it up. I don’t believe OSU and MI need to be together, it’s just easier. As I said, #16 does matter. I’ll just assume it’s UVA for this.
Here’s 2 quick options:
INNER vs OUTER
A – NE, PSU, WI, IA, MN, RU, UMD, UVA
B – OSU, MI, ND, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
BALANCE (listed in order of locked rivals)
A – OSU, NE, WI, IA, NW, MN, IN, IL
B – MI, ND, MSU, PSU, RU, UVA, PU, UMD
PODS
A – OSU, NW, IL, IN
B – MI, ND, MSU, PU
C – PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
D – NE, WI, IA, MN
When A and B are paired, no locked games.* When A and B are not paired, lock OSU/MI and IN/PU.
* – You could choose to never pair A and B to avoid the Inner/Outer groups. In that case a 3-4-2 schedule would have A teams playing 2 B teams and C teams playing 2 D teams (and vice versa, obviously).
“The real issue for the B1G going forward with or without the Irish is how few and uninteresting the cross geographic division rivalries are. Besides Neb/PSU and PSU/Iowa, are there any interesting/competitive match-ups?”
Well, 3 teams in the east are new or newish. That makes it hard to have historic ties.
Top choices: OSU/NE, OSU/WI, MI/NE, MI/WI, PSU/NE, PSU/WI, PSU/IA, MSU/NE, MSU/WI, MSU/IA, MSU/NW, NW/RU (Chicago/NYC), IN/PU, OSU/IL, MI/MN
“No, Illibuck, the LBJ, and the OBS aren’t.”
Depends who you ask.
“OSU and MI wouldn’t abandon the rest of the B10. The bigger concern would be ND, PSU, RU and UMD moving as a block to a new group. It’s one reason why these divisions are such a bad idea, even worse if ND also joined the East.”
“Don’t be so sure. Michigan’s left before, and that was before they had a group of rich schools ready and able to go with them.”
Umm, no. They were voted out in 1907 and re-admitted in 1917. I think the past 100 years make that precedent not very useful.
“The cable pricing system that the BTN is relying on will likely be gone in a generation (or less, thank you, Sen. McCain).”
Maybe, maybe not. Someone will continue to find a way to make money from delivering entertainment to the public. And McCain’s bill is DOA and everyone knows it. A la carte only sounds good until you think about it in depth.
“There’s no reason to break up the CIC.”
Yes, there is. No school that left to play elsewhere would be allowed to stay in the CIC.
“What has Minnesota done for Penn State lately? What has Iowa done for Ohio State? What will Purdue do for Rutgers? Handling a generation of that may mean the end of the B1G?”
No offense, but you have no idea what being in a conference means. The B10 school presidents don’t look at things the way a ND fan does.
LikeLike
“No offense, but you have no idea what being in a conference means. The B10 school presidents don’t look at things the way a ND fan does.”
This.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“IDK that Penn State would be Notre Dame’s rivals even in that case.”
They wouldn’t. It would be MSU/ND and PSU/RU probably with UMD getting #16.
LikeLike
Let me expand on that. It is actually possible PSU/ND would play the last week.
IN order of most likely outcome if ND joined:
1. ND/MSU, PSU/RU and UMD/#16.
2. ND and MSU prefer to keep their September date so they play to open the B10 season (only B10 game in week 2) and ND/PSU and MSU/other are the enders.
3. ND and MSU prefer to keep their September date so they play to open the B10 season (only B10 game in week 2) and ND keeps USC/Stanford to end the year. PSU/Pitt and MSU/other are the enders.
Other things to consider:
ND joining would mean realignment. Where they go matters to this discussion. Do they go east and OSU moves west (ND in NYC or DC every year = pure gold) or does ND join the west to keep geography and add balance? If ND goes west, PSU won’t play them to end the year. If ND goes east you have split OSU and MI again.
LikeLike
If ND went B1G, the obvious course would be to go Geographic and shift the Hoosiers West. You’ll get some nice season enders that way: the Axe, the Corn Bowl, LoL, and the Old Oaken Bucket. ND-MSU would probably be the Irish closer if for no other reason than to keep MSU happy about their ‘Chicago access’. Sad, but there’s no way the B1G PTB would allow ND to keep it’s traditional end of the season California trip. They are too petty. I think you are correct that PSU would be stuck with Rutgers, but I think that’s so Maryland can have the whoever the “southern” 16th team would be.
Although in this scenario, I could easily see the end of the B1G as the East teams with the high population glamor schools would split off and keep the money for themselves in twenty years or so. Perhaps they would drop a still-bad PSU or potentially a redundant MSU to pick up say Illinois to keep the Chicago metro but I’m not sure what the western schools add demographically at that point.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“If ND went B1G, the obvious course would be to go Geographic and shift the Hoosiers West.”
I don’t know that even the B10 could justify having the divisions that out of whack. Of course, it also depends on who #16 is.
East – OSU, MI, ND, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, #16
West – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU, IL, MN, IN
That’s just ridiculous.
“ND-MSU would probably be the Irish closer if for no other reason than to keep MSU happy about their ‘Chicago access’.”
You’d have to play sometime.
“Sad, but there’s no way the B1G PTB would allow ND to keep it’s traditional end of the season California trip. They are too petty.”
I think you’re wrong on both counts. The reason they wouldn’t let you keep it is because it would leave an odd number of schools looking to play a game that week. If another B10 school lined up a season-ending OOC rival, then I think the B10 would let ND play the CA game. So if PSU would agree to lock in Pitt long term (assuming ND is in the East with them), then it could happen.
” I think you are correct that PSU would be stuck with Rutgers, but I think that’s so Maryland can have the whoever the “southern” 16th team would be.”
Yep, that was my thinking. If #16 is not from the ACC, then things might change.
“Although in this scenario, I could easily see the end of the B1G as the East teams with the high population glamor schools would split off and keep the money for themselves in twenty years or so. Perhaps they would drop a still-bad PSU or potentially a redundant MSU to pick up say Illinois to keep the Chicago metro but I’m not sure what the western schools add demographically at that point.”
OSU and MI wouldn’t abandon the rest of the B10. The bigger concern would be ND, PSU, RU and UMD moving as a block to a new group. It’s one reason why these divisions are such a bad idea, even worse if ND also joined the East.
LikeLike
Sorry about that, I’ll bring the thread back to its proper place.
SNIP division speculation. Interesting, but not entirely germane.
““The real issue for the B1G going forward with or without the Irish is how few and uninteresting the cross geographic division rivalries are. Besides Neb/PSU and PSU/Iowa, are there any interesting/competitive match-ups?””
“Well, 3 teams in the east are new or newish. That makes it hard to have historic ties.
Top choices: OSU/NE, OSU/WI, MI/NE, MI/WI, PSU/NE, PSU/WI, PSU/IA, MSU/NE, MSU/WI, MSU/IA, MSU/NW, NW/RU (Chicago/NYC), IN/PU, OSU/IL, MI/MN”
Knew I forgot something, in this case it was the caveat that it didn’t involve the BIG TWO i.e. UM and tOSU. So taking out any that involve those two, the Old Oaken Bucket (which as I have been reminded on here that no one outside Indiana cares about) and the I ones already mentioned we are left with:
PSU/WI, MSU/NE, MSU/WI, MSU/IA, MSU/NW, NW/RU (Chicago/NYC)
With the exception of the played waaay more than you’d expect in the last couple years Wisconsin-MSU game, would any of these be considered rivalries? OK, the fellas in marketing may be able to pretend on the Northwestern-Rutgers, but I have to doubt these matchup move the needle in November…especially if UM and/or OSU are rolling toward a Rose Bowl
““No, Illibuck, the LBJ, and the OBS aren’t.””
“Depends who you ask.”
Average ESPN watcher would say no.
“Umm, no. They were voted out in 1907 and re-admitted in 1917. I think the past 100 years make that precedent not very useful.”
I’ve read it was kind of mutual, but who knows with these kind of things.
““The cable pricing system that the BTN is relying on will likely be gone in a generation (or less, thank you, Sen. McCain).””
“Maybe, maybe not. Someone will continue to find a way to make money from delivering entertainment to the public. And McCain’s bill is DOA and everyone knows it. A la carte only sounds good until you think about it in depth.”
Y’know who tells me that, the Cable companies and the ‘content providers’. I’m not saying they are lying, or they are wrong, but I have to think they may have a motive to be less than trustworthy on this. If I can stop paying for all the channels I never watch (looking at you Golf Network, Speed, Fox Business, Bloomberg, etc.), and can make some hard choices (how much for ESPN!?! I can live without it), I can’t imagine I wouldn’t come out ahead.
And I fully expect I’ll be getting my ND sports from the Comcast/NBC/Hulu family of sites, channels, and whathaveya.
“Yes, there is. No school that left to play elsewhere would be allowed to stay in the CIC.”
That’s textbook cutting your nose off to spite your face. Everybody’s got grants with the aid of other schools. Everybody’s got students on each others campuses (I think a lot of the ND issue with the CIC is the fear that we will be swamped by other universities’ students). What are you going to do, cancel programs and demand your students come home? Not feasible and they know it. If they are as smart as they are supposed to be. they know it’s good business to keep their mouths shut and the academic moolah coming in.
“No offense, but you have no idea what being in a conference means. The B10 school presidents don’t look at things the way a ND fan does.”
I saw how Michigan and Wisconsin had no problem slicing Nebraska’s throat in broad daylight at the AAU meetings. The B1G was no help there. It’s all about making sure you personally and your school collaterally get the prestige and the money, and not necessarily in that order. That’s how it looks like the B10 presidents view things.
If in the future when the contracts are about up, there’s no reason to think that the true money men, Disney, Murdoch, Comcast, etc., won’t pull a stunt like with the Catholic 7 saying to a select group of schools, “ditch the losers, the leechers, sign with us, go in the conference we tell you and you can make $x million more a year. We can’t pay you like that having to divide it 16/14/12/etc. ways. Not enough people want to see [insert lesser followed conference mate] to make it worth our while on first tier rights.” Now imagine they can also bring up that thanks to a la carte cable pricing they can no longer charge $1/subscriber in the footprint.
Do you seriously think a midwestern university president who already kicked out a conference mate out of one of the most prestigious academic clubs in the world because a too high percentage of their federal research money came from Ag research is going to have a problem either leaving or kicking out people of a sports alliance over media rights money?
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“Well, 3 teams in the east are new or newish. That makes it hard to have historic ties.
Top choices: OSU/NE, OSU/WI, MI/NE, MI/WI, PSU/NE, PSU/WI, PSU/IA, MSU/NE, MSU/WI, MSU/IA, MSU/NW, NW/RU (Chicago/NYC), IN/PU, OSU/IL, MI/MN”
Knew I forgot something, in this case it was the caveat that it didn’t involve the BIG TWO i.e. UM and tOSU. So taking out any that involve those two, the Old Oaken Bucket (which as I have been reminded on here that no one outside Indiana cares about) and the I ones already mentioned we are left with:
PSU/WI, MSU/NE, MSU/WI, MSU/IA, MSU/NW, NW/RU (Chicago/NYC)
No, you included that proviso. I just wanted to list all the games to show how many you eliminated for arbitrary reasons. That’s why I called them the top choices and not a list of games that fit your description. Sorry for the confusion.
My biggest issue is that you provided no context. How many games would the SEC have if you don’t count AL or FL games? How many would the P12 have without USC or OR? How many would the B12 have without UT and OU? How many would the ACC have without FSU or Miami?
And why do they have to be cross-divisional? Why don’t divisional rivalries count?
“Umm, no. They were voted out in 1907 and re-admitted in 1917. I think the past 100 years make that precedent not very useful.”
I’ve read it was kind of mutual, but who knows with these kind of things.
The B10 decided everyone had to follow certain rules for football (years of eligibility, max # of games, etc). MI said they couldn’t promise that, so the B10 voted them out immediately.
You can say MI chose to leave by refusing to follow the rules, but it’s twisting things.
“Y’know who tells me that, the Cable companies and the ‘content providers’.”
And every industry analysts and every educated consumer.
“If I can stop paying for all the channels I never watch (looking at you Golf Network, Speed, Fox Business, Bloomberg, etc.), and can make some hard choices (how much for ESPN!?! I can live without it), I can’t imagine I wouldn’t come out ahead.”
ESPN costs about $5 per month. To keep paying contracts, they need to maintain their revenue. So if 50% are willing to drop it, they need to charge $10/month to the rest. That leads more to drop it, ending up at 25% paying $20/month. Most channels have much less demand. The price they’d have to charge is so high that they would have no realistic business model.
“That’s textbook cutting your nose off to spite your face.”
No, it’s admitting you can’t have close relationships with people you can’t trust. It was hard to form the CIC and took a long time to get people 100% on board. Again, no ND person has any real understanding of how a real conference works and thus don’t have any valid insight into how the B10 would react.
You know how ND fans laugh when fans of any conference team tell them how ND would/should react to things? Well, that’s how dumb you sound telling us how the B10 would/should react. You know not of what you speak.
LikeLike
@ Drove-my-Chevy-to-the-levee-but-the-levee-was-Bri
“No, you included that proviso. I just wanted to list all the games to show how many you eliminated for arbitrary reasons.”
Not arbitrary, I chose it specifically to demonstrate how the dominance of tOSU and UM have made the B1G unstable because of their outsized importance on the schedule to everyone else. Pull them out, and you basically have games of national interest equivalent to the old BXII North.
“My biggest issue is that you provided no context. How many games would the SEC have if you don’t count AL or FL games?”
Cross Divisional? Auburn-Georgia is a noted long-term rivalry involving traditionally strong programs. That alone puts them ahead of the Big Ten. LSU vs. anybody is pretty good game, and on most years when LSU is in the West hunt, you could put their cross division game on CBS in the afternoon or ABC in primetime and still get a pretty solid rating.
Let’s not forget that the SEC is not as old as the B1G and it has traditionally played very few conference games, so they did not have the opportunities the Big Ten was supposed to be capitalizing on for a century.
“How many would the P12 have without USC or OR? How many would the B12 have without UT and OU? How many would the ACC have without FSU or Miami?”
They don’t, and they would all be considered unstable conferences if the PAC was geographically closer. USC has traditionally dominated out west, with occasional challenges from Stanford, UCLA, Washington, and now Oregon, but it was never more than one non-SC good team at the same time. If USC and UCLA left, taking Southern California interest and thus recruiting grounds with them, the PAC would be looking like a higher priced MWC. The SWC and then the BXII was always unstable due in no small part to Texas’s outsized influence, and it wasn’t that long ago this board was reading them their Last Rites. The ACC is still considered to be a potential prey conference. That’s all a result of relying on too few schools to carry the conference’s standard and thus provide first tier TV interest and revenue.
“And why do they have to be cross-divisional? Why don’t divisional rivalries count?”
Because divisions can be easily spun off into their own conference, especially if we get to the point where we have 8 team divisions. As posters here have called 16 team superconferences, ‘it’s two conferences with a scheduling agreement.’
“You can say MI chose to leave by refusing to follow the rules, but it’s twisting things.”
ah, the ol’ Michigan Way. 😀
“ESPN costs about $5 per month. To keep paying contracts, they need to maintain their revenue. So if 50% are willing to drop it, they need to charge $10/month to the rest. That leads more to drop it, ending up at 25% paying $20/month. Most channels have much less demand. The price they’d have to charge is so high that they would have no realistic business model.”
So what I’m hearing is that the BTN will be in HUGE trouble…AND I would save like $12/yr.?
“No, it’s admitting you can’t have close relationships with people you can’t trust. It was hard to form the CIC and took a long time to get people 100% on board.”
Nebraska can trust Michigan and Wisconsin? Really? People in business do business with people they don’t totally trust all the time. Politicians do nothing but business with people they can’t trust. As long as you can figure out what they will do given circumstances, you can hold your nose and work with ’em.
“Again, no ND person has any real understanding of how a real conference works and thus don’t have any valid insight into how the B10 would react.”
The conference mentality is not all that alien, y’know. I wasn’t born under the Dome. My High School has been in a stable conference for over half a century. My post-grad institution was not in the most stable conference situation, but was in one during my time there. My extended family attended mainly B1G and MVC schools, and my little sister went to an A-10 school. ND joined the Big East when I got there, which granted was not the most stable conference even then, but I knew kids who were fighting for Conference titles during my time there. Rocket science it ain’t.
Now Independence is something very rare in the last twenty years of interscholastic sports. That would require more explanation since fewer folks have lived it.
“You know how ND fans laugh when fans of any conference team tell them how ND would/should react to things? Well, that’s how dumb you sound telling us how the B10 would/should react. You know not of what you speak.”
Do you know how naive you sound saying that a B1G school would never backstab a fellow conference mate? Especially after they already did so publicly?
You do realize we are talking about politicians and academics who are playing for some very high financial stakes? If they are not looking out for their school first and foremost they are being derelict in their duty. If FOX or ESPN or whoever made that call, you can be damned sure the AD won’t hang up without hearing the pitch. You can be just as sure that the President will be calling the Trustees, the big donors, and legislators before making the decision…and long before he calls the other Presidents and the league office.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“Not arbitrary, I chose it specifically to demonstrate how the dominance of tOSU and UM have made the B1G unstable because of their outsized importance on the schedule to everyone else. Pull them out, and you basically have games of national interest equivalent to the old BXII North.”
You also listed a couple of games and then removed them from my list because you already named them. That’s arbitrary.
“Cross Divisional? Auburn-Georgia is a noted long-term rivalry involving traditionally strong programs.”
And it’s important to exactly nobody outside of the south except as just an SEC game. You discounted B10 games for that.
“LSU vs. anybody is pretty good game, and on most years when LSU is in the West hunt, you could put their cross division game on CBS in the afternoon or ABC in primetime and still get a pretty solid rating.”
UK, TN, Vandy, MO – Which of those is reliably drawing strong ratings against LSU in prime time? Which of those is CBS picking if there are other SEC games?
NE and PSU play some big crossover games but you just choose not to accept those games.
“Let’s not forget that the SEC is not as old as the B1G and it has traditionally played very few conference games, so they did not have the opportunities the Big Ten was supposed to be capitalizing on for a century.”
I’m not sure how fans from the 1890s are supposed to help the B10 now exactly. The SoCon formed in 1921 and in 1932 the SEC schools split off from it. A fan would have to be in their 80s to pre-date the SEC. The SEC teams also played a lot of regional games, thus why they don’t have many great crossover rivalries either.
“They don’t, and they would all be considered unstable conferences if the PAC was geographically closer. USC has traditionally dominated out west, with occasional challenges from Stanford, UCLA, Washington, and now Oregon, but it was never more than one non-SC good team at the same time. If USC and UCLA left, taking Southern California interest and thus recruiting grounds with them, the PAC would be looking like a higher priced MWC. The SWC and then the BXII was always unstable due in no small part to Texas’s outsized influence, and it wasn’t that long ago this board was reading them their Last Rites. The ACC is still considered to be a potential prey conference. That’s all a result of relying on too few schools to carry the conference’s standard and thus provide first tier TV interest and revenue.”
So you’ve just decided that all conferences but the SEC are doomed because they are too regional even though you could name a whopping 1 “big” crossover rivalry that the SEC has that the others don’t. That is a highly flawed argument.
“Because divisions can be easily spun off into their own conference, especially if we get to the point where we have 8 team divisions.”
It’s so easy that it has never happened.
“So what I’m hearing is that the BTN will be in HUGE trouble…AND I would save like $12/yr.?”
Every network would be in trouble. They’d all have to become internet channels and get paid that way instead. You’d pay the same huge cable bill for about 10 channels instead of 140.
“The conference mentality is not all that alien, y’know.”
Yes, it is. 20 years in, PSU is still adjusting and they weren’t nearly as insanely independent as ND.
“Do you know how naive you sound saying that a B1G school would never backstab a fellow conference mate?”
I didn’t say that. I said they wouldn’t leave the B10.
“Especially after they already did so publicly?”
Voting their consciences wasn’t backstabbing unless they told NE they would support them.
LikeLike
“You also listed a couple of games and then removed them from my list because you already named them. That’s arbitrary…NE and PSU play some big crossover games but you just choose not to accept those games.”
No, I already ACKNOWLEDGED those games. No reason to rehash where we agree.
“And it’s important to exactly nobody outside of the south except as just an SEC game. You discounted B10 games for that.
Please. I’m a midwesterner I don’t care about those Wisconsin, et al. games.
“So you’ve just decided that all conferences but the SEC are doomed because they are too regional even though you could name a whopping 1 ‘big’ crossover rivalry that the SEC has that the others don’t. That is a highly flawed argument.”
No, but I do think that any conference that only has one or two nationally interesting brands is at risk of having those brands poached by TV networks. I think not having established cross divisional rivalries makes a conference less likely to stay together in the face of TV pressure to split off.
““Because divisions can be easily spun off into their own conference, especially if we get to the point where we have 8 team divisions.””
“It’s so easy that it has never happened.”
Only because 8 team divisions have never happened. The WAC only lasted a year with only one interesting TV team and pod scheduling.
““The conference mentality is not all that alien, y’know.””
“Yes, it is. 20 years in, PSU is still adjusting and they weren’t nearly as insanely independent as ND.”
No, they are lashing out because they aren’t doing as well as they did in the 80s beating up on nobodies. Plus they seem to have a somewhat legit belief that they were treated less than amiably. I’m not sure how, but even the offices in Evanston acknowledged they would have to do a better job bringing in Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland than they did for PSU.
“Voting their consciences wasn’t backstabbing unless they told NE they would support them.”
But it sure as heck ain’t “All for one, and one for all,” either.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox: The real issue for the B1G going forward with or without the Irish is how few and uninteresting the cross geographic division rivalries are. Besides Neb/PSU and PSU/Iowa, are there any interesting/competitive match-ups?
The Big Ten has four major national brands: UM, OSU, PSU, and Nebraska. Those teams all get good TV ratings against pretty much any opponent. No other league has four powerhouses like that, except the SEC.
Unless there’s just something fundamentally wrong with the concept of sports leagues, the Big Ten isn’t going to break apart because it has only four great brands. Even the SEC has under-performers like Vanderbilt and Mississippi State. If your reasoning were correct, the SEC ought to be kicking those teams out, and we see no move in that direction.
Michigan left the Big Ten once, but that was so long ago, and so many of the economic circumstances were different, that it really does not inform the present circumstances. And it may be just as notable, that less than a decade after leaving, Michigan came back again. That was in 1917. Even in the 1970s, when Michigan and Ohio State dominated the league to a much greater extent than they do today, no one suggested they’d be better off on their own.
It’s true that the WAC didn’t work as a 16-team league, but it’s hard to draw solid inferences from a sample size of one, especially when that one is a bottom-feeder league. The mid-majors have generally been a lot less stable, because they contain a lot of schools trying to make it to the big time. In contrast, the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, and ACC, between them, have suffered a grand total of just ONE defection in the last 40 years (Maryland).
LikeLike
The Southern Conference over-expanded and the SEC schools withdrew, leaving mostly the ACC schools behind. The Southern Conference over-expanded again and 20 years later the ACC was formed out of it. So there is more than just the WAC example. Great West and Lone Star are a couple of relatively recent over-sized Division II conference disentegrations. Then there is the Big East which was a power conference not that long ago.
What doesn’t exist is one of these super-sized conferences that survived. There isn’t even a sample size of 1.
LikeLike
No one has made a persuasive case that size is the unifying theme behind conference failures. The Big 8, the Southwest Conference, and the Metro Conference didn’t survive either, and they never became very large.
Beyond that, any examples pre-dating NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma are of dubious illustrative value. That decision (which stripped the NCAA of its right to control TV broadcast rights) changed everything.
@FLP_NDRox’s attempts to draw conclusions from the Big Ten’s expulsion of Michigan in 1907! are especially humorous.
LikeLike
Marc: “No one has made a persuasive case that size is the unifying theme behind conference failures.”
Yes, because nobody is trying to argue “size is the ONLY reason that conferences fail”. To date, whenever conferences have gone beyond a certain size, they’ve failed, but OTHER conferences have also failed for other reasons.
The counter-argument is, rather, the one about the circumstances changing. If all of the examples since conference gained full football TV rights are conferences below the Major FBS level, then its at least plausible that it might be different for a Major conference.
LikeLike
To date, whenever conferences have gone beyond a certain size, they’ve failed, but OTHER conferences have also failed for other reasons.
We don’t really know that size WAS the reason: there are so few of them. Correlation is not causation. Mind you, I am not in favor of Big Ten expansion. But if I were going to advise against it “because big conferences always fail,” I’d want to be reasonably sure that size really was what killed them, and not something else.
If all of the examples since conference gained full football TV rights are conferences below the Major FBS level, then its at least plausible that it might be different for a Major conference.
I would argue that lesser conferences are always vulnerable, because their better members are always looking for the chance to step up to the next level. That’s why I pointed out (upthread) that four of the current “Big Five” have lost a grand total of just one member (Maryland) in the past 40 years. No mid-major has enjoyed anything like that kind of stability.
LikeLike
Well your assumption is that they can’t fail even though every other conference that has gone to 16 or more has failed. And you want to ignore the Big East which was a major conference and probably the premier basketball conference. Its pretty obvious why those large conferences have failed. You just need common sense. Invariably, they have expanded to the size where they have a group of institutions of different sizes and missions and with an expanded geography and they decide they would be better off grouping differently. That happened with the formation of the SEC, ACC, MWC and the disintegration of the Great West, Lone Star and Big East.
From the mid-60s to 1990 were really a very stable period in college sports realignment as far as football was concerned. The 50s/60s had the GI bill and growth of state universities and growth of the pros leading to a lot of change in that time. The 90s had the 1984 lawsuit and end of the CFA (another large group that disintegrated) which led to the founding of the Big East and Big 12 and expansion of the Big 10, SEC and ACC. The 00s have the explosion of cable which have led to our current round. Now we have the explosion of internet entertainment options.
LikeLike
Well your assumption is that they can’t fail even though every other conference that has gone to 16 or more has failed.
I am not assuming that. I am merely questioning whether you have correctly identified the cause.
And you want to ignore the Big East which was a major conference and probably the premier basketball conference. Its pretty obvious why those large conferences have failed.
Actually, no. You’ve got it completely wrong. The Big East concluded that it wasn’t enough to be a great basketball league. They needed to offer football, or the schools with viable options would take their football programs (along with the rest of their sports) elsewhere. This was also the time when a lot of former football independents were realizing that they couldn’t be independent any more, and they found a home temporarily in the Big East, until better homes opened up.
What killed the Big East was not that it reached a particular size, but that it consisted of two halves with completely different agendas. Ironically, they had it exactly right that they needed to add football. Had the Big East remained a purely basketball league, they would have lost every founding member with a I-A football program, exactly as they wound up doing. The Big East today would be exactly what the Big East has become: a league composed of teams that don’t play I-A football. What they got wrong, was the belief that they could be good enough at football to prevent the other teams from leaving.
Size, in other words, was not the problem. The problem was that the schools with I-A football weren’t going to stay in a league that didn’t sponsor that sport. The Big East thought they could grow their way out of the problem, and they were wrong about that. But the disease itself was not size. It was that the football schools eventually needed to go elsewhere.
LikeLike
My idea came from a couple of assumptions:
1. The current round of realignment/consolidation that started with Delaney’s announcement that resulted in the Nebraska add was caused by a reponse to the TV industry valuing non first tier as potential programming due to major content provider expanding sports programming on basic cable chasing after males 18-45 in a DVR resisent manner.
2. By the time the either the next set of contract negations or the one after comes up, that the value of that programming will be greatly lessened due to internet competition and/or a la carte pricing, or something we have yet to see.
3. Major conferences will be used to running their athletic departments at the current level of funding, and the providers will no longer be willing and/or able pay the rights fees that the ADs have come to expect.
4. That for the Kings and princes blessed with good demographics, this will be as unacceptable as playing six home dates out of twelve.
5. That content providers will still need first tier DVR resistent content to interest young males.
6. That content providers will be willing and able to make offers like they are making now, but only to those schools they feel will be able to provide a high percentage of tier one content of national interest…or intense regional interest for the cable channels.
7. That the schools they approach will be willing to cast aside tradition to avoid taking an eight figure haircut on their sports media rights deal.
None of that seems crazy to me.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDROX: The trouble is, that when 7 things need to happen, “none of which seem crazy,” the likelihood that they’ll ALL happen is pretty low.
LikeLike
“What killed the Big East was not that it reached a particular size, but that it consisted of two halves with completely different agendas.”
You just re-made my point. As conferences get larger, these sorts of differing agendas become unavoidable.
LikeLike
Bullet:
SWC failed and combined with an agreeable B8. Was 8 too many, or too few?
B12 only exists today (in a diminished level) at the pleasure of UT. Was 12 too many, or too few? 10?
BE would exist today if ND had chosen to similarly save them. Would they then be at the goldilocks number?
LikeLike
Big East was doomed for a long time. It just took 9 years once it started falling apart.
The topic is super-conferences. 16 or more has never been done successfully for any extended period. Its hard enough keeping 10 together.
LikeLike
It’s never been tried in major conferences containing several “kings”. That is the proposition being questioned. It won’t happen unless they drive it.
LikeLike
They = the kings.
LikeLike
You just re-made my point. As conferences get larger, these sorts of differing agendas become unavoidable.
You haven’t demonstrated that. Your big example is the Big East, and it fails. Four of the BE’s first nine members were BC, Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt. If the Big East had stood pat, those four would not be there today, because they needed to be in a league that played football.
The problem that doomed the Big East was there at its inception, when it was still a small league.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“No, but I do think that any conference that only has one or two nationally interesting brands is at risk of having those brands poached by TV networks. I think not having established cross divisional rivalries makes a conference less likely to stay together in the face of TV pressure to split off.”
I agree with your underlying point that the more interconnected a conference is, the more stable it is. I think you are mistaking financial value with internal value in regards to the B10, however. The B10 values WI/MN even if nobody else does. MI cares about the LBJ even if southerners don’t. Basically, I think the B10 (and other conferences) has stronger ties than you give it credit for because the B10 isn’t only about money.
I also think it’s unfair to evaluate crossover ties of divisions that haven’t even been officially formed yet. The parity-based scheduling means more games of peer versus peer (strong vs strong, weak vs weak) in the near future, and those games are more likely to form rivalries. UMD and RU have yet to play a B10 game and have only played B10 teams a combined 22 times (PSU played RU and UMD a lot more while an indie, but that’s not crossover). Let’s give them a chance to form some rivalries, the same with NE.
LikeLike
FLP_NDROX,
“My idea came from a couple of assumptions:”
7 is more than a couple.
“1. The current round of realignment/consolidation that started with Delaney’s announcement that resulted in the Nebraska add was caused by a reponse to the TV industry valuing non first tier as potential programming due to major content provider expanding sports programming on basic cable chasing after males 18-45 in a DVR resisent manner.”
The B10 expanded with NE for a CCG and the chance to improve the FB brand ($$$). It’s not that the TV industry values lesser games (experts have said TV deals are largely based on the big games they get and the rest is inventory), it’s that fans value them. That realization is what made the BTN possible. Once it was established, then future expansion had to consider how to maximize BTN revenue (brands and demographics).
“2. By the time the either the next set of contract negations or the one after comes up, that the value of that programming will be greatly lessened due to internet competition and/or a la carte pricing, or something we have yet to see.”
The B10’s current deal ends in 2016-7. It’s unlikely anything major changes before then, but possible. The next one may extend 10-15 years, nobody knows. Anything could happen by then. I notice your assumption doesn’t allow for the BTN and the conference to change with the times and figure out how to keep making big money. Why is that less likely than your assumption?
“7. That the schools they approach will be willing to cast aside tradition to avoid taking an eight figure haircut on their sports media rights deal.”
Both sides have some leverage in that discussion. You make it sound like TV gets to just dictate terms and the schools have to take it.
“None of that seems crazy to me.”
I think it’s a Drake equation issue. You have 7 things that all need to happen.
Math:
Odds of each = 50%, Overall odds = 0.8%
Odds of each = 75%, Overall odds = 13%
Odds of each = 90%, Overall odds = 48%
Unless you’re really confident in your assumptions, your predicted outcome becomes highly unlikely.
LikeLike
I find it so amusing that after years of watching y’all divy up the BXII, the Big East, the ACC, etc. you still have no stomach to see your own divided.
LikeLike
I never wanted any expansion, so play that game with someone else.
LikeLike
“…etc. you still have no stomach to see your own divided.”
Someone is leaving the B1G?
I missed the memo.
LikeLike
Agree there is a big difference between Pitt and Penn State. The all time record is a bit deceiving as Pitt used be higher and then things got turned completely around (similar to how Minnesota still has a winning record against Nebraska in their long series).
That said, even if Notre Dame joined, they’d still be playing USC/Stanford that weekend. That’s the one stable I think they’d insist on.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“Pitts fans considered it a rivalry but no Penn Staters I know of.”
You should meet David Brown. Or just read his comments on this topic here.
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t care much. I’d rather end the season with Maryland or Rutgers than MSU, but it’s not a big deal.
also, I have zero desire to play Pitt every year. If there were in our conference, fine, but if we are playing them non-conference then 2-4 games a decade is more than enough. Much better to have a variety of team than play the Panthers every years. They are just not that interesting.
LikeLike
Click to access mlaxconfcommreport.pdf
“Alignment with the considered conferences would be unlikely to result in any revenue sharing
with JHU in the near term.”
Well thats a shame, False alarm everyone
LikeLike
I’m not sure why that statement alone makes the JHU-B1G situation moot (unless they explicitly say that the Big Ten isn’t being considered – which they don’t).
1) JHU has its own TV deal; they’re unlikely to get revenue sharing because they’ll likely have to wait until that TV deal expires or it gets folded into someone else’s TV deal… however, that report explicitly says that they want to possibly keep their recently renewed TV deal going into the future even if they join a conference.
2) The Big Ten may be willing to allow JHU to join and keep their own TV deal while excluding them from any Big Ten Network payments (we don’t really know if this is being considered on either side, so it’s hard to tell). That may in fact end up the easiest solution for both sides if they join as a lacrosse affiliate. That way they can appear on BTN if they’re playing an away game, but they would be on ESPNU for home games.
The important part is “In light of the preceding discussion and considerations, it is the unanimous recommendation of this Committee that the University pursue a conference membership for the Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse program.”
LikeLike
Who knows, maybe they’re considering the ACC as well. We just don’t really know.
LikeLike
JHU is a great fit for the ACC.
LikeLike
Certainly ~ I’d expect its between the ACC and the Big Ten. “The ACC should add Johns Hopkins for Lacrosse” is kind of overstating the ACC’s position ~ they surely should INVITE Johns Hopkins, but the final say lies with Johns Hopkins.
LikeLike
What makes you think that JHU wants anything to do with the Big 10? JHU is a private university with 7,000 students. Not a lot of comparable schools in the Big 10.
Just because the Big 10 can throw cash around, so what? Somewhere along the way, Big 10 fans have decided to confuse revenue generation with athletic success. And spare me the academic consortium. Does JHU need more research dollars? They already have $1.3B per year. I think they are OK. Probably more to gain from JHU than vice-versa.
LikeLike
@acaffrey: What makes you think that JHU wants anything to do with the Big 10? JHU is a private university with 7,000 students. Not a lot of comparable schools in the Big 10.
In the ACC, Wake Forest is the only school of comparable size to JHU, but they don’t play lacrosse. The ones that do are all much bigger than JHU. The size differential would be larger in the Big Ten, but would that really matter? The Big Ten is better academically, which I suspect counts for something with JHU.
Just because the Big 10 can throw cash around, so what? Somewhere along the way, Big 10 fans have decided to confuse revenue generation with athletic success.
I don’t think they’re the ones who are confused.
And spare me the academic consortium. Does JHU need more research dollars? They already have $1.3B per year. I think they are OK. Probably more to gain from JHU than vice-versa.
The thing about money, is that the people who have usually don’t stop trying to make more. I challenge you to find very many university presidents who’ve said, “You know, we’ve got enough research here. That’ll do for now.” They just don’t think that way.
LikeLike
If JHU wants to join the Big 10, so be it. But if they have an opportunity to join the ACC, they’ll get to play Syracuse, Duke, and Notre Dame… plus regional foes Virginia and North Carolina. Those schools are a lot more comparable to the 5 ACC schools than the 5 Big 10 schools. And the rest of the conference bodies are more similar too.
What I meant by research dollars is that this is not a situation where JHU is under-funded and NEEDS help. I am sure that a cooperative effort with ACC schools would be just as advantageous as the consortium. While Michigan and Wisconsin are top 10, Duke, Pitt, and UNC are top 13. So it is comparable.
LikeLike
Sorry, was using 2009 data. May not be up-to-date.
LikeLike
Fascinating report from JHU. I don’t think you can really take away whether JHU would lean toward the ACC or the Big Ten out of that report. The fact that JHU stated that it wouldn’t participate in revenue sharing with any conference it joined seems to blunt whatever can be read into their commitment to the ESPNU arrangement – if the Big Ten isn’t going to be giving JHU any BTN revenue, then I think it’s a situation where the league would find it to be perfectly fair to keep its ESPNU contract. On the other hand, the ACC has a bit more of a precedent of this with its Notre Dame deal. Partisans from both conferences can point to why they think they’re in better position here, but it truly looks 50/50 from my vantage point.
LikeLike
Given that they don’t seem to tip their hand, we may as well treat it as 50/50. Strength of Schedule would tip it to the ACC, the opportunity to participate in some permanent basis in the CIC would tip it to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
Be careful using “athletic success” because I’m quite certain the BIG trumps the ACC in dramatic fashion, all-time, NCAA team championships – individual champions & olympians as well. My argument prevails even if you go past archaic BIG success, that is the period before the ACC was formed. And why should that matter much anyways? Most ACC teams had D1 sports and homes in either the SEC or Southern Conference before pre- ACC membership. This school year alone, the BIG has won 6 NCAA titles. Take a historic look at the Director’s Cup, the BIG almost always places more of its members in the top 25 and top 50.
Factor in future BIG member Maryland, currently the second best athletic program in the ACC, in terms of NCAA titles (25) & the BIG has created much distance with the ACC. Btw, Maryland will drop down to 4th, tied with Iowa, when they join the BIG. Schools like OSU & IU will be right behind them at 24.
Sure the ACC has had more modern era basketball success. No argument here. But as mediocre as BIG football has been, we’ve beaten you in most games that matter. News flash: the ACC will always share a crucial portion of its football footprint with a vastly superior SEC. Good luck catching them.
Moreover, the BIG will eventually stop finishing as runner’s up in basketball. We’ve not had the genuine fortune of 3 HOF coaches coaching within 15 miles of each other: K, Roy & Dean, and now Pitino & Boeheim are coming. But do expect a major black hole when 4 of those 5 retire within the next decade, at most.
I think we have better hs basketball up here. If you don’t believe me, take a long look at successful NC ACC teams, esp where many of the key players and even coaches come from. The ACC was built for basketball foremost, thus its success is well earned & by design. But cycles definitely occur in basketball. There’s no bs BCS or poll system. It’s a sport where the southeast simply doesn’t have a climate advantage over the midwest & northeast. Moreover, the BIG may not fare well against the ACC in NC games, but the Big East, KU & the Ky schools sure have. I have a hard time accepting Ky as a southern state, it’s a hybrid. If anything, Ky’s densest metros have more in common with Ohio and Indiana. Lastly, Lville and Ky, like Tobacco Road, greatly depend on Midwestern basketball talent, as well as Northeast recruits.
But hey now, you will have Pitt, ND, Syracuse & Lville soon enough, thus you’re no longer southeastern. In fact, more than 1/3 of your conference will be non-southeastern.
LikeLike
I hope that was cathartic for you.
My point is that all a significant quantity of people talk about on here is $$$, as if that is the point of sports. Adding Maryland/Rutgers was a win because of the money, end of story. If revenue gets to $40M that is better than $38M, which is better than everyone other conference, end of story. Frank pointed out that $$$ was an important characteristic–but it seems like that is becoming the exclusive factor.
Moreover, if the premise is that $$$ should give the Big 10 an advantage,where is that advantage now? If it is only going to be in the Olympic sports, who cares? I am sure most ADs would rather have a football or basketball title than a Director’s Cup. Schools in other conferences will prioritize. Some schools will focus on lacrosse, others baseball, others wrestling, others water polo. There is no need for a school with 20,000 students to have teams in every sport.
Also, who says the ACC has to be southeastern? The Atlantic Coast runs up to Maine.
The SEC dominates all in football, including the Big 10. That is not changing. Nor is it something that can be changed under the current rules. There is no shame in falling in line behind them.
As for hoops, we’ll see how it plays out. The ACC is pondering NYC for its tournament for a reason.
LikeLike
@gfunk
Kentucky is a very southern state. Maybe the Cincinnati suburbs aren’t that different from Cincy, but the rest of the state is definitely southern.
UK recruits nationally as do all the very top programs these days. Doesn’t matter whether the recruit is from NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston or Los Angeles. After you get out of the top dozen programs or so most of the recruiting is regional, but all the programs will look out of the area for key players.
That national recruiting helps keep programs like UK, UNC, Duke and Kansas on top. A top New Jersey player isn’t going to be tied to Rutgers or Seton Hall. They’ll look at the premier programs.
LikeLike
acaffrey
SEC’s dominance in football is confined to the last 7 years. Over time, they probably have been the best conference on average, but it is all year by year. Even in the SEC, the SEC East dominated for a number of years. I don’t think its any coincidence the SEC west is dominating after the mass of oversigning in recent years. Georgia and Florida were not doing the same thing during that time frame. With the new rules, I suspect it will balance out between SEC East and West and between the SEC and the rest of the country. The SEC still has some great coaches, but they won’t always be on top. If you look at final AP poll points per school over the BCS era, the Big 12 is very close to the SEC and was ahead until the last couple of years. The Big 10 was basically even with the SEC for the first 10 years of the BCS era.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“My point is that all a significant quantity of people talk about on here is $$$, as if that is the point of sports. Adding Maryland/Rutgers was a win because of the money, end of story. If revenue gets to $40M that is better than $38M, which is better than everyone other conference, end of story. Frank pointed out that $$$ was an important characteristic–but it seems like that is becoming the exclusive factor.”
That’s not fair. You know darn well we’ve spent a lot of time talking about demographics and expanding the B10 into growing regions for recruiting both athletes and students. Money ties into that because what’s good for demographics is also good for the BTN. But what other upside is there? The B10 certainly didn’t add RU for their strong athletic history. It didn’t add UMD for their football prowess either. They did it for demographics and money, and the schools accepted for academics and money. Do you see the common thread there? Money.
“Moreover, if the premise is that $$$ should give the Big 10 an advantage,where is that advantage now?”
We’re a lot better than the MAC, aren’t we? We do well in the director’s cup, don’t we? We are near the top in hoops, aren’t we? What conference does better in all categories than the B10?
FB:
1. SEC
2. B12
3. B10, P12
4. ACC
5. BE
Hoops
1. BE, ACC
2. B10
3. B12
4. P12
5. SEC
Other:
1. P12
2. B10
3. ACC, SEC, B12
4. BE
“The SEC dominates all in football, including the Big 10.”
I disagree. The B12 can easily make a case for being the SEC’s equal overall. The SEC is stronger at the top, but not at the bottom.
“That is not changing. Nor is it something that can be changed under the current rules.”
Of course it can change. The SEC wasn’t dominant 8 years ago and any rule changes since then only hurt the SEC.
LikeLike
Right, but money is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into something. What is more meaningful… an Ohio State national title in football or a newspaper article about a FOIA request demonstrating that the Big 10 schools increased their TV revenue by X% over last year?
Congrats on the Big 10 being #2 or #3 in everything. #1 money…. and not much else.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Right, but money is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into something.”
No, it isn’t. Money is a resource. More of it means more options and better chances to be successful in the future. More importantly, it means athletics don’t need to subtract from the academic side of the school.
You start with a faulty premise. You say that since the B10 isn’t #1 in anything, let alone everything, money must be meaningless. That assumes that the B10 would be equally competitive with less money. For all you know that extra money is what is keeping B10 football from being BE football and B10 hoops from being SEC hoops. You’re also assuming that being #1 in one thing is better than being good across the board. Just because you think that way doesn’t mean that matches the goals of the B10. Of course they want to be #1 in everything, but I think they would tell you that across the board success is very important to them. There’s a reason B10 schools sponsor so many more sports than SEC and B12 schools. The B10 knows they could do better if they specialized more. They have consciously chosen to take the broader approach.
“What is more meaningful… an Ohio State national title in football or a newspaper article about a FOIA request demonstrating that the Big 10 schools increased their TV revenue by X% over last year?”
What’s more meaningful is:
* OSU sponsoring 36 varsity teams (W – 17, M – 16, Co-ed – 3) with almost 1100 athletes. Only money makes that possible.
* OSU also has the largest intramural program in the country with roughly 56,000 competitors annually (athletics funds some of the facilities they use)
* OSU is one of only four universities to have won a NCAA national championship in baseball, men’s basketball and football.
* Since the inception of the Athletic Director’s Cup, Ohio State has finished in the top 25 each year, including top 6 finishes in three of the last five years.
“Congrats on the Big 10 being #2 or #3 in everything. #1 money…. and not much else. ”
Thanks. When the ACC has a down time in hoops, what is it they can hang their hat on exactly? Next year?
LikeLike
“No, it isn’t. Money is a resource.”
Not really. It’s just the mechanism by which we coordinate the exchange of actual resources.
“More of it means more options and better chances to be successful in the future.”
Show me the true correlation here. The 6 wealthiest conferences do the best. But between the 6 (now 5) wealthiest conferences, where does money truly fit in?
“More importantly, it means athletics don’t need to subtract from the academic side of the school.”
We, Ohio State has a $5 billion budget. The entire athletic department is essentially a rounding error. Only creative accounting makes you think it is important.
“You start with a faulty premise. You say that since the B10 isn’t #1 in anything, let alone everything, money must be meaningless.”
You interjected your own premise. Feel free to quote me exactly, rather than play with what I say to your own needs. All I said was that the Big 10 is #1 in money and nothing else. If it bothers you, and your typical lengthy word vomit suggests that it does, so be it. But feel free to show me where the Big 10 is #1 other than money. That was my only “premise,” if it was even that.
“That assumes that the B10 would be equally competitive with less money. For all you know that extra money is what is keeping B10 football from being BE football and B10 hoops from being SEC hoops.”
Similarly, for all you know BE football would continue to be BE football even if they had more money. And perhaps SEC hoops will continue to languish, even with an infusion of cash from its network. Which brings me back to money being an imperfect, unproven correlation for success outside of comparing the Big 10 to the MAC, etc.
“You’re also assuming that being #1 in one thing is better than being good across the board.”
For most fans it comes down to being #1 in the revenue sports, plus one or two other non-revenue sports that they really care about. For some fans, it is only revenue or only one non-revenue. Other than some general pride that comes with winning the Director’s Cup, I am not sure too many fans are perusing those statistics and projecting them if “mens swimming pulls out a top finish.” The next debate here regarding the methodology for the Director’s Cup will be the first (at least in my time here). Conversely, we spend a lot of time with bracketology and BCS debate.
“Just because you think that way doesn’t mean that matches the goals of the B10. Of course they want to be #1 in everything, but I think they would tell you that across the board success is very important to them.”
You really think an athletic director would rather have a Director’s Cup than a national title in a revenue sport? You really think a “Top 25” or “Top 6” Director’s Cup finish means more to the athletic department than a national title? You think any athletic director takes more pride in having both revenue sports in the top 10 than having one of them be #1? Wisconsin has been great in both sports… Louisville gets 12 months of being the reigning national champion. Last I checked, we were calling Jurich a great AD and questioning Alvarez’s decision with respect to paying assistant coaches.
“There’s a reason B10 schools sponsor so many more sports than SEC and B12 schools. The B10 knows they could do better if they specialized more. They have consciously chosen to take the broader approach.”
I get it. Better to offer 30 sports, finish decently in all of them, and rise to the top of the Director’s Cup standings on the basis of quantity alone. Nice. Sounds like fun.
“What’s more meaningful is:”
A bunch of things that have nothing to do with increased revenue from the BTN. Money makes it possible… but adding a few million a year in TV revenue does not move the impossible to possible. It is a drop in the bucket.
“Thanks. When the ACC has a down time in hoops, what is it they can hang their hat on exactly? Next year?”
There is no “down time.” All we have to do is be top 3 and claim a Big 10-esque successful result. If we can edge out the SEC and Pac-12, mission accomplished in the conference battle. Apparently.
Funny how you did not provide an actual response to the question. Maybe you need to stop quoting comments and actually read them.
LikeLike
@Marc
Notre Dame is also a small private school, but I know B1G fans tend to not get how small. While twice the size of JHU, ND’s still half the size of Northwestern. The ACC is also much the stronger of the two LAX conferences (the closest analogy I can come up with is the B1G hockey, but ACC LAX would be more stacked top to bottom). OTOH, the strength of the ACC may be an issue and JHU may decide to pull a Bowden and take the path of least resistance.
LikeLike
@Marc
Notre Dame is also a small private school, but I know B1G fans tend to not get how small. While twice the size of JHU, ND’s still half the size of Northwestern.
Actually, I do realize that. But when you read the JHU committee report, that factor does not emerge as one of the school’s main concerns.
The ACC is also much the stronger of the two LAX conferences (the closest analogy I can come up with is the B1G hockey, but ACC LAX would be more stacked top to bottom). OTOH, the strength of the ACC may be an issue and JHU may decide to pull a Bowden and take the path of least resistance.
It cuts both ways. On the one hand, Hopkins wants to play a strong schedule, to maximize their chances of an at-large berth. On the other, Hopkins wants a league they could win, to give them another way of qualifying for the post-season.
Of course, the conference schedule would comprise just five games of a 13-game regular season, so the quality of the OOC schedule would dominate the RPI calculation in either event. Virginia and North Carolina are long-term Hopkins rivals, so Hopkins is going to play them whether they’re in the ACC or not.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Not really. It’s just the mechanism by which we coordinate the exchange of actual resources.”
Let me know when you join reality.
“Show me the true correlation here. The 6 wealthiest conferences do the best.”
You just showed it to yourself.
“But between the 6 (now 5) wealthiest conferences, where does money truly fit in?”
There it is again. The poorest one died. That can happen again, too. There used to be more power conference but only the strongest survive. Nobody was talking about the B10, P12 or SEC collapsing in the past few years. Can the ACC and B12 say the same? No. Why? Money.
“We, Ohio State has a $5 billion budget. The entire athletic department is essentially a rounding error. Only creative accounting makes you think it is important.”
The AD is about 2.5-3% of the total budget. That is large enough to be important, especially since it also has a lot of impact on the community outside of that. In relative terms, that’s on par with being the biggest department of the federal government after the DOD.
“You interjected your own premise. Feel free to quote me exactly, rather than play with what I say to your own needs.”
Right, but money is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into something. What is more meaningful… an Ohio State national title in football or a newspaper article about a FOIA request demonstrating that the Big 10 schools increased their TV revenue by X% over last year?
Congrats on the Big 10 being #2 or #3 in everything. #1 money…. and not much else.
No, that’s was exactly your premise. You say the B10 is only #1 in money, and that money is meaningless if it doesn’t translate into something, therefore you’re saying that money is meaningless because the B10 isn’t #1 in anything else (it didn’t translate into something).
“Which brings me back to money being an imperfect, unproven correlation for success outside of comparing the Big 10 to the MAC, etc.”
Nobody ever claimed it was a perfect, proven correlation for success on the fine scale. You created that straw man just to argue against it.
“For most fans”
Since when do fans run the conferences or the schools?
“Other than some general pride that comes with winning the Director’s Cup, I am not sure too many fans are perusing those statistics and projecting them if “mens swimming pulls out a top finish.” The next debate here regarding the methodology for the Director’s Cup will be the first (at least in my time here).”
It actually has been discussed. And I guarantee you the DC standings matter to presidents, ADs and some fans. I don’t care what the Wal-Mart fans get excited about.
“Conversely, we spend a lot of time with bracketology and BCS debate.”
In part because the DC methodology isn’t that controversial.
“You really think an athletic director would rather have a Director’s Cup than a national title in a revenue sport?”
Did I say that?
“You really think a “Top 25″ or “Top 6″ Director’s Cup finish means more to the athletic department than a national title?”
Sometimes.
“You think any athletic director takes more pride in having both revenue sports in the top 10 than having one of them be #1?”
Yes, because they know it’s harder to be good across the board. Winning the title in any one sport involves a certain amount of luck (close wins, injuries, etc). Being good across the board isn’t an accident.
“Wisconsin has been great in both sports”
No, they’ve been really good in both with a brief flirtation with great in FB.
“I get it. Better to offer 30 sports, finish decently in all of them, and rise to the top of the Director’s Cup standings on the basis of quantity alone.”
No, they actually believe in a broad based program for the benefit of the athletes and the student body. They understand the purpose of college athletics.
“A bunch of things that have nothing to do with increased revenue from the BTN. Money makes it possible”
Way to contradict yourself immediately. You don’t need anyone else to comment since you argue with yourself so well.
“… but adding a few million a year in TV revenue does not move the impossible to possible. It is a drop in the bucket.”
Not for non-revenue sports it isn’t.
“Funny how you did not provide an actual response to the question.”
That wasn’t rhetorical? Only an idiot would compare a national title to a newspaper article or think that anyone else was comparing them. One is a thing, the other is a report about a thing. It’s apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Oh my bad, I should have posted this as a reply to Marc Shepherd. This doesn’t end JHU to the B1G, but it ends everything I was saying yesterday.
LikeLike
If Hopkins chooses the ACC over the Big Ten (and if so, I hope the ACC insists Hopkins joins for women’s lacrosse as well), what’s the Big Ten’s next move towards a men’s lacrosse autobid? I don’t see any potential associate member with sufficient academic heft (unless the Naval Academy was interested, a longshot at best), so Delany might encourage Northwestern or Minnesota or Michigan State to start a program for the good of the conference, a la Penn State in men’s ice hockey.
LikeLike
_Minnesota_?
LikeLike
There is a pro lacrosse team here in Minnesota (the Swarm)–they are a second tenant at the Xcel Energy Center–home of the Wild…
Minnesota—being “the State of Hockey”— hmm… lacrosse really is field hockey, right?? Maybe… but we already sponsor 23 (or is it 25?) varsity squads. Only 3 are revenue generators (football, men’s bb, and men’s hockey)—don’t know if it’d be too smart to add potentially 2 more revenue drains…
LikeLike
I think the answer is status quo. There’s no pressing need to add lacrosse as a conference sponsored sport. If they want programming on the BTN, there’s no reason they can’t put on more of the lacrosse games of conference members just because they don’t play lacrosse in a “Big Ten conference”.
Someday, some Big Ten school will add lacrosse — it’s cheap and growing — and the conference will start to sponsor the sport. That’s it. No reason to get worked up about it beyond that.
LikeLike
The next move would probably be just not sponsoring lax.
Convincing a school to start up a team just so the league can create a lacrosse sponsor the sport is pretty unlikely. Remember, whatever school started one would actually have to set up a female sport of some kind in order to meet their Title IX obligations. It probably wouldn’t require a booster to donate $90 million (which is what enabled PSU to start up hockey) but the costs do add up fast.
LikeLike
vp19,
“If Hopkins chooses the ACC over the Big Ten (and if so, I hope the ACC insists Hopkins joins for women’s lacrosse as well), what’s the Big Ten’s next move towards a men’s lacrosse autobid?”
1. Check and see if any school is close to adding it. If so, persuade them to hurry up.
2. Check if any other affiliate member possibilities make sense.
3. Wait.
The better question might be, will the B10 change their rules and form a 5 team league? You need 6 for an autobid, but the ACC has a league of 4 and still holds an ACC tournament. The B10 could do that and hope to qualify an at-large team. It gives them 3 big games for the BTN on top of the regular season games.
“I don’t see any potential associate member with sufficient academic heft (unless the Naval Academy was interested, a longshot at best),”
Independents:
JHU
Hip Point (NC) – no
Marquette – would go Big East I’d think
Mercer (GA) – no
Midwest:
Detroit Mercy – no
Bellarmine – no
Robert Morris – no
ND – ACC
West:
AF – no
Denver – no
I agree, there are no other likely options. I don’t think the B10 wants to steal someone from another conference anyway.
“so Delany might encourage Northwestern or Minnesota or Michigan State to start a program for the good of the conference, a la Penn State in men’s ice hockey.”
I don’t think anyone is particularly close to wanting to add it. Sure, they’re about to get a big raise with the new TV deal, but they still have other priorities. Plus Title IX means they have to add women’s lacrosse or something as well. Maybe all the club teams should play and the best one gets bumped up to D-I the next year (kidding).
LikeLike
The 5 wrestling school B12 got a waiver for years. I believe they did their first year at 4 (but not this year). I think this was because they had been high enough and had suffered losses. Doubt the NCAA would grant a 6 team rule waiver for startup.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The 5 wrestling school B12 got a waiver for years. I believe they did their first year at 4 (but not this year). I think this was because they had been high enough and had suffered losses. Doubt the NCAA would grant a 6 team rule waiver for startup.”
I don’t think the NCAA would be a factor since they wouldn’t be asking for an autobid. They’d just be looking for the B10 to have a tournament. Like I say, the ACC has 4 and is a conference. They don’t get an autobid either.
LikeLike
Yes, but even with the smaller number of at-large spots, the three out of four ACC members with winning conference records went to the NCAA tournament. The Big Ten would not have that luxury.
I don’t think the Big Ten is going to ask Rutgers, Penn State, OSU or TSUN to leave their auto-bid conferences to form a non-autobid conference, and if they did, I suspect that one or more would stand on their rights to say no to that proposition.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Yes, but even with the smaller number of at-large spots, the three out of four ACC members with winning conference records went to the NCAA tournament. The Big Ten would not have that luxury.”
No, but they could get 2 of 5 if they schedule well OOC. That’s as well as they do now.
NCAA trips in the past 10 years:
UMD – 10
OSU – 3
PSU – 2
RU – 1
MI – 0 (brand new team)
Total – 16
The OOC schedule is bigger and more important than the conference slate in lacrosse.
“I don’t think the Big Ten is going to ask Rutgers, Penn State, OSU or TSUN to leave their auto-bid conferences to form a non-autobid conference,”
I don’t think they are either. I just said it might be a better question than how they might chase an autobid.
“and if they did, I suspect that one or more would stand on their rights to say no to that proposition.”
Only UMD would object, I think.
LikeLike
Setting up an affiliate membership for Johns Hopkins would include the appeal of some form of membership in the CIC as well … there’s be nothing along those lines to use to try to overturn the six school rule. So it would be hard enough to get the six school rule over-turned if the five existing schools were all-in … if any of the existing schools demurred, it only gets harder.
LikeLike
One final thought, the committee’s recommendations include:
“3) A guarantee that a decision by an existing full member of the conference to sponsor the sport of men’s lacrosse or the addition to the conference of a full member that sponsors men’s lacrosse will not jeopardize Johns Hopkins’ affiliation with the league”
This really jumped out at me. The Big Ten is currently at 5 men’s lacrosse schools and is looking for a 6th to get an autobid.
That “guarantee” for Hopkins would come into play with respect to the Big Ten especially.
LikeLike
“This really jumped out at me. The Big Ten is currently at 5 men’s lacrosse schools and is looking for a 6th to get an autobid.”
The ACC is also at 5 schools (Duke, UNC, UVA, Syracuse, Notre Dame) in men’s lacrosse. Now, they’ve sponsored the sport for years and just haven’t had an auto bid, so perhaps there’s less a concern for JHU there but it’s technically the same situation.
I guess the big difference is that the Big Ten wants JHU to get an autobid to justify starting a league, whereas the ACC already exists and JHU would simply allow the league to get an autobid they don’t currently have.
LikeLike
Its not just the autobid, though: six teams to sponsor a Big Ten competition is a long-entrenched Big Ten rule.
LikeLike
Huh?
“RECOMMENDATION
In light of the preceding discussion and considerations, it is the unanimous recommendation of this Committee that the University pursue a conference membership for the Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse program.”
LikeLike
Wait a minute ~ “that’s a shame” because you were cheering for a payday that could be used as a political football to eliminate the grandfather rule that allows seven Div3 schools to play Div1 in one men’s and one women’s sport?
And the impact on Rensselaer, Clarkson and St. Lawrence Ice Hockey and on Colorado College and Hartwick College soccer having to drop down to Division 3 is just acceptable collateral damage if the knife can be stuck into Johns Hopkins?
LikeLike
Exactly: disgusting.
LikeLike
This can be taken a few ways, clearly they are debating between the ACC & B10. Currently Lacrosse isn’t a ‘revenue’ sport but that could change down the road (costs are very low).
LikeLike
In its strongest conference, the ACC, lacrosse seems to be a break-even sport (barring creative book-keeping), which is similar to the position that ice hockey will hold in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the preceding discussion and considerations, it is the unanimous recommendation of this Committee that the University pursue a conference membership for the Johns Hopkins men’s lacrosse program.
In addition, the Committee highly recommends that if the University decides to
proceed with conference alignment, it should take measures to ensure the stability of the program during this period of transition. Specifically, the Committee identifies four criteria it believes would be important in any agreement to join a conference:
1) An initial membership term of five years
2) An opportunity to evaluate Johns Hopkins’ position in the conference after three years, at which point the option would exist to either extend the initial agreement or to part ways at the conclusion of the initial agreement
3) A guarantee that a decision by an existing full member of the conference to sponsor the sport of men’s lacrosse or the addition to the conference of a full member that sponsors men’s lacrosse will not jeopardize Johns Hopkins’ affiliation with the league
4) The ability for Johns Hopkins to maintain its existing television broadcasting relationship with ESPNU
They favor joining a conference. As for the 4 conditions, none of them seem like a major problem.
LikeLike
Isn’t #4 a deal breaker for the “all for one” B1G?
LikeLike
Hopefully.
LikeLike
I have a bit of a problem with it.
Perhaps an associate member (new ground) could be allowed to finish existing contracts before being fully absorbed?
Perhaps JHU “buys in” by contributing increased value to BTN, but not receiving proceeds from it, through away games during ESPNU contract?
Have to think about it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I have a bit of a problem with it.
Perhaps an associate member (new ground) could be allowed to finish existing contracts before being fully absorbed?
Perhaps JHU “buys in” by contributing increased value to BTN, but not receiving proceeds from it, through away games during ESPNU contract?”
Exactly. The B10 wouldn’t pay them for their road conference games and wouldn’t ask for a cut of their deal for home games. The ESPNU deal would be good exposure for the B10 teams, good for ESPNU because they get some big fan bases to show, and good for JHU because they are happy with its terms. It will help build the market for lacrosse on BTN.
After the 5 year trial period, then JHU would be expected to join the BTN package. They’d get a flat fee like they do from ESPNU (no equity).
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“Isn’t #4 a deal breaker for the “all for one” B1G?”
I wouldn’t think so. If you agree to #1 (5 year trial period), then I don’t see the harm in them keeping their TV deal for that period. The BTN would still get their conference road games. If JHU decides to stick around, then you tell them they need to move over to the BTN when that ESPN deal ends or get out of it if it’s still got a long time to go.
There wouldn’t be revenue sharing with them while they had the ESPNU deal. Once they decided to join for good, then you could make them a deal for a fixed payment from the BTN but no equity.
LikeLike
I think the bigger issue (to me at least) is that this is for men’s lacrosse only. Having JHU join the Big Ten would be justified if all their Div 1 sports (e.g. men’s and women’s lacrosse) are in the conference so it wouldn’t be just an associate membership to get one team. Having just men’s lacrosse join is too jerrymandered for me; at that point, just having Notre Dame or BC join in ice hockey, etc. Dangerous first step.
Ironically, the ACC already having a partial member in Notre Dame means that seal has been broken, so taking JHU for one sport as an associate member is easier to justify.
LikeLike
spaz,
“I think the bigger issue (to me at least) is that this is for men’s lacrosse only. Having JHU join the Big Ten would be justified if all their Div 1 sports (e.g. men’s and women’s lacrosse) are in the conference so it wouldn’t be just an associate membership to get one team. Having just men’s lacrosse join is too jerrymandered for me; at that point, just having Notre Dame or BC join in ice hockey, etc. Dangerous first step.”
A reasonable objection. Maybe after a few years of the men being in a conference the women will decide the pluses outweigh the minuses again.
I think the president’s would overlook this for a chance to add JHU to the CIC. If JHU refused the CIC, then leaving the women out would be a deal breaker.
LikeLike
The JHU women just pulled out of the ALC (Big Ten’s 3 schools + SEC’s 2 schools + JHU); I doubt they want back in to a Big Ten league for their women already.
LikeLike
That’s why I said in a few years. JHU was comfortable going indie for the women because they have so much experience with it on the men’s side. But if the men join the B10, they may find that is a much better conference experience than the ALC. The B10 has resources and experience that the ALC could never match. Yes, the competition will be stiff but the experience may make it worthwhile. The may also find being an indie on the women’s side isn’t as easy as it is on the men’s side where they were the premier team that everyone wanted to play. Or maybe it’s easier for the women. I don’t know.
LikeLike
This is going to be a very interesting fight. JHU would have a choice between:
ACC – ND, UNC, Duke, SU, UVa
B1G – UM, OSU, PSU, UMd, RU
or
Big East – SJU, Providence, Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova
Considered the increased visibility that LAX is enjoying right now, this could yet be one of the greatest epilogues of the last era of realignment.
This may come down to a fight between Fox and ESPN. Consider that the Big East just signed a major TV deal with Fox and the B1G is rumored to be hooking up with Fox when their Tier 1 rights go on the market. However, if JHU is continuing their association with ESPNU, then I think it’s all academic.
LikeLike
And the ACC would love to retain a presence in Maryland, albeit only in the spring.
LikeLike
I don’t think the BIG should add JHU if the women aren’t coming. But the ESPNU contract will likely push them to the ACC.
If JHU joins the BIG, fine. It would likely be for two simple reasons beyond the CIC: they have a better chance of getting the autobid in the BIG & they value their intra-state ties with the UMd. The BIG has a lot of NC’s to win on the men’s side before catching the ACC – JHU knows the competition will be tougher with an ACC membership. But how about them ladies? Starting in 2014, Northwestern, PSU & Maryland, combined, will clearly eclipse the ACC in NCs & by a significant margin.
LikeLike
What are the details of the ACC ESPNU contract that are supposed to push JHU to joining the ACC? The Big Ten certainly may have more flexibility, since it doesn’t have a lacrosse conference yet, so there legacy contractual rights won’t get in the way ~ just agree going forward that Big Ten affiliate(s) hold their home rights in their sport and go without a conference distribution. Its still extra value to the BTN to have the JHU away conference games and likely participation of JHU In the conference tournament.
LikeLike
Bruce,
I don’t know for sure. But see PAGE 2, Page 8 and FINAL PAGE of the report cited above . . . ESPNU contract come up a lot. Also, I’m pretty damn sure that ESPN has a lot at stake with not only the ACC, most sports, but JHU lacrosse. ESPN clearly had a lot of influence on the ACC’s recent GOR, which is stating the obvious to most who folllow Frank.
In the report, note the following:
Page 3: travel distance (ACC gets the advantage here). More compact travel in the ACC, though South Bend is a slightly further drive than Ann Arbor – these two schools being the furthest from Baltimore.
Page 8: noted “traditional rivals”, 3 of 6 are in the ACC: Syracuse, Virginia & North Carolina & only Md will be in the future BIG
Page 8: Economic & brand impact, clearly JHU feels ESPNU ensures greater national and even Canadian appeal
There are certainly more subtle arguments for the BIG, esp on the academic side. I think JHU, though private, truly values research-graduate education in the BIG sense. But the ACC holds its own here, just not in political terms, AAU depth & economic might. Also, again, I do sense JHU wants a clearer path to the NCAA tourney – though such an admission would never be made public. It could also be that JHU sees lacrosse’s growth dependent on expanding to the Midwest, which is logical. JHU can’t be the national brand it aspires to be stuck in an ACC that only goes as far west as Lville-South Bend.
Call me skeptical, but I don’t see the BIG accepting JHU without having a crack at overturning the ESPNU contract down the road. BTN lacrosse will struggle to reach a national audience, esp against ESPN, similar product. I also sense the BIG will want both the men’s & women’s teams.
A nice splash for the BIG could be OSU winning the NCAA this year – not necessarily a far-fetched possibility : ). Also, I don’t think lacrosse is growing as fast as many project. It has a long ways to go. I like watching it, but I’m a very Minnesotan in certain ways, Puck is a far superior product: faster, tougher, flashier & more technically skilled – but I’m just being stubborn & opinionated : ).
LikeLike
gfunk:
The ESPNU contract runs out in 2017.
Also, the ACC schools are actually _not_ closer to JHU. Within a 3 hour drive of JHU are 3 B10 schools (UMD, PSU, and RU) and only 1 ACC school (UVa who are exactly 3 hours away).
Duke, UNC, and Syracuse are all long bus-rides away (5-5.5 hours), but if JHU chooses to fly, none of those 3 schools are near major airports.
Meanwhile, Michigan and OSU are both easily accessible by air & close to major airports while reaching ND would require a flight in to Chicago followed by a 2 hour bus ride.
So for travel, JHU’s choice is between
1 short bus-ride + 3 long bus-rides (or flights in to relatively inaccessible areas) + 1 flight & 2 hour bus-ride
3 short bus-rides + 2 flights.
Also, there was this line:
“Moreover, conference alignment would further expand the reach of Johns Hopkins lacrosse to new regions, many of which are home to Johns Hopkins alumni and friends who are anxious to support their team.”
JHU would likely keep on playing ‘Cuse & UNC no matter what, so if they joined the ACC, they’d add an extra trip to the Research Triangle (Duke) and one to the cornfields of northern IN (yes, South Bend is reachable from Chicagoland, but it’s a 2-hour drive away and not exactly a Chicago suburb).
If they joined the B10, they’d visit the suburbs of NYC (where a ton of JHU alums are located) & make trips to MI and OH, which, being big populous states, must hold a decent number of JHU grads.
LikeLike
Good catch by Brian: OSU could be a long bus-ride as well. In any case, the B10 schools are generally closer/easier to reach than the ACC schools.
LikeLike
Richard,
ACC versus BIG travel.
I see technicality prevails here for the BIG. I did see Brian’s post before your response.
I forgot that lacrosse is a weekly sport in terms of games, I think. Thus the 1-2 punch & convenience that say Duke-UNC offer in away games doesn’t mean much.
Really, the only BIG game that would require air travel is Michigan. Columbus is a 7 hour drive.
I’m reading many of the links Brian posted below. It’s going to be a close battle between the ACC and BIG. The ACC clearly holds a huge edge in terms of lacrosse prestige. And now further reports on the Baltimore Sun’s site really emphasized JHU’s ties with ESPNU.
Thus, it doesn’t matter if ESPNU’s contract runs out in 2017. Clearly JHU wants a national & even Canadian reach. ESPN or BTN? Even as a BIG fan, I’ll go with the former 24-7.
We shall see.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“In the report, note the following:
Page 3: travel distance (ACC gets the advantage here). More compact travel in the ACC, though South Bend is a slightly further drive than Ann Arbor – these two schools being the furthest from Baltimore.”
Not so. The B10 is closer than the ACC.
B10
UMD – 32 miles
RU – 159
PSU – 171
OSU – 420
MI – 524
Total – 1306
Average – 261
ACC
UVA – 153
Duke – 303
UNC – 316
SU – 331
ND – 613
Total – 1716
Average – 343
“Page 8: noted “traditional rivals”, 3 of 6 are in the ACC: Syracuse, Virginia & North Carolina & only Md will be in the future BIG”
The B10 would only represent 5 games on their schedule. OSU played 13 regular season games (7 in ECAC play) plus 6+ exhibitions. That’s plenty of room for playing rivals. Here are the non-ECAC schools OSU played, just to give you an idea:
Exhibitions:
UNC
Lehigh
Team Canada
JHU
Syracuse
Robert Morris
OOC:
Detroit
Jacksonville
Marquette
PSU
UVA
ND
If OSU can get all of JHU’s rivals on their schedule, I think JHU can.
“Call me skeptical, but I don’t see the BIG accepting JHU without having a crack at overturning the ESPNU contract down the road.”
It only lasts through 2017.
“Also, I don’t think lacrosse is growing as fast as many project.”
I don’t know the projections, but stats show it’s growing fast, especially in the midwest. I’m not saying it’s big, yet, but it’s growing fast. The stats say the number of players is growing 8-10% every year and it has been for a decade.
“I like watching it, but I’m a very Minnesotan in certain ways, Puck is a far superior product: faster, tougher, flashier & more technically skilled – but I’m just being stubborn & opinionated”
Actually, lacrosse is getting really popular in hockey hot beds as a warm weather alternative that’s similar. The U of MN has a strong club program which is why there were rumors they might move up to D-I soon.
LikeLike
“Thus, it doesn’t matter if ESPNU’s contract runs out in 2017. Clearly JHU wants a national & even Canadian reach. ESPN or BTN? Even as a BIG fan, I’ll go with the former 24-7.”
The BTN is on a lot of systems, even outside of the footprint, and ESPNU isn’t carried everywhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of BTN subscribers is within shouting distance of ESPNU’s.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“It’s going to be a close battle between the ACC and BIG.”
It could be. It’s hard to say since we don’t what factors they’ll prioritize and how much weight they’ll give to each one.
“The ACC clearly holds a huge edge in terms of lacrosse prestige.”
That’s a double-edged sword. You can win a weaker league more often but a tougher league helps your RPI for at large consideration.
“And now further reports on the Baltimore Sun’s site really emphasized JHU’s ties with ESPNU.”
I didn’t think they made any bigger deal about it than the other sites.
“Thus, it doesn’t matter if ESPNU’s contract runs out in 2017.”
Of course it matters. It means they would have time before deciding what to do TV wise.
“Clearly JHU wants a national & even Canadian reach. ESPN or BTN? Even as a BIG fan, I’ll go with the former 24-7.”
It’s ESPNU not ESPN. Big difference. Besides, their ESPNU deal would be good for the B10. That’s another network discussing and broadcasting the B10, and they’ll all be high profile games because of JHU. Without JHU, there’s no B10 lacrosse and limited lacrosse on BTN.
Adding JHU means:
1. 2.5 B10 games hosting JHU for the BTN.
2. 3 or 5 B10 tournament games for the BTN.
In exchange, ESPNU gets 2.5 B10 games at JHU (they already often had 1 as an OOC game anyway) and JHU gets some more road games televised. I don’t see how that’s bad for the B10. Over time, they may decide a new arrangement is needed, but every ESPNU is just free advertising for BTN games for now.
LikeLike
At Brian & Richard,
This thing seems to post in delayed fashion, enough that we don’t see each other’s responses right away. I did see the travel logistics, as I acknowledged fairly early in this particular sub-thread. Thanks for the info Brian.
In all, JHU seems pretty particular with their objectives. I do think the Baltimore Sun reports put more emphasis on the ESPNU contract, but that’s perhaps the reporter & not JHU. ESPNU, as Brian said, may desire more BIG games. Why not? BIG = ubiquitous brand.
As I think about this possibility more, it would seem beneficial for the sport’s growth if JHU went to the BIG.
You are right, high school lacrosse has blossomed in Minnesota, at least 50 high schools play it. But as I stated in a different post, the UofMn is really working on a basketball practice facility & the money they get from the VIking’s playing at TCF will certainly address this priority foremost.
We’ll see what happens soon enough.
As for others on here calling for the alternative of adding western teams, say Denver & Air Force. Like the ECAC, BIG membership will call for a lot of travel . . . Ca needs to add programs yesterday. Unlike JHU, Denver and Air Force field a number of D1 sports outside lacrosse, over 40, if I’m not mistaken. Would they push the BIG for membership outside just lacrosse? I suppose if I was an AD at one of these schools, I’d want greater BIG membership for obvious reasons of prestige and money.
PS. OSU is currently behind Cornell, not looking good. Cornell, like Md, has a lot of tradition & distant NC’s, but both have been knocking on the door lately – combining for three runner’s up in the past five years.
LikeLike
“Call me skeptical, but I don’t see the BIG accepting JHU without having a crack at overturning the ESPNU contract down the road. BTN lacrosse will struggle to reach a national audience, esp against ESPN, similar product. I also sense the BIG will want both the men’s & women’s teams.”
Why wouldn’t the Big Ten take more money and sooner over less money and later?
The five Big Ten conference member’s home games in a conference including Johns Hopkins is more valuable than the same five plus MSU or Northwestern or Minnesota, all in, and all five Big Ten members guaranteed a game on ESPNU every second year is a bonus on top.
And JHU joining assures that Big Ten Lacrosse starts in Spring 2015.
Waiting for an existing Big Ten member to start a DIv1 program has no assurance of starting so soon. Sure TSUN started from their club team in a single leap, but (1) they had a very successful club team and (2) the result was far from impressive, so from the year that another Big Ten school starts a program, assume instead it takes the more normal two year ramp up. If MSU decides in summer 2015 to start, that gives Spring 2018 before the Big Ten Lacrosse league can start.
LikeLike
Call me skeptical, but I don’t see the BIG accepting JHU without having a crack at overturning the ESPNU contract down the road.
The crucial point, is that ESPNU televises 100% of JHU’s home games, and I don’t think there’s any scenario where BTN would do the same. It’s not like football or basketball, where every game gets televised on one network or another. Lacrosse isn’t popular enough to justify putting every game on TV, or anywhere near that.
So the two deals strike me as complementary: between BTN and ESPNU, there’d be far more lacrosse games televised than if all rights were on BTN alone.
LikeLike
I’d have to say the Big East/AAC is a non-starter. If it’s not good enough for ND and not big enough for an autobid…
LikeLike
I’m going to post a series of links to lacrosse articles relevant to the idea of JHU joining the B10 for those that want to read up on what others are saying.
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/4/29/4280178/conference-realignment-big-ten-b1g-lacrosse-conference-johns-hopkins-maryland
This quotes Gene Smith saying the B10 is discussing adding an affiliate member in men’s lacrosse to reach the magic number of 6. For those that don’t know, the B10 requires 6 teams in a sport to hold a B10 championship and it’s also the minimum for getting an autobid to the NCAA championship in lacrosse.
The other important point is this comment:
“There remain a lot of moving parts here, and it doesn’t appear as if the Big Ten is going to have a workable model in place for the 2014 season. 2015 appears to be the first instance in which the Big Ten could conceivably put a sponsored product on the field.”
LikeLike
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130517/SPORTS/305170033/Indy-first-neutral-site-outside-East-NCAA-Division-lacrosse-tourney
For the first time ever, NCAA championship lacrosse games are being held away from the east coast. Indy is hosting 2 games this Sunday.
Tony Seaman admits being skeptical when NCAA officials suggested Indianapolis to the men’s lacrosse committee as a site for the Division I tournament.
“As a longtime lacrosse guy, I was like, ‘Really?’ ” said Seaman, former coach at Towson University and current lacrosse committee chairman. “But with the building, and with the relationship the NCAA has with the city, they thought it made a lot of sense.”
The committee gave its blessing, and on Sunday, Lucas Oil Stadium will be a lacrosse facility for two national quarterfinal games. NCAA officials say it is the first time a neutral-site tournament game will be played outside the East Coast since the tourney started in 1971.
So the NCAA is starting to admit teams west of the Appalachians exist and should be factored into where tournaments are played. They also considered Denver, and Dallas, Detroit and Miami have inquired about hosting games.
LikeLike
http://d1scourse.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/in-sign-of-the-times-johns-hopkins-to-pursue-lacrosse-conference-membership.html
This is one of the few articles I’ve found that describes JHU’s TV deal. It also does a good job comparing the conference options for JHU.
“The Blue Jays have a long-standing deal with ESPNU to televise all of their home games, and Calder said the contract was recently extended four years through 2017.”
2017 would conveniently be the last of the 3 years before JHU would re-evaluate their position in the conference and could decide to leave or commit to staying longer, assuming they join for 2015 which is what their recommendation suggested. Note that’s the same 2015 when the B10 could first assemble a conference anyway.
LikeLike
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/5/17/4340684/hopkins-holding-conference-call-today-to-discuss-conference
I linked this only for the first comment.
“The report references…
New markets (B1G)
Air travel (B1G)”
LikeLike
Brian,
Good work!
As I stated, the official report certainly leaves room for the BIG. If JHU sees its brand as important for spreading the game beyond the East Coast – then a BIG membership is necessary.
LikeLike
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/5/17/4340696/conference-realignment-johns-hopkins-big-ten-b1g-acc-big-east-ecac-lacrosse
The SBNation’s college lacrosse blog’s main article on JHU’s decision to join a conference. It links to the letter JHU sent out to it’s community:
I agree with the committee’s analysis and have accepted its recommendations. Tom Calder and Dave Pietramala are also in agreement. Together, we intend to pursue an affiliation. As I mentioned in my March message, there already have been expressions of interest. I will report to you when there is a conclusion to these discussions.
It mentions the rumors of MN potentially being the next to add a men’s lacrosse team (more on that next link) as perhaps explaining JHU’s note about not losing their spot if the conference adds another full member team. It also mentions some ACC options for a 6th team.
One comment points out that travel in the B10 might actually be less than in the ACC. Remember that in their report JHU suggested extra travel might cost $20-30k.
Fact check:
B10
UMD – 32 miles
RU – 159
PSU – 171
OSU – 420
MI – 524
Total – 1306
Average – 261
ACC
UVA – 153
Duke – 303
UNC – 316
SU – 331
ND – 613
Total – 1716
Average – 343
The B10 is closer on average. What is the acceptable driving distance? The B10 provides 3 easy drives but OSU would be a longer haul at 6 hours. The ACC provides the #4-7 drives in terms of length (4.5h for the longest). ND would be the longest flight.
LikeLike
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2012/10/15/3501732/minnesota-lacrosse-division-i-gophers
More on the MN rumors. This is from October, 2012, which is why the article and comments don’t mention RU and UMD.
LikeLike
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/17/pietramala-targets-2015-potential-conference-affiliation
Last one. This provides some explanation of the issues JHU faces now and clearly indicates 2015 as their desired year to start.
For the first time, eight conferences received automatic qualifiers to the 16-team men’s lacrosse NCAA Tournament in 2013. Those eight leagues, plus the likely-soon-to-be AQ-receiving ACC, had conference tournaments this spring, providing big boosts in RPI and Strength of Schedule to the winners and participants.
For the first time ever, JHU failed to make the NCAA tournament (started in 1971). As lacrosse grows, the odds of other conferences reaching 6 will, too. The ACC will make #9 next year before UMD leaves. The odds of getting an at large bid will shrink as more teams get the RPI boost from conference tournaments, especially with a power league like the ACC.
How far in the future this decision could impact JHU’s program, and the college lacrosse landscape, remains to be seen. Pietramala said Friday that his target is for the spring 2015 season. He declined to mention which conferences they’ve already had discussions with, other than to say “a few.” Calder confirmed that JHU hasn’t received any formal invitations to join a conference. In January, IL’s Terry Foy reported that the Big Ten, Big East and ECAC were interested in the Jays.
As I said, 2015.
Calder said that JHU’s women’s program could be part of the conference move, but the initial focus will be its men’s team. The Blue Jay women are in the ALC for one more season, and then become independent. There is still the chance, Pietramala and Calder said Friday, that the men’s team could remain independent should they not find the right suitor.
A couple of important notes there. The women could follow along at some point, and the men could choose to stay independent if no conference meets their requirements.
LikeLike
I can verify the MN rumors, but things need to improve here, financially. UofMn athletic department needs to earn more dough from football – second smallest stadium in the BIG & the sell outs aren’t regular. The state, as well, recently sunk a lot of money into the Vikings, Twins and even the TWolves. Twins got a new stadium, Vikings in 2016 & the Wolves have at least 100 million in tow for renovating Target Center- throw in the recent TCF stadium for the Gophers as well.
LikeLike
Is the U’s athletic department getting any money from the Vikings’ two-year rental of TCF while the Metrodome is being renovated? Perhaps some of that $ could be used toward building a men’s lacrosse program, or the Big Ten could contribute a partial subsidy, similar to what it’s doing with Maryland’s initial conference travel expenses.
LikeLike
Gophers will get $3 million a year for the two years the Vikings will be at TCF, plus some of the concessions revenue. And the Vikings will be paying for winterizing the stadium (heat coils in the turf, heaters in the concourses, etc.). But I am guessing this money will go right to paying off the debt on the stadium rather than adding new expenses.
Lacrosse is starting to take off at the high school level (and lower) in MN, but it will be a while before it will be mentioned as a national powerhouse. Right now, it is mostly the hockey kids looking for something to do in the spring.
LikeLike
Yes, the Vikings will pay to use TCF and even add permanent heat coils to the field. But there are other priorities for the Athletic Department. Before Tubby was terminated, the ongoing promise of a basketball facility arose & this sucker needs to get built. The Barn is also a bit dated : ). As much as I like this classic venue, the concourses are tight and God forbid if an emergency ever occurred.
LikeLike
The ESPNU contract seems like it could be a deal breaker for the BIG and much more easily accepted by the ACC. The bigger issue is would JHU join the CIC if they became an affiliate member of the BIG. That would be a huge get for that organization and dwarf any short term television contract as far as importance. Is CIC memebrship on the table too and is JHU willing to be apart of it?
LikeLike
If that were a deal breaker, I doubt the ‘JHU to B1G’ talk would be producing this much smoke.
Both sides have acknowledged that the Big Ten is interested –fully aware of JHU’s ESPNU contract. Following so closely on the heels of Maryland joining, seems more than just a coincidence. The Big Ten likely assured Maryland that B1G Lacrosse was coming down the pike and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this ‘vote’ is part of an orchestrated roll out to a foregone conclusion. Obviously I could be waaaay off, and they may join the ACC tomorrow, but to me the signs are pointing to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The ESPNU contract seems like it could be a deal breaker for the BIG and much more easily accepted by the ACC.
I really don’t see why. Lacrosse is gaining in popularity, but it’s not basketball, or even hockey. It’s a filler sport for the BTN. With or without Hopkins, they wouldn’t televise every game, or anywhere near that.
So, this strikes me as win-win: the Big Ten gets to form a lacrosse league, and they do it by adding one of the sport’s blue-bloods. The BTN will have more lacrosse inventory than it can use, so it really doesn’t matter that the games in Baltimore will be on another platform.
The bigger issue is would JHU join the CIC if they became an affiliate member of the BIG. That would be a huge get for that organization and dwarf any short term television contract as far as importance. Is CIC memebrship on the table too and is JHU willing to be apart of it?
Isn’t this a no-brainer? Unless there are hidden drawbacks that no one has mentioned, I can’t imagine what possible reason they’d have to say no. Even for snobs like Johns Hopkins, this is pretty elite company.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s a no-brainer. First, JHU seems to want a try-out period for their lacrosse program, so they likely won’t jump to join the CIC (which is a more permanent arrangement).
Secondly, JHU brings in a ton of research money already. Maybe they’ll warm to the idea when their administrators meet our administrators, but they’ve been doing fine without the CIC.
LikeLike
@Richard: Schools don’t give anything up when they join the CIC, so there’s not a downside. You said, “Maybe they’ll warm to it…,” implying that they’re cool to it now. Is that true?
Your observation about the proposed five-year try-out is more pertinent. Of all the things I’ve read, that’s the one that would probably trouble Big Ten administrators the most. The Big Ten marries its partners; it doesn’t shack up. I think the Big Ten would want an alliance that’s expected to be permanent. If the parties realize later on that it’s not working, that’s what divorces are for, but like any marriage, you go into it intending that that will never happen.
LikeLike
Normally I’d agree, but an affiliate member is different. Understanding that they are coming from a long history of independence, I think it’s understandable that they want a trial period for the whole concept of being in a conference. If I was Delany, I wouldn’t consider it a deal-breaker.
LikeLike
JHU men’s lacrosse is like ND football in terms of the identity of the school. Relinquishing independence as they’re going to do is something they want a trial run for…
The Big Ten won’t have an issue with it. Delany and the presidents look at the long run.
They’re thinking about where the conference is in 20 or 30 years. A 5 year experimental period probably works for both sides.
LikeLike
Marc:
It certainly seems that JHU is indifferent to the CIC. Their insistence on a trial period & heavy emphasis on their ESPNU contract seems to show that they’re viewing this as almost completely an athletics decision.
No talk of academic peers blather from what I have seen.
LikeLike
@Richard ~ the athletics was the committees terms of reference. There was a day between the delivery of the report and the release of the report with JHU stating they were accepting the recommendations, and its unlikely any content of the discussions beyond the scope of the report’s terms of reference will be circulated.
LikeLike
@Richard: I wouldn’t have expected the report to consider the CIC, because the purpose of the report was to evaluate the principle of joining a conference vs. remaining independent, not to evaluate the merits of any particular league.
LikeLike
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2013/05/15/blogs/sportsblogs/wildcat-extra/kelly-amonte-hiller-womens-lacrosse-conference-coming-to-big-ten-in-2015/
Big Ten women’s lacrosse conference will be here in 2015.
As I’ve said before, JHU pulled out of the ALC (Big Ten’s 3 + SEC’s 2 + JHU) over competitive issues.
It may also be a reason why they won’t be interested in joining for women’s lacrosse (Big Ten will feature Maryland/Northwestern which have won most of the past 20 championships between them) given how tough the conference will be.
I don’t think the women’s lacrosse side of things will be an issue here; I’m guessing that the Big Ten is entirely focused on men’s lacrosse given that women’s is already at 6.
LikeLike
How ’bout them Red Wings?
LikeLike
@metatron – Boooooooo!!!
LikeLike
The ‘hawks will probably win the series, but either way Detroit is the winner because they get to go east next year.
LikeLike
You need to update your Detroit/Chicago rivalry rankings.
LikeLike
YES!!!!
LikeLike
Reading through all the articles Brian posted about LAX and thinking about how comfortable I am (and have always been) with JHU joining the B1G/CIC, it occurred to me that I am being internally inconsistent here. Aside from the notion of if it ever would or could’ve happened, why am I so much more comfortable with making the exception for JHU and not say, ND or Texas?
This either smacks of hypocrisy (maybe), intense hatred of ND/Texas (not, I’m more ambivalent about ND and I just don’t want Texas to get over like that when our Four Kings can’t) or that the academic largess of JHU to the CIC is more important to me as an alum than the money/football success of the others (although Texas seems to fit the bill all the way around); so much so that our seeming willingness to make this exception for one and not the others doesn’t seem hypocritical when it should? Any thoughts?
LikeLike
It’s men’s lacrosse, not football or hoops. That’s the distinction that let’s you be comfortable with this.
LikeLike
I’ve hated the idea of Hopkins joining precisely for that reason.
Partial membership is partial membership no matter how hard people try and spin it.
LikeLike
If the women join it will be all of JHU’s DI sports, I believe, which is quite different from ND or UT keeping football independent and parking their other sports with a conference.
LikeLike
If the women’s program join the B1G as well as the men’s then I would feel more comfortable about it.
LikeLike
The report, though, seems clear that JHU wants to proceed with their plan for their women’s team to go independent.
I don’t mind their women’s team being independent. I wouldn’t want them to be in a rival Div1 conference, though … it ought to be spelled out in a hypothetical affiliation agreement that the women’s team is either independent or else joins the Big Ten women’s competition.
LikeLike
If both men’s and women’s lacrosse join, then you could say with a straight face that, in a sense, it’s not really an exception: like every other Big Ten school, JHU would be joining in every Division I sport that they play. On top of that, they’re one of the sport’s blue-bloods, and a school that clearly fits academically with the upper end of the Big Ten.
There’s also the fact of mutual need. The Big Ten can’t start a men’s lacrosse league without one more member. The possibility of a Minnesota team seems to be a ways off, and it’s hard to imagine a better #6 than Hopkins.
Would the Big Ten accept Hopkins without it’s men’s team? Of course not. If you’re not going to get the crown jewel, then why do it? That’s why the Big Ten won’t take Notre Dame without football. It doesn’t really need them in any other sport. Texas would be a similar argument, although I don’t recall a similar discussion of Texas joining in some sports but not others.
For what it’s worth, if Hopkins joins initially with only its men’s team, I would expect that to be a temporary arrangement. If it’s just for a trial period — so that Hopkins can see what it’s like to be in a conference, and the Big ten can see what it’s like to have an affiliate member — I don’t take issue with it.
LikeLike
If both men’s and women’s lacrosse join, then you could say with a straight face that, in a sense, it’s not really an exception: like every other Big Ten school, JHU would be joining in every Division I sport that they play.
And by that definition JHU would be entitled to a full Big Ten payout. You really think the Big Ten will give Hopkins $40 million a year for lax?
LikeLike
What is the number of required sports to be D1, (or a conference member) that must be another part of the grandfather exemption JHU has? 14? Perhaps a 1/14th share?
LikeLike
Yeah, 14 sports split either 7-7 F/M or 8-6 F/M.
LikeLike
frug,
“And by that definition JHU would be entitled to a full Big Ten payout. You really think the Big Ten will give Hopkins $40 million a year for lax?”
You trot out that straw man every time this subject comes up. Nobody else thinks JHU bringing 2 teams would entitle them to a full cut, including JHU. The B10 only pays those that participate in the relevant sports. The current group all get equal splits because they all play the two revenue sports, FB and MBB. Why would JHU get a share of a TV deal or NCAA payout for a sport they don’t play? And if they never are asked to buy into the BTN, they also wouldn’t expect a profit payout from that. That means they’d only ever expect an equal rights fee for their lacrosse games.
LikeLike
You trot out that straw man every time this subject comes up.
You say straw man; I say trump card.
LikeLike
Where in the Big Ten bylaws does it state “having all of your Division One teams in the Big Ten is what entitles you to a full conference payment” ~ indeed, if the ice hockey schools are getting rights payments for the ice hockey games, then on the same precedent, the football schools should get all of the football rights money and the basketball schools should get all of the basketball rights money. Its only the subsidy sports revenue ~ whatever share of the Big Ten Network that may be ~ that gets distributed equally irrespective of how many subsidy sports teams a school may have.
LikeLike
frug,
“You say straw man; I say trump card.”
I say straw man because you just pulled that idea out of thin air. Feel free to quote any written rule that supports your case, or link to an AD saying that’s the case. Logic doesn’t even support your position. B10 schools get paid for FB and MBB and supposedly hockey soon. JHU plays none of those in D-I. Why would they get paid a full share of revenues from those sports? It’s nonsense that you made up.
LikeLike
B10 schools get paid for FB and MBB and supposedly hockey soon.
The BTN broadcasts lots of sports that not all schools sponsor (such as baseball) and they still all get the same payout from it.
As for hockey; feel free to quote any written rule that supports your case, or link to an AD saying that’s the case. (For that matter, I’ve never actually seen any rule states that schools even have to sponsor FB and MBB in order to receive a payout from them)
…
Anyways, I think you are missing my point a little bit. I’m not arguing that the Big Ten would actually give Hopkins $40 million for lax only. just that it is incorrect to try and argue (as Marc did) that JHU would not be “an exception”.
LikeLike
frug,
“The BTN broadcasts lots of sports that not all schools sponsor (such as baseball) and they still all get the same payout from it.”
Yes, because schools only get paid rights fees for the revenue sports and all 12 members compete in both of those. Hockey is the 3rd revenue sport, and only the hockey members are getting paid for that.
“As for hockey; feel free to quote any written rule that supports your case, or link to an AD saying that’s the case.”
As far as I know, all the hockey money talk is still just rumor. I never any confirmation of any extra payout.
“(For that matter, I’ve never actually seen any rule states that schools even have to sponsor FB and MBB in order to receive a payout from them)”
It was an explicit part of the BTN starting up that part of the money would be a rights fee just like ESPN pays and then they’d split the profits with Fox. If you aren’t contributing any rights, why would you get the rights fee? You are asking us to assume the B10 defies all logic and just gives out money for the heck of it.
“Anyways, I think you are missing my point a little bit. I’m not arguing that the Big Ten would actually give Hopkins $40 million for lax only.”
Then why did you state that by definition they would have to do exactly that? I’m arguing your crazy assumption that any such definition exists.
“just that it is incorrect to try and argue (as Marc did) that JHU would not be “an exception”.”
I didn’t argue that. I’ve never denied it’s an exception, and it’s not one that I favor. But your claim that somehow JHU would be magically entitled to a full share of B10 money is much more ridiculous to me than Marc trying to lawyer his way into JHU not being an exception.
LikeLike
But nobody argues that admitting JHU would not be an exception to *anything at all* ~ the argument is rather whether admitting JHU would be an exception to a principle that people would want to see maintained.
The specific argument that you were responding to was that JHU need not be an exception to the “all in” tradition ~ the same tradition which stood behind the Big Ten sending ice hockey into its own realignment frenzy.
Under the terms set out by the JHU committee, whether or not JHU would be an exception to that principle depends upon what somebody thinks the actual principle IS.
(1) If the principle is you cannot also be a member of a rival conference, then its possible that JHU could join on the terms their committee set out without violating that principle, so would not require an exception to be made to a rule enforcing that principle.
(2) If the principle is that you have to participate in a Big Ten competition in all of your scholarship sports, then its not possible for JHU to join on the terms their committee set out without violating that principle, so that would require an exception to be made to a rule enforxing that principle.
(3) The principle cannot be that you have to participate in a Big Ten competition in all of your intercollegiate sports, whether scholarship or not, since that principle is violated all the time with intercollegiate club sports.
There’s no way to “prove” whether it should be (1) or (2), since its a values question. For me, if the Big Ten insisted on principle (1), and JHU turned down the Big Ten because it wanted to retain the freedom of the women’s lacrosse team to join some other conference down the road, I’d be fine with that. If the Big Ten insisted both teams or neither, I’d think they were being backward looking traditionalist sticks in the mud.
LikeLike
Brian:
Is there a source that says only FB, BB, and perhaps hockey are/will be revenue producers? My understanding was that conference networks were extracting previously unrealized/unrecognized value. There would be little reason for Fox or the conference to invest the people, equipment, airtime, etc to broadcast them if they didn’t produce something. (Studio/coaches shows, unending replays, etc. would be much cheaper) They certainly won’t drive national carriage, but they do provide a lot of advertising windows during live events.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Is there a source that says only FB, BB, and perhaps hockey are/will be revenue producers?”
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
You can use the DOE’s data cutter tool to check. Last I looked, those 3 were it. That doesn’t mean a certain sport can’t be profitable at one school, but it’s rare. IA wrestling loses money, for example. What other sports have TV deals for broadcast rights? Most sports don’t even charge for tickets, so it’s safe to assume they don’t generate revenue.
B10 revenue data for 2011:
FB – $548M
MBB – $165M
MHockey – $20M (only 5 teams)
WBB – $9M
WVB – $6M
Baseball – $6M
Nothing else tops $5M
B10 expenses data for 2011:
FB – $254M
MBB – $80M
MHockey – $16M (only 5 teams)
WBB – $38M
WVB – $18M
Baseball – $16M
Calculated profits:
FB – $302M
MBB – $85M
MHockey – $4M (only 5 teams)
WBB – ($29M)
WVB – ($12M)
Baseball – ($10M)
They really are the only 3 revenue sports for the B10.
“My understanding was that conference networks were extracting previously unrealized/unrecognized value.”
Any live event that can outdraw reruns or studio shows has value to the BTN for advertising money if nothing else. But it’s telling if nobody is offering to buy the rights to a sport. You can also look at how B10 schools account for their BTN revenue. The default is a 65%/35% split between FB and MBB. Nobody credits any other sport with a chunk of the revenue. I think all the other sports are round off error at best (fodder for the studio shows, filling slow air time, reducing the number of reruns).
LikeLike
Profitable to the BTN is what I meant. If it reduces the cost of offering that sport (or the athletic dept. in general) it may be worthwhile. I don’t think anyone expects all sports to become profit centers. It is just as important to recoup some costs of the non revenue sports.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Profitable to the BTN is what I meant.”
The BTN is more tight-lipped about financial info than the B10 is. I think the NCAA revenue info gives you a good idea of the value of each sport, though. FB is 3-4 times more valuable than MBB, and MBB is an order of magnitude more valuable than anything else (35-10-1).
LikeLike
As far as profitability to the BTN, since its a residual after the Tier1/Tier2 contract obligations are satisfied, it wouldn’t be surprising if the BTN share of value of non-revenue sports is greater than the overall share.
As far as the overall shares, the revenues from the ope.ed.gov site is (to the closest 5%):
FB = 70%
BB = 20%
AOS = 10%
Then one would have to estimate what portion of the FB value and BB value the Tier1/Tier2 contracts harvest for FB and BB, and the residual would give the value of each to the BTN. For instance, if one assumed that the FB contract took 3/5 of the total media value and the BB contract 1/2 of the total media value, that would leave:
FB : BB : AOS = 28 : 10 : 10 = 60% : 20% : 20%
It would, of course, be a substantial mistake to look at the surplus/subsidy of the sports to the schools to assess the value to the BTN, since the relative costs to the schools of offering the sports is not relevant to the gross media value of the sports.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“As far as profitability to the BTN, since its a residual after the Tier1/Tier2 contract obligations are satisfied, it wouldn’t be surprising if the BTN share of value of non-revenue sports is greater than the overall share.”
True, but since their overall share is virtually nothing that isn’t saying much. I concur that you need to consider the value for FB and MBB after the CBS and ESPN games are pulled out. Those generally are some of the best games, especially in football. The lack of TV deals for the other sports show they have limited revenue potential, though.
“As far as the overall shares, the revenues from the ope.ed.gov site is (to the closest 5%):
FB = 70%
BB = 20%
AOS = 10%”
Yes, but the accountants generally split unallocated TV money 65/35 FWIW. Revenues can show relative importance but they aren’t the same as media value.
“FB : BB : AOS = 28 : 10 : 10 = 60% : 20% : 20%”
But for BTN purposes you have neglected reruns, classic games and studio shows. Look at how many hours are spent on each sport and what the ratings are, and then you’ll have a better idea what each sport is worth to the BTN.
For example, today’s TV schedule for the BTN:
7-11 PM – FB reruns
It’s completely out of season, but FB gets all of prime time and probably pulls the best ratings.
LikeLike
“Anyways, I think you are missing my point a little bit. I’m not arguing that the Big Ten would actually give Hopkins $40 million for lax only.”
Then why did you state that by definition they would have to do exactly that? I’m arguing your crazy assumption that any such definition exists.
That was awkward phrasing on my part. I was talking about the definition that Marc was proposing (i.e. all D1 sports = full membership).
“just that it is incorrect to try and argue (as Marc did) that JHU would not be “an exception”.”
I didn’t argue that. I’ve never denied it’s an exception, and it’s not one that I favor.
I never said you did.
LikeLike
frug,
“That was awkward phrasing on my part. I was talking about the definition that Marc was proposing (i.e. all D1 sports = full membership).”
OK.
“I never said you did.”
You said it in a response to my post, so perhaps you can understand my confusion.
LikeLike
Though “now” is Spring, and the Spring team sports are Baseball, Softball, Men and Women’s Lacrosse, Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo. College baseball has never been big inside the pre-WWII MLB footprint, for lacrosse (1) the Big Ten does not play lacrosse in-conference and (2) the regular season is over, and Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo are Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo.
The biggest non-revenue sport for the Big Ten is clearly Ice Hockey, which is a break-even sport rather than a subsidy sport ~ as Lacrosse is a break-even sport for the ACC. Hence the promise of 30 games and the rumored rights payout to the Big Ten ice hockey schools when the conference competition begins.
Spring is much weaker for the BTN than Fall and Winter, and the fact that they are in summer FB re-run mode before the Spring season is completely over is symptomatic of that.
Indeed, that relative strength of the other sports in the three seasons is likely why Lacrosse is a spring sport at the college level in the first place
LikeLike
frug: “That was awkward phrasing on my part. I was talking about the definition that Marc was proposing (i.e. all D1 sports = full membership).”
Except what Marc was arguing was NOT that “all D1 sports = full membership”, but rather than “all scholarship sports = all in”. He’s referring to the Big Ten tradition of being all in for the Big Ten. JHU is the sole potential affiliate member that is both in the AAU and also COULD BE “all in” with their scholarship sports as an affiliate ~ under his specification of “all in”.
Converting that to “= full membership” ~ that’s on you. Hence the identification of the argument as a strawman.
LikeLike
I was talking about the definition that Marc was proposing (i.e. all D1 sports = full membership).
I never said that if a school puts all of its D1 sports into the Big Ten, it ought to be considered a full member. I don’t think Johns Hopkins should be considered a full member — and no one has suggested they would be — if they join as a lacrosse affiliate.
I was merely distinguishing the potential case of Hopkins from Notre Dame (which might plausibly have joined only in hockey), and why the league could reasonably distinguish the first case from the second.
In the first case, a shool would be putting all of its D1 sports into the league, just as all the other current members do (provided the B10 sponsors those sports); in the latter, ND would be withholding its crown jewel, which no member is allowed to do.
LikeLike
Bruce said, “Though “now” is Spring, and the Spring team sports are Baseball, Softball, Men and Women’s Lacrosse, Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo. College baseball has never been big inside the pre-WWII MLB footprint, for lacrosse (1) the Big Ten does not play lacrosse in-conference and (2) the regular season is over, and Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo are Men’s Volleyball and Women’s Water Polo.”
Bruce, college was never “big” anywhere, let alone the pre-WWII MLB footprint, prior to 1980 and ESPN showing college baseball games, with the possible exceptions of Austin, Starkville and Coral Gables. Prior to the 1980s, the vast majority of MLB prospects went directly to the minors. Now, about half of the top prospects go to college.
In the late 1980s, LSU’s Skip Bertman showed the rest of college baseball that the sport could draw crowds and be a revenue producer. Skip Bertman revolutionized college baseball. Because of him and his success at LSU, which had no baseball history prior to his arrival, schools throughout the SEC and all over the South called on him for advice on building their baseball programs. Every SEC school has either built a new minor league quality stadium or significantly enhanced their existing stadium. Now even the B1G is getting involved with new stadiums at Indiana and Purdue, and improvements at Michigan, that I know of.
Regarding the pre-WWII MLB footprint, I don’t think the vicinity of an MLB team necessarily hurts the area college team, if the area college team has made a commitment to the program. Look at Rice, Houston, GA Tech, Miami, TCU, Arizona State, and Stanford. I doubt these schools success is due to the fact that their area MLB team is less than 60 years old. The problem with schools located within the pre-WWII MLB footprint is that they were slow to embrace the growth of college baseball over the last 30 years.
On a related note, last Friday LSU honored Skip Bertman by naming the field at Alex Box Stadium after him.
LikeLike
@Marc and Bruce
You are right that Marc didn’t use the word “full membership”.
He did however say that “it’s not really an exception”. However, by your own admission Hopkins would not be a full member, meaning by definition it would be an exception. They would be the only school that was not a full member.
LikeLike
Demanding that “not an exception” means not any exception to ANYTHING, when Marc says it meant not an exception to the principle he was talking about … and it always read like that was what Marc was saying …
…. is just underlining that you’ve been hitting a strawman. You are arguing against a position that nobody has yet argued for, and only get an opposing side by misrepresenting Marc’s position.
LikeLike
It was already a reasonably big deal when I was going to Knoxville in the early 90’s, so clearly it found fertile ground in the SEC. And the fact that Knoxville’s “home” MLB was the Braves was part of why, eg, the performance of the Vols baseball team got coverage on the local evening news.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Regarding the pre-WWII MLB footprint, I don’t think the vicinity of an MLB team necessarily hurts the area college team, if the area college team has made a commitment to the program. Look at Rice, Houston, GA Tech, Miami, TCU, Arizona State, and Stanford.”
I object to you considering the Marlins a real MLB team. That’s only true about once every 4-5 years, then they crater and become worse than the Canes.
“I doubt these schools success is due to the fact that their area MLB team is less than 60 years old.”
I don’t know. How much did the southeast lacking an NFL team help CFB grow? Even when the Falcons came, the Tide were probably better 75% of the time. Notice how much USC has dropped off in baseball? They were dominant through the 70s. One generation after the Dodgers moved to LA, USC’s run ended.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but maybe both factors should be considered. Also weather.
LikeLike
Actually, but that argument JHU would be in line for no more than a 1/10th share, since clearly Big Ten FB is worth 60%+ of BTN value and Big Ten BBall 30%+, so Big Ten break-even and subsidy sports would be 10%- all up.
LikeLike
And by that definition JHU would be entitled to a full Big Ten payout. You really think the Big Ten will give Hopkins $40 million a year for lax?
I was explaining why adding JHU in lacrosse is not the same as, say, adding Notre Dame in hockey. What I said was, that in a sense, it’s not really an exception. Obviously, in other senses, it is.
But we may already be in a world of unequal payouts, as I assume only the hockey-playing schools are going to get hockey payouts. This is a problem that never existed until recently, as football and basketball were the only sports that produced media revenue, and every member played those sports.
Once you’re paying unequal shares, based on participation levels in various sports, it’s pretty easy to take Hopkins as an affiliate without disrupting the model.
LikeLike
Yes … an equal share of lacross media revenues to lacross playing schools and any BTN profits in the general kitty shared by all full Big Ten members would be a reasonable arrangement.
However, the arrangement that JHU seems to be looking for is retaining its home game rights, and not sharing in the payout of its affiliate conference. There’s every reason to think that arrangement would also be acceptable, since it would be to the net financial benefit of the BTN.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame wanted to bring their football into the Big Ten, but wanted their olympic sports to compete as independents … I’d not mind that much.
Now, if Notre Dame wanted to bring their football into the Big Ten but put the rest of their sports in some other Div1 conference, I’d be against that.
LikeLike
I think Marc’s comments strike closest to reconciling my cognitive dissonance on this, lol.
That actually raises the next concern. The ACC appears to be attempting to further advance itself by patching selected teams/schools based on maximizing whatever value is available to it. ND for 1/2 a football schedule, JHU for men’s LAX… If nothing else, it further stabilizes them and gives them further egghead credentials.
I’m not nearly as comfortable with JHU men’s LAX without CIC membership and women’s LAX as well. That’s truly “all in” and is consistent with how we’ve handled things in the past. Even if we miss out, and the ACC gains, it’s because the same steps through our prism represents a step back, but to them it represents a step forward.
LikeLike
ND for 1/2 a football schedule, JHU for men’s LAX… If nothing else, it further stabilizes them and gives them further egghead credentials.
It might help academically (though the ACC tossed aside all academic arguments as soon as it added Louisville), but it won’t do anything to help them with stability. Lax just isn’t valuable enough to have any real effect on conference affiliation decisions.
LikeLike
Frug, it’s that analogous to adding Rutgers after adding Nebraska? To recast your words….
“It might help with markets (though the B1G tossed aside all market arguments as soon as it added UNL), but it won’t do anything to help them with football competitiveness. Rutgers just isn’t valuable enough to have any real effect on football competitiveness…
Not a perfect fit, but you get my drift.
Perhaps it’s because Louisville was added that JHU is being considered. Another way to address your argument is simply to ask if not for the research and academic credentials, why in the world would the ACC be considering JHU?
LikeLike
“It might help with markets (though the B1G tossed aside all market arguments as soon as it added UNL), but it won’t do anything to help them with football competitiveness. Rutgers just isn’t valuable enough to have any real effect on football competitiveness…
Media markets and football both matter in realignment. Non-revenue sports don’t.
Another way to address your argument is simply to ask if not for the research and academic credentials, why in the world would the ACC be considering JHU?
Do we even know if the ACC is considering JHU? I have seen speculation on this board, but I haven’t seen anything from the ACC that indicates they are interested in Hopkins.
LikeLike
From what the report says, it won’t be with the women’s team, so the actual decision is whether to take the JHU Men’s team with the JHU women’s team independent.
Though if JHU is not going to be invited to the CIC in some capacity and accept the invitation, forget it. Its just Lacrosse. Its a good sport for the BTN, as filler sports go, but its not ice hockey, never mind FB or BBall.
LikeLike
Maryland and Rutgers will be part of the CIC one full year prior to the athletic sides joins the Big Ten Conference.
CIC officials have already met with their counterparts at RU and MD. The formal date for joining is 1 July 2013.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. The relevance being …. ?
LikeLike
I am totally comfortable with the idea of JHU joining the CIC and having all their Div 1 sports in the Big Ten. I don’t think that’s hypocritical or inconsistent at all. I don’t like the idea of picking or choosing sports in a conference — and would expect JHU to put their teams in the Big Ten if they ever became Div 1 in all sports (fat chance) — but this would be having all their eligible teams in the conference and is very different than Notre Dame joining without football being involved or just having Boston University’s ice hockey team but nothing else involved, etc.
If it’s just men’s lacrosse but not women, I don’t like it for the precedent but would probably be okay as long as JHU joins the CIC because I think that academic association would be very good for the conference and I do see good benefits to increasing the east coast footprint of the conference.
If it’s just JHU’s men’s lacrosse and no women’s and no CIC, I’d pass. Not worth changing any precedents for it. It’s lacrosse. Whether it’s a growing sport or not, it’s still small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Just put games featuring conference members on the BTN no matter what current conference they are in. Or have a 5 team men’s lacrosse league without an autobid. Or encourage one of the other schools to start a team. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the point of having an associate member for one sport without any direct academic benefit.
LikeLike
Lets be honest, this is Lacrosse we are talking about an extreme niche sport (not exactly football). If Hopkins does not want to join the CIC, and put the Women’s team in the Conference, then why not simply wait until there is another B10 School willing to add it? Maybe since UM is now playing Lacrosse, might MSU consider it? Since they excel at Women’s Lacrosse, what about Northwestern adding Men’s? if the Cats would do it, could that encourage Illinois to start teams up? Keep in mind, that the B10 waited years for another School (Penn State), to add Hockey ( a more popular and to be fair, expensive sport), why not do it again? While I acknowledge the Title IX (women’s sports) issue must be considered, perhaps the new TV Contract coming up, can offset that a bit? To be honest, I am not watching Lacrosse ( even Penn State), for the same reason I do not watch Penn State Wrestling or soccer (there are other sports options available that I prefer ( football (particularly the Steelers), Penguin or Islander Hockey and of course, the Yankees)). However, I will watch Penn State Hockey ( as a hockey fanatic I look forward to that). But as far as Lacrosse is considered, waiting for another School is the way to go.
LikeLike
As far as “extreme niche sport”, its lacrosse, not women’s water polo ~ its a secondary sport in the Northeast, to be sure, but not an extreme niche sport ~ otherwise JHU would not have a contract with ESPNU to narrowcast all of its home games.
And the region where its most popular is the same region that the Big Ten is trying to add to its footprint.
LikeLike
One of the largest ( if not the largest) Lacrosse playing area in the Country is in Long Island, New York. Yet, the only paper that gives it any coverage is the Local Long Island Newspaper ( Newsday), and even that gets lets coverage than Girls High School Softball. As far as the Post, News and Times are concerned, forget it. Why? Not enough people care. When it comes to ESPN and JHU, networks are desperate for programming (look at the price ESPN paid to cover the US Open Tennis (50% higher than the USTA is getting now), despite the fact, Men’s Tennis in the US is essentially dead, and when the Williams Sisters retire, the Ladies Game will be there as well). I will concede the point that Tennis has a Demographic that is much desired ( the wealthy), but any NFL game ( even say Arizona@ Iacksonville, gets higher ratings on FOX than Tennis on CBS. Even beyond sports, HBO, Starz, Showtime, Epix and soon to be Netflix (with the Disney Contract), are paying an average of $20m per film to the Major Studios for rights to show their movies, because of the need to film air time. Taking this back to Hopkins, it is simply live programming, used to fill the ESPNU Broadcast schedule, nothing more, nothing less. If BTN will pay enough $$$$$ for Lacrosse for a School to add it ( I mentioned MSU), like they are for Hockey ( remembering Hockey is much more expensive to start up and maintain), it will happen. So it makes sense for the B10 to wait for that School willing to take the plunge, instead of going after JHU kicking and screaming.
LikeLike
If BTN will pay enough $$$$$ for Lacrosse for a School to add it ( I mentioned MSU), like they are for Hockey ( remembering Hockey is much more expensive to start up and maintain), it will happen. So it makes sense for the B10 to wait for that School willing to take the plunge, instead of going after JHU kicking and screaming.
BTN will not pay enough money for a school to add lacrosse. Michigan needed substantial outside donations to start a varsity lacrosse squad. Likewise, BTN didn’t cover the full cost of Penn State adding hockey.
It’s probably not a coincidence that Michigan and Penn State are two of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country: adding a new varsity sport is an expensive proposition, bearing in mind that, for Title IX reasons, you need to add a new women’s sport too. Without Hopkins, we’re probably not going to see a sixth team for a long time.
As @BruceMcF pointed out above, Michigan had the most successful club team in the nation, and in their inaugural varsity year they went 1-13. They could be terrible for a long time. As is the case in other sports, the most promising high school recruits generally choose the established powers, where they can expect to reach the post-season and compete for championships. Just as in football, it’s hard for bad teams to get good, because success begets success, and vice versa.
LikeLike
Of Big Ten members without men’s lacrosse, Northwestern might find it easiest to begin a program, as it already has a women’s program and thus has a venue in place. Moreover, Northwestern sponsors relatively few sports by Big Ten standards (although enrollment and athletic revenue are similarly minimal). Given that the school pursues many students from lacrosse hotbeds of the East, men’s lacrosse might fit in well in Evanston.
LikeLike
David Brown,
“One of the largest ( if not the largest) Lacrosse playing area in the Country is in Long Island, New York. Yet, the only paper that gives it any coverage is the Local Long Island Newspaper ( Newsday), and even that gets lets coverage than Girls High School Softball. As far as the Post, News and Times are concerned, forget it. Why? Not enough people care.”
I don’t think NYC is a fair example. First, they largely care about Manhattan first, the other boroughs next and Long Island is a distant 3rd. Second, the Times isn’t focused on local sports coverage much anyway. Third, the city is huge. They hit only the most popular sports and let the internet and other media cover the rest.
Baltimore is another huge area for lacrosse. Go to the Sun’s website (http://www.baltimoresun.com/) and click Sports. The drop down menu has lacrosse as the 5th choice at the moment, behind Ravens, Orioles, the Preakness and Terps, but ahead of the NBA, NCAAF and NCAAB.
“I will concede the point that Tennis has a Demographic that is much desired ( the wealthy), but any NFL game ( even say Arizona@ Iacksonville, gets higher ratings on FOX than Tennis on CBS.”
So now a sport has to top the NFL to matter? That’s a very high bar to set.
“Taking this back to Hopkins, it is simply live programming, used to fill the ESPNU Broadcast schedule, nothing more, nothing less.”
But they chose to pay JHU for lacrosse out of all the spring sports available. That says something about it’s value to them.
LikeLike
@vp19 ~ you’ve nailed why Northwestern might be the least likely to add Lacrosse unless the growth in the BTN / Tier1&2 contracts covers the extra cost ~ as the smallest enrollment University in the Big Ten, it doesn’t have the same alumni base as the other Big Ten schools, and so cannot count on the same level of revenue as most Big Ten schools.
And of course, as the school with the fewest sport, its not automatically the case that Lacrosse is first on their new sports list should there be spare new media income after any increases in the budgets of existing sports that they may wish to undertake.
LikeLike
David Brown: “So it makes sense for the B10 to wait for that School willing to take the plunge, instead of going after JHU kicking and screaming.”
Who is doing the kicking and screaming? Surely not JHU ~ they’ve just done their big commission, and concluded that their future lies in a conference. So the choice they are now making is which conference they want to join. If they join the Big Ten, it will be because they’ve decided that the Big Ten makes the most appealing option, which hardly qualifies as “joining the Big Ten kicking and screaming”.
And since the BTN is not reported to be *giving* the hockey schools a sufficient payment to justify starting up a hockey program, there’s no reason to assume that a lacrosse payment, which would be for fewer games, each watched by fewer peple, would be sufficient to justify starting up a lacrosse program. Lacrosse may be playable in either a dedicated football or soccer facility, but if a school is going to be recruiting to be competitive at a top level, it does require practice facilities, and most schools will have built up their existing practice facilities for their existing needs.
LikeLike
I should also note that it was six months ago today that Maryland accepted Big Ten membership. Given how all hell broke loose for a time, it’s amazing how quickly the university community has since embraced the move, as it came to realize the many benefits of joining the conference — not only for athletics, but for academics. It wasn’t merely a jock move.
LikeLike
Marc:I agree about BTN will not pay enough for initial start- up costs, donations and fundraising are necessary, but it is not like Hockey where a $100m gift was required (Penn State). I think it is also reasonable to assume that the Lacrosse Teams start-up costs are considerably less than that of Hockey Teams ( if only because of the playing facility involved (although the Arena can have additional functions)). That said, if BTN would pay 1/2 of the what they are paying for Hockey Rights ( say $1m per School ), it might be worth it. In addition, just because a team is starting out, does not mean they must suck. Penn State ended up 1 Game below .500 (including beating Sparty and Wisconsin on the Road, and drawing 18,000 for Ohio State in Philly ( a Game they won). I can also state pretty clearly that there is no better time than now to invest in upgrading or building new facilities than now (that is what De Paul decided to do at McCormick last week). Why? Low Interest Rates that make financing a whole lot cheaper. Another example is this: Several years ago, Pace University (a small College here in New York), decided to take advantage of the low rates and erect new dorms at 180 Broadway a property they purchased from foreclosure for that purpose (
they are scheduled to open in August). Earlier this year, they bought 333 Beekman Street, a property right next to Campus, that was a foreclosed property that was supposed to be a Hotel., and once again, they will be using it as dorms. Once again the low rates helped them, and took a neighborhood eyesore, and will turn it into something productive. Look at Penn State, they will spending the next 5 years upgrading the dorms ( starting with $95m at South Halls). Why? Because the low rates make it good business sense building for the future NOW. Lets see if another B10 School will invest in Lacrosse, now with the expectation of reaping dividends later? I can say without a doubt, the Interest Rate rise ( which must eventually occur), will make it more expensive in the future.
LikeLike
http://coachingsearch.com/home/3224-tough-ticket-the-10-most-expensive-games-of-2013.html
10 most expensive CFB games for 2013 according to StubHub.
Cheapest ticket right now:
AL @ TAMU – $399
USC @ ND – $375
OU @ ND – $350
ND @ MI – $295
OSU @ MI – $275
LSU @ AL – $255
ASU @ ND – $249
UT vs OU – $245
AL @ AU – $245
UGA @ Clemson – $240
ND has 3 of the top 4 and 4 of the top 7.
LikeLike
Don’t forget to bring the binocs… I just cannot comprehend the idea of paying $240 for a seat two miles above the field… You might as well get out the old electric vibrating football game and watch the little guys swarm into a ball…
‘Course I feel the same way about the overpriced pro sports, rock concerts, and the like… Just can’t see paying several Franklins to be in the nosebleeds, feeding the monster, with little personal reward…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22260157/acc-considering-permanent-late-season-rivals-for-all-teams
The ACC may go to permanent season-ending rivals for everyone.
Six teams currently have annual rivals on the last weekend of the season: Virginia Tech-Virginia, Florida State-Florida, Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia and Wake Forest-Vanderbilt. The Demon Deacons reportedly are scheduled out with Vanderbilt until 2015 and, according to Vanderbilt associate athletics director Kevin Colon, could renew the series.
That leaves tenured members Miami, Boston College, NC State, UNC and Duke along with three incoming schools — Pitt and Syracuse (2013) and Louisville (2014).
…
UNC, Miami, Duke and Pitt are in the Coastal Division, while Louisville, Boston College, Syracuse and North Carolina State are in the Atlantic.
They mention UNC/NCSU as a possibility.
If PSU wants to get Pitt, they better commit to it soon.
My choices ignoring divisions:
VT/UVA
UNC/NCSU
UL/PITT
BC/Syracuse
Duke/Miami (Miami/USF or someone if Duke is with WF)
FSU/UF
Clemson/SC
GT/UGA
WF/Vandy (If Vandy is willing. If not, WF/Duke)
If you worry about rematches:
VT/UVA
FSU/UF
Clemson/SC
GT/UGA
WF/Vandy
UNC/Duke
BC/Syracuse
NCSU/UL
Pitt/Miami (I’d prefer PSU/Pitt and Miami/USF or someone)
LikeLike
I wonder how important it is to lock up ACC vs. ACC games (If not, Louisville vs. Kentucky might be good.)
UNC plays NC State or Duke, with the other getting WF, or a bye if Vandy extends the series.
Boston College vs. Syracuse. We’ll see if BC gets home ice advantage.
I’m probably the only PSU fan who sees this and wants Miami vs. Penn State. Let Pitt have the Backyard Brawl.
LikeLike
Kentucky is not giving up its season ending game with Tennessee anytime soon, and I doubt Tennessee would want to give up playing Kentucky to end the season either, unless they changed their minds after a century and wanted to end the year with Vandy.
LikeLike
Kentucky isn’t interested in elevating UL to a season ending game.
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow,
“I wonder how important it is to lock up ACC vs. ACC games”
They own it every year if it’s a conference game. Otherwise they only get every other year.
“(If not, Louisville vs. Kentucky might be good.)”
They at least used to play annually, but early in the year. I think they value the TN game to end the year a lot more highly, though.
“UNC plays NC State or Duke, with the other getting WF, or a bye if Vandy extends the series.”
UNC/NCSU is the better game, but its a crossover. That’s why I listed them both ways.
“Boston College vs. Syracuse. We’ll see if BC gets home ice advantage.”
I figured Miami didn’t want to be up there every other year after Thanksgiving.
“I’m probably the only PSU fan who sees this and wants Miami vs. Penn State. Let Pitt have the Backyard Brawl.”
1. I don’t think Miami would agree.
2. WV isn’t available, according to WV.
3. I think more PSU fans would prefer Pitt.
LikeLike
I knew my opinions were a minority (of one) within the PSU fanbase, but I didn’t know that West Virginia wasn’t interested in playing Pitt near the end of the year.
Does Miami have a strong OOC rival? Florida won’t play them long term and they’ll play ND only about a third of the time.
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow,
“I knew my opinions were a minority (of one) within the PSU fanbase, but I didn’t know that West Virginia wasn’t interested in playing Pitt near the end of the year.”
Since joining the B12, WV feels like they can’t afford a 10th locked game. I don’t really blame them.
“Does Miami have a strong OOC rival? Florida won’t play them long term and they’ll play ND only about a third of the time.”
Those are their big 2, and as you say they’ll never be annual.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/article/20130519/SPORTS07/305190098/1054/sports06?utm_source=feedly
The B10 is investing more in assistant coaches.
“Combined, those 10 schools are investing $1.72 million more this year in football assistant coaches.”
Northwestern and Penn State are not required to respond to open-records requests, thus only 10 schools considered.
They have all the total info, too.
“In parentheses are last year’s totals and where they ranked.
1. Ohio State $3.416 million ($3.22 million in 2012, 1st)
2. Michigan $2.805 million ($2.755 million, 2nd)
3. Nebraska $2.6485 million ($2.13 million, 6th)
4. Wisconsin $2.495 million ($1.973 million, 7th)
5. Iowa $2,318,052 million ($2.16 million, 5th)
6. MSU $2,273,775 ($2.18 million, 4th)
7. Minnesota $2.1 million ($1.745 million, 9th)
8. Illinois $2.065 million ($2.314 million, 3rd)
9. Purdue $2.01 million ($1.61 million, 10th)
10. Indiana $1,956,300.24 ($1.96 million, 8th)”
LikeLike
I’d be curious to know what the SEC figures are.
Personally, I think it’s crazy (and a misallocation of resources) when a program invests more in one head coach than in all the assistants combined. The assistants are usually the main guys involved in the lifeblood of any program (recruiting) as well as the actual coaching/player development, and some OC’s and DC’s, with their schemes & playcalling, are worth more than many head coaches.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I’d be curious to know what the SEC figures are.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/68246/examining-big-ten-assistant-coach-salaries
While the Big Ten’s median salary pool for assistants was just over $2 million in 2012, the median in the SEC was around $2.5 million. According to USA Today, the SEC paid its assistants an average of $315,000, the most in the nation. The Big 12 was second at just under $290,000.
LSU is spending more than $4 million on assistants, while Alabama is doling out more than $3.8 million on assistants. Auburn ($3.77 million), Tennessee ($2.98 million), Florida ($2.89 million), Georgia ($2.77 million) and Texas A&M ($2.68 million) also far outspent most Big Ten schools, while Arkansas ($2.56 million in 2012) is making a larger commitment to assistant pay under Bielema.
“Personally, I think it’s crazy (and a misallocation of resources) when a program invests more in one head coach than in all the assistants combined. The assistants are usually the main guys involved in the lifeblood of any program (recruiting) as well as the actual coaching/player development, and some OC’s and DC’s, with their schemes & playcalling, are worth more than many head coaches.”
Depending on experience, I could easily see the HC making more than the rest of his staff. After all, he is ultimately responsible for every decision they make, too. The HC is the closer in recruiting in addition to setting the direction and approving every offer. The ACs do the leg work, but the HC is frequently involved in that, too. He does HS visits and calls, but he also has to do all the PR events and be the face of the program. The assistants do a lot less of the charity visits and public speaking and schmoozing the donors that is vital to the program. The HC also has to keep the big picture in mind all the time while ACs can zoom in and just worry about small details.
Jeff Immelt made $25.8M in 2012. Do VPs at GE average $2.9M so that 9 of them would make more than he does?
LikeLike
“He does HS visits and calls, but he also has to do all the PR events and be the face of the program. The assistants do a lot less of the charity visits and public speaking and schmoozing the donors that is vital to the program.”
That’s the thing: donors and ADs seem to think that that’s vital, but very little of that translates in to wins/losses, and that’s ultimately what drives revenues (ticket sales and donations) at a major program. There existed this disconnect between what actually matters and what people think matters. The SEC schools were the first to recognize that (just like the Oakland A’s had an advantage for a few years by first using Moneyball statistics), and, IMO, it’s one of the 2 main reasons why the SEC have completely dominated college football in recent years (the other being the fertile recruiting grounds in their backyards). Still, the ACC shares most of the best recruiting grounds the SEC has, and they have done nowhere as well. they also don’t pay coaches anywhere as well, on average.
I think that it could be due to an American (or at least Anglo-Saxon) tendency to hero-worship.
Anyway, a big company has a ton of VPs (far more than 9).
I’ll have to look on Bloomberg Monday, but I’m fairly certain that the sum total of the compensation of the 9 executives who are right under Immelt far exceeds $25.8M.
At banks, it’s fairly common for top desk heads to make more than their CEO. In a business where P&L is pretty transparent, people are smart enough to pay a guy who does his job really well more if the difference between that guy and an alternative (say, a replacement-level desk head) is bigger than the difference between the current CEO and a replacement-level CEO.
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s the thing: donors and ADs seem to think that that’s vital, but very little of that translates in to wins/losses, and that’s ultimately what drives revenues (ticket sales and donations) at a major program.”
So the donors are wrong about why they donate and the all-knowing Richard is straightening them out?
If they say they want to be schmoozed, then they want to be schmoozed. Major donors tend to be less fickle about year to year results than they are about getting their egos stroked. Of course winning is vital, but donations make up a huge chunk of the revenue (roughly $25M per year). When coaches schmooze, fans continue to buy season tickets and donate to the school. When the coach doesn’t, the boosters turn on him and run him out of town. Major donors don’t give if they don’t get their face time. And the PR is vital, too. That’s how the common fan gets to interact with the HC. A coach can buy a lot of good will that way, and that good will translates into ticket sales, merchandise purchases and job stability. All of those things help a team succeed.
“I think that it could be due to an American (or at least Anglo-Saxon) tendency to hero-worship.”
Or you could be pulling that out of thin air.
“Anyway, a big company has a ton of VPs (far more than 9).”
But schools only have 9 assistant coaches.
LikeLike
“So the donors are wrong about why they donate and the all-knowing Richard is straightening them out?
If they say they want to be schmoozed, then they want to be schmoozed. Major donors tend to be less fickle about year to year results than they are about getting their egos stroked.”
If they say they care about winning but in actuality, they care more about their egos being stroked, then yes, they are “wrong” in that their stated reason for donating is different from the actual reason they’re donating.
“When coaches schmooze, fans continue to buy season tickets and donate to the school. When the coach doesn’t, the boosters turn on him and run him out of town.
And the PR is vital, too. That’s how the common fan gets to interact with the HC.”
Actually, studies have been done at the pro level, and winning is all that matters when it comes to determining revenues (outside of short-term effects like a new stadium). Whether you have name stars or whether the coach/manager is a sourpuss or not has zero effect. That’s why Bill Belichick is paid what he’s paid.
That said . . .
“Of course winning is vital, but donations make up a huge chunk of the revenue (roughly $25M per year).
Major donors don’t give if they don’t get their face time.”
This makes college different from the pros. I would say worse as well, because it’s less rational & thus translates in to less winning. Also because I’m just a common fan, so my ego isn’t getting stroked and I care just about winning with integrity.
So . . .
“A coach can buy a lot of good will that way, and that good will translates into ticket sales, merchandise purchases and job stability. All of those things help a team succeed.”
You show zero evidence that warm & fuzzy feelings about the coach actually has any effect on ticket sales & merchandise purchases. At the pro level, it doesn’t, and if I had to guess, I would say that is this another instance of Brian pulling sh*t out of the ass, which you’re very wont to do, BTW.
Anyway, that good will is good for the coach’s job stability, but may not be good for the program. For example, would you rather have a coach who gets paid a ton of money because he’s a great schmoozer but has a mediocre staff, or would you rather spend that money assembling one of the best assistant coaching staffs in the country? The second case would almost certainly produce more wins than the first case.
LikeLike
Unlike you, Brian, I don’t pull random cr*p out of my butt. If you compare American (and to some extent, British) CEO salaries with their Japanese or continental European counterparts’ CEO’s salaries of the same-size multinationals in the exact same industries, you’ll find out that the Anglo-Saxon corporates compensate their CEOs more. In some cases, far, far more. This is true even for those Japanese/continential European companies that perform much better than their American counterparts.
LikeLike
Richard,
“If they say they care about winning but in actuality, they care more about their egos being stroked, then yes, they are “wrong” in that their stated reason for donating is different from the actual reason they’re donating.”
No, you said they care about winning.
“Actually, studies have been done at the pro level,”
College isn’t the pros. It’s apples and oranges. You don’t have rich alumni donating tens of millions to their favorite pro team.
“and winning is all that matters when it comes to determining revenues (outside of short-term effects like a new stadium). Whether you have name stars or whether the coach/manager is a sourpuss or not has zero effect.”
That’s not surprising at all. But pro revenue isn’t college donations.
“This makes college different from the pros.”
That is readily apparent to most people. We were discussing donations, after all.
“You show zero evidence that warm & fuzzy feelings about the coach actually has any effect on ticket sales & merchandise purchases.”
Actually, you can find some evidence. When fans get mad, they buy less and there is data for that. Winning also creates warmer feelings, though, so I doubt there is enough quality data to separate the two, especially since it’s hard to accurately measure fan affection for the coach.
“At the pro level, it doesn’t,”
Apples and oranges. How is that not obvious to you?
“I would say that is this another instance of Brian pulling sh*t out of the ass, which you’re very wont to do, BTW.”
Says the king of making stuff up.
“Anyway, that good will is good for the coach’s job stability, but may not be good for the program.”
Stability is widely viewed by TPTB in the industry as an indicator of success. There’s a reason fans all expect an extra loss or two when a team has serious coaching turnover. History has shown coaching changes have a negative impact. Recruits have also stated that coaching instability drives them to choose other schools. Like everything, you can have too much stability (IA being stuck with Ferentz another 7 years no matter what), but any coach, fan or AD would tell you they’d rather have stability than not.
“For example, would you rather have a coach who gets paid a ton of money because he’s a great schmoozer but has a mediocre staff, or would you rather spend that money assembling one of the best assistant coaching staffs in the country?”
Coaches can do both. Often the best recruiters also schmooze very well and hire very well. Every coach will tell you all 3 are important parts of their job. Charlie Weis was all football and no schmooze and he stunk. Bobby Bowden was all schmooze and was top 5 for 14 straight years.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I don’t pull random cr*p out of my butt.”
You should actually read your own comments sometime.
“If you compare American (and to some extent, British) CEO salaries with their Japanese or continental European counterparts’ CEO’s salaries of the same-size multinationals in the exact same industries, you’ll find out that the Anglo-Saxon corporates compensate their CEOs more. In some cases, far, far more. This is true even for those Japanese/continential European companies that perform much better than their American counterparts.”
That’s wonderful and completely irrelevant. I don’t recall saying anything about executive pay in different parts of the world. I do fail to note any supporting evidence in your comment showing a causal relationship between executive pay and the level of hero worship in the local culture, though, which is something you pulled out of your butt earlier.
LikeLike
So Brian, are you dense or an Aspie (or just an assh*le; or maybe just ignorant)? Maybe all 4?
Yes, it may not be due to hero-worship, but CEO’s in Anglo-Saxon cultures get paid more, and hero-worship could be a reason why (as well as why HC’s make much more than assistants). Note the “could be”. Note the “could be” in the original sentence. However, hero-worship actually has been given as a potential reason for why Anglo-Saxon companies pay their CEOs more in studies that have looked at CEO pay across regions, so it’s not something that I made up.
BTW, are you ignorant of other cultures, Brian? Studies have shown, and anecdotally, I have observed, Americans to be the most individualistic people in the world (among the major first world countries). A more individualistic culture is also one more prone to hero-worship (if you need help connecting the two, then I have to conclude that you’re Aspie).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Yes, it may not be due to hero-worship,”
Then don’t claim it is without evidence.
“but CEO’s in Anglo-Saxon cultures get paid more,”
Did anyone else even bring up this point, let alone argue it?
“and hero-worship could be a reason why (as well as why HC’s make much more than assistants).”
So could a lot of things. Why randomly throw out one of many possible reasons with no supporting evidence to justify it?
Are we talking correlation or causation? You implied causation but are giving correlation as supporting evidence. The US is the most ______ of all first world countries in a lot of ways. You haven’t connected the dots to show any one specific reason drives executive pay.
LikeLike
Richard, you are treating the current difference in pay as if it is about deep-seated cultural differences, and ignoring the policies that bring the differences in pay about. For instance, the pay differential between Japan and the US, would be far less in 1980 than today, but the US was not less of an “Anglo Saxon” culture in 1980 than it is today, and surely the Japanese culture of 1980 would not be any less of a Japanese culture, so there has to be quite a bit more to it than that.
LikeLike
OK, that last post shows that you are definitely either an asshole or Aspie.
Then again, everyone knew that already.
LikeLike
“For instance, the pay differential between Japan and the US, would be far less in 1980 than today, but the US was not less of an “Anglo Saxon” culture in 1980 than it is today, and surely the Japanese culture of 1980 would not be any less of a Japanese culture, so there has to be quite a bit more to it than that.”
Bruce,
I’m pretty certain there was already a difference back then, and CEO pay in Anglo-Saxon countries since then has skyrocketed (by any metric). Maybe it’s more than cultural differences that explain the difference (or the speed of change), but it’s not random; the CEO pay in the Anglo-Saxon countries have all increased by noticeably more than in the non Anglo-Saxon countries, and there are pretty major differences between the economy of, say, Britain (dominated by financial services; tied to Europe economically) and Australia (dominated by natural resource companies; tied to China economically).
LikeLike
“No, you said they care about winning.”
Brian, I’m sorry that you have trouble with reading comprehension, but that’s your fault, not mine.
Here’s what I said:
“That’s the thing: donors and ADs seem to think that that’s vital, but very little of that translates in to wins/losses, and that’s ultimately what drives revenues (ticket sales and donations) at a major program”
in response to
“He does HS visits and calls, but he also has to do all the PR events and be the face of the program. The assistants do a lot less of the charity visits and public speaking and schmoozing the donors that is vital to the program.”
I said that donors think all that useless stuff HC’s do is vital, not that they care about winning. I think that any neutral observer can see that
In the future, please stop putting words in my mouth.
LikeLike
That’s the thing: donors and ADs seem to think that that’s vital, but very little of that translates in to wins/losses, and that’s ultimately what drives revenues (ticket sales and donations) at a major program
That is you saying what donors really care about is winning. I’m sorry you don’t understand English. Let me break it down for you:
1. You say winning is really what drives revenue.
2. You specifically list donations as part of that revenue that is driven by winning.
3. Thus, what donors care about must be winning or else winning wouldn’t drive donations.
I didn’t put words in your mouth. You said it.
LikeLike
Brian:
As you said, winning isn’t the only thing that drives donations. Thus, donors care about more than winning. That is a problem when the stuff they care about is more than winning and integrity.
LikeLike
Here’s an article which bolster’s my argument:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1468288-why-college-football-programs-need-to-spike-their-assistant-coaches-salaries
Look Brian, you can remain bull-headed, or you can come to the realization that when it comes to greatest bang-for-the-buck, assistant coaches are where you should plow money in to right now. The SEC realized that before the other conferences, and they’re mopping the floor because of that. The B12 actually devotes as much money to coaches as the SEC, yet the B12 has not been able to keep up (and they don’t pay their assistants as well).
Coaching stability isn’t just about HC stability, but also good assistant coaches staying. It’s actually one of Northwestern’s keys to success. I don’t know if it’s the pay or the de facto long-term job security (Fitz is very loyal to his people, despite some fans calling for some assistant coaches’ heads, & he has an extremely long contract) or both but it’s paying dividends now with better and better recruiting classes.
LikeLike
Oh, and it has data on average CEO pay at an F500 company and average total compensation of the top 5 executives at an F500 company. Sum of #2 through #5 is far greater than the CEO compensation, on average. Compare with the disparities in between HC and underlings in college football coaching.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Here’s an article which bolster’s my argument:”
Bleacher Report? Really? How about I counter with Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/05/13/the-magic-of-nick-saban-everyone-wants-to-go-to-alabama/
To appreciate just how modest Saban’s $5.3 million salary is, take a wider look around campus.
AL in among the top schools and spends a touch less than $4M on assistants, and Forbes think Saban should get paid even more than his $5.3M.
“Look Brian, you can remain bull-headed, or you can come to the realization that when it comes to greatest bang-for-the-buck, assistant coaches are where you should plow money in to right now.”
That’s not the same argument. You argued for paying them more than the HC. That’s different than saying ACs should get raises, especially in the B10. I’ve clearly argued in favor of the B10 paying ACs more in other comments on this very post. That doesn’t mean they should necessarily out-earn the HC. That was the issue I had with your comment.
“Coaching stability isn’t just about HC stability, but also good assistant coaches staying.”
Did I say otherwise? I didn’t mean to imply that it only applied to HCs.
“It’s actually one of Northwestern’s keys to success. I don’t know if it’s the pay or the de facto long-term job security (Fitz is very loyal to his people, despite some fans calling for some assistant coaches’ heads, & he has an extremely long contract) or both but it’s paying dividends now with better and better recruiting classes.”
Which is exactly why people advocate for stability. If you’re too stable, that’s a bad thing (nobody wants to steal your ACs to make new HCs), but a lack of stability will cripple a program. If you look back, the B10 has just gone through a rash of instability in football. Meanwhile, MBB has thrived in a period of stability.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76916/b1g-football-seeks-hoops-coach-stability
Football Seniority:
15 – Ferentz
8 – Fitz
7 – Dantonio
6 – Pelini
3 – Hoke, Wilson, Kill
2 – Beckman, Meyer, O’Brien
1 – Andersen, Hazell
That’s only 33% of coaches with their program fully installed and all of their players. MI and OSU are both clearly improving as their new coaches get their programs installed with their players. PSU would be too if it wasn’t for their sanctions.
Basketball Seniority:
19 – Izzo
13 – Ryan
10 – Matta
9 – Painter
7 – Beilein
6 – Crean
4 – McCafferey
3 – Chambers
2 – Groce, Miles
1 – Pitino, Collins
That’s 7 of 12 coaches with all their players.
Now clearly there are other reasons why hoops has done better than football, but this is one.
LikeLike
The real question is, why haven’t they been smart enough to know this? I realize they have more sports to bankroll than the SEC, but they seem almost belligerent in their refusal to make that investment. UM and OSU have seen the light, hopefully the others will as well.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
“The real question is, why haven’t they been smart enough to know this? I realize they have more sports to bankroll than the SEC, but they seem almost belligerent in their refusal to make that investment. UM and OSU have seen the light, hopefully the others will as well.”
1. Tradition. They’re so used to paying a lot less that it’s hard for them to loosen the purse strings.
2. World view. They’re so used to just comparing to each other that they were slow to notice other conferences increasing pay significantly.
3. Arrogance. They thought jobs in the B10 were so great that people would accept less to work there.
4. Goals. Many of the schools have aimed for B10 titles for so long, they have forgotten that it’s a national competition.
5. Insularity. They have hired from within their own school, the B10 or the footprint for so long that they lost touch with the rest of the country.
6. The Kings. OSU and MI were slow to keep up for the reasons I mentioned above and nobody wanted to provoke them into a bidding war for ACs.
LikeLike
Thus, donors could care about winning and still care more about their egos being stroked. There’s no contradiction there. Perhaps you don’t having a reading problem but a logical thinking problem.
LikeLike
You cannot equate sports with the “Real World.” All things are not equal (facilities & coaching come to mind). But $ amounts allocated are only part of it, the human factor plays a huge role in this. For example: The elite athlete (in the case of College Football & Basketball) has the option of going where he wants to . There are quite a few players who prefer warmer weather, so they avoid Northern Schools. Another, which involves pressure, to perform in Class as well as on the field, On average, the academic standards in the SEC are lower than the B10, so someone who is “Good Enough” on the Field to be a star at Ohio State ( on average the best football school in the B10 ( although I hate admitting it)), may not have the grades or desire to also take it to class (particularly in Football which requires a 3 to 4 year commitment)), so he chooses an Alabama, LSU, or Ole Miss, as an alternative. Even for professional athletes there are different levels of expectations. The guy running the New York Yankee Draft (Damon Oppenheimer), has said they draft differently than other teams, because it is harder to find guys who have the mental make-up and desire to play for the Yankees, it is not for everyone. For example: Miguel Cabrera has said he would not want to play there, because of the “Stricter rules and regulations.”
LikeLike
The increase in the assistant coaches salaries has really been in the last 6-8 years. And its still accelerating.
LikeLike
There’s quite a bit to reason number 10 there … a random AD director justifying salaries by saying “we want to pay more than OSU and TSUN to be competitive” could well have a harder time than one saying, “we can’t fall this far behind OSU and TSUN if we want to remain competitive”.
After all, that is part of how the excessive salaries for the assistant coaches have spread around the SEC. That is, once Bama starts paying them, the other schools have to keep up with the Joneses.
LikeLike
Oops, that’s “to Number 6, there”.
LikeLike
The latest on the MD/ACC legal battles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/05/17/accs-motion-to-dismiss-maryland-lawsuit-scheduled-for-hearing-next-week/
This is going to go on through the middle of next year, from my reading of it.
LikeLike
ACC is going to fight and prolong this as long as possible.
LikeLike
@Transic – Nothing shocking here. I doubt either side could win a motion to dismiss, so it’s going to go as long as the parties aren’t willing to settle (and I’m fairly certain that they’ll settle at some point).
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
INFO NEEDED! Maryland has been discussing the B1G FB schedule for 2014. Rumors are flying that folks in Baltimore and from OHIO STATE are willing to get Terp season tix quick! Some from Michigan who are now local are already buying seats. Do you know how far in advance FB GAME TIMES are announced?
In the ACC, the schedule always read TBA! Haven’t seen an interest in FB for a long time and wondered when TV times are announced?
Nemo
LikeLike
Nemo,
“INFO NEEDED! Maryland has been discussing the B1G FB schedule for 2014. Rumors are flying that folks in Baltimore and from OHIO STATE are willing to get Terp season tix quick!”
Yep, the big schools do that. AL did that with Duke a few years ago. It’s a good way for the other school to make some extra money.
“Some from Michigan who are now local are already buying seats. Do you know how far in advance FB GAME TIMES are announced?”
Prime time games generally get announced in late April or early May (ESPN/ABC first, then BTN a week or so later). ESPN will start announcing their afternoon choices in June for the first few weeks of September. After that, they generally don’t finalize times until during the season so a game may move from noon to 3:30. Assume a noon start for any game that isn’t chosen for prime time, but it may get bumped to 3:30 in the fall.
LikeLike
@Brian
Thanks, Brian. Great info!
LikeLike
The basic arguments from both sides:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/77255/maryland-vs-the-acc
LikeLike
NCAA Championship News:
Women’s Softball: Nebraska and Michigan have moved on to the round of 16. Wisconsin and Minnesota went down. Wisconsin finished second in their bracket.
Men’s Tennis: OSU defeated USC, who has won the past 4 NCs. OSU will play in a loaded semi-finals as the lowest seed. I think UVa will win it all. But like OSU, Va was victimized by USC’s 4 year run, twice – past two years. OSU finished second in 2009.
Women’s Tennis: all BIG teams were eliminated by the round of 16.
Women’s Lacrosse: NU, no shock here, made the semifinals. Looks like NU-UMD.
Men’s Lacrosse: OSU got mauled by Cornell. Btw, Cornell looks like they’ll win it all, they also destroyed UMd. The Ivy League was criminally underrated this year. Yale nearly beat defending champs Syracuse.
I’m not sure which BIG teams will win a Spring NC. Best chances seem to be with the following:
Michigan in softball (toughest odds) . . . can’t forget Nebraksa
OSU in men’s tennis (already in the semifinals) and women’s rowing (top 4 program)
NU in lacrosse (best odds).
I guess Purdue has a chance in women’s golf.
T&F, baseball, men’s golf = slim odds.
If I’m missing anything here, chime in.
LikeLike
Men’s Tennis:
OSU lost to UCLA 4-3, it came down to the third set, 7th match. OSU player double faulted in the third, thus losing 6-4, 6-7 & 4-6. I root for any teams outside the Pac12 in this sport. Very few teams have had any sustained success besides Stanford, USC and UCLA. Georgia being the lone exception & they’ve been great (6 NCs). When Illinois won it a few years back, that was only the second BIG team to win a NC since the start of tourney play (1946). The history has been dominated by the aforementioned Pac12 teams. Virginia has a shot to finally bring the ACC a title.
LikeLike
ACC Network? Not so fast.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx
LikeLike
Wow! This really diminishes the euphoria and love fest created by the GOR and the ACC meetings last week. ACC Network up by 2027?
LikeLike
Maybe this is why Delany refused to say realignment is “dead” last week. Might still be a reason for an ACC team team to leave for the B1G; Especially, if it’s prior to July 1st.
LikeLike
I found this comment from the article most interesting; Not exactly oozing with optimism.
“I just wonder if the ACC is a little late to the party,” Bevilacqua said. “They had the opportunity to look at this several years ago and decided not to pursue it, when in fact, that was the more appropriate window. A lot has happened since then, and a lot of other programming services have popped up. There’s even more headwind out there now that makes launching a network not impossible, but certainly harder to do.”
LikeLike
They get a 2M/year bump if ESPN chooses not t create a network? Interesting business model.
LikeLike
I know CCrider isn’t going to like this, but I believe the B1G and SEC are the only two conferences with all the ingredients to support a successful nationwide network. The Pac12 network will be successful, but is going to have a tough time East of the Rocky Mountains.
LikeLike
What are the ingredients that our western brothers lack? And what defines a “successful nationwide network”? After operation costs they can match income with half the subscriber base (assuming similar fee structure). While less rabid, their fan base is more isolated/captured, less vulnerable to competition. Does their definition of successful need to match that of the BTN, or the SECN?
I could easily be wrong and it may fail mightily. But I tend to believe their CEO’s and Scott when he said that money, while nice to earn, was not the sole reason the venture was entered into (that venture being a wholly owned one). I’m not sure a black and white label (success/failure) will be as easy to discover/measure, as opposed to those that are simply a different arm of an independent commercial broadcast business.
LikeLike
That’s bizarre. Doesn’t really make any sense.
The only way that makes any sense is if they are withholding games and/or sports for the network with the idea it may generate an extra $2 million. Then if they don’t do the network, those rights go back into the main pot.
LikeLike
I think its rather, “we promise to either create a network for you or else give you a $2m bump, in return for … “.
Given the erosion of ACC brand equity from constant speculation of which school would be leaving, the GOR is plausibly worth something substantial out of the gate ~ first you pay your mortgage, then you pay your insurance.
And wasn’t it with an extension on top? Add an extension on top, its surely worth some incremental upgrade.
LikeLike
No extension this time. The extension + Pitt & SU and Friday games and selling naming rights to the bb tourney + other minor stuff got them to $17.1 million (from $12.9). This is Notre Dame + GOR. There may be other stuff, but nothing else has been disclosed.
A GOR adds significant value to Tier 3 networks. It adds some, but not a lot to traditional contracts. The network invests a little in promotion and building audience and advertiser familiarity. But that’s not a huge number.
LikeLike
Exactly. I never believed realignment was dead. The primary reason being we don’t know the language of the ACC GOR. I simply can’t conceive of those schools signing an air-tight GOR based on some pie-in-the-sky numbers that Swofford tossed out there.
LikeLike
There is one big hint that says everything is not exactly etched in stone, which is the ACC fighting Maryland tooth and nail about leaving (especially with Louisville replacing them ). You could infer that the reason there is no room for compromise on the ACC end, is they are worried about other Schools jumping ship, and if everything was locked down for the next decade as they claim, that would not be an issue. I actually believe that a fair and reasonable compromise could be Maryland paying the ACC $5m a Season for the next 5 years, but they are demanding the $52m up front, and it will be interesting to see how hard they fight for it?
LikeLike
Not necessarily. The exit fee, if Maryland loses, is $52 million. If I were the ACC, I wouldn’t walk away from that, simply because it’s a ton of money. It might not be any more complicated than that.
LikeLike
The risk the ACC faces is having a decision go against the concept of an exit fee (especially on that high). Such a decision could minimize or vacate the Maryland exit fee, and it could open the door for teams such as FSU to make a move. I would guess they will ultimately settle, as I think a court ruling would be more likely to favor Maryland than support such a ridiculously high exit fee.
LikeLike
So the ACC is still looking at a $18M average through 2027, or _possibly_ bumped to $20M if an ACC channel never happens. Which means the ACC may start receiving $20M a year in 2020 or thereabouts. By 2020, BIG and SEC have both broken through $40M and rising.
Things don’t look good for the ACC.
LikeLike
Remember that isn’t their total payout, though. They still get CFP money and bowl money and NCAA tourney money on top of that. The $40M number people throw around is generally all-inclusive (like the $25.7M the B10 announced – about $19M was TV money).
LikeLike
$40M/school in TV money for the B10 may be optimistic (but reachable) with the next B10 tier 1 TV contract. I’m projecting $30M-$40M in TV money per school after the next TV contract.
$40M per B10 school in TV money by 2020 is certainly possible. I think that $40M per SEC school in TV money by 2020 is much less likely (quite unlikely, in fact).
LikeLike
You can’t have it both ways…
If the B1G and SEC will be earning $40m per year (primarily due to profits from their own network), then there is likely a market opportunity for an ACC network with ESPN. It may not be as profitable, but the ACC has sufficient brands to gets its share of the pie.
If ESPN and the ACC are unable to make a business case for a network, then the potential revenue from the B1G and SEC networks are likely overstated.
The article reads more like posturing for financial concessions…Raycom, Fox, ESPN and the ACC are negotiating publicly for their piece.
LikeLike
If the B1G and SEC will be earning $40m per year (primarily due to profits from their own network), then there is likely a market opportunity for an ACC network with ESPN. It may not be as profitable, but the ACC has sufficient brands to gets its share of the pie.
Says who?
LikeLike
If they were all on the open market, you would have a point. However, they’re not. The ACC is tied to a (IMHO, bad) long-term contract. The SEC is too, to an extent. Only the B10 & Pac have networks that can grow in profit. Only the B10 will be hitting the open market for a Tier 1 (& 2) TV contract in the near future.
BTW, the TV money will actually primarily come from the Tier 1 & 2 TV contract. That’s why the B10 has the whip hand as they are the only major collegiate league that will be putting its Tier 1 & 2 content up for bid any time in the next decade.
LikeLike
It’s the $7 to $8M per school per year in BTN distribution that is creating the most noticeable differentiator for the B1G…and that is only half of the BTN profit.
No arguments that the ESPN – ACC deal has put the ACC at a financial disadvantage (compared to other conferences)…but the BTN success indicates that ESPN may also be leaving money on the table by not working with the ACC on a network.
The SEC also had complex hurdles in buying back enough TV rights to justify ESPN’s investment in a new network. The article is pointing to similar issues that the SEC had to address. The biggest hurdle for the ACC will be what happens to Raycom.
At the end of the day, the VA, NC, SC & FL markets (41M people in high growth states) are ideal for an ACC network; the network will get good traction in NY, PA, GA & KY. The ACC has great brand recognition – schools like ND, Duke, UNC, UVa, etc have good reputations and can be marketed by ESPN.
Too much of the discussion on this topic treats money as a zero sum game, rather than recognizing that ESPN also missed the opportunity.
LikeLike
It seems to me that the ACC is going to have to dig deep into its pockets in order to buy back the rights from Raycom and Fox. That’s my reading of the article. ESPN could always convert one of its channels (either ESPNU or ESPN Classic) to the ACC Network if it has to. Another alternative is buying Raycom and using its facilities to start up the ACCN, but there’s still the issue of those Fox Sports regional networks. It’s pretty complicated.
At this point, I just don’t see how the ACC schools can back out now. They’ve essentially told the rest of the world that they plan to stick together. Maybe some FSU fans would seethe in anger at their program getting *at worst* a $2M dollar bump up from the Alleged Worldwide Leader but no way would the former Big East schools allow their gravy train to end soon. They’re going to make sure everyone else stays in place well into the next decade. So we will still have the ACC to kick around.
Let’s just be grateful that the B1G administrators had the foresight to start up the BTN when they did.
LikeLike
FSU’s President sold their King status down the river with that GOR. It’s not like the ACC would have kicked them out if they didn’t sign. There has to be more to this story.
LikeLike
My guess is that FSU realized that the SEC and Big Ten wouldn’t add them within the next dozen years and they believed they could potentially get more money from ESPN if they signed a GOR (make the best of a bad situation). I’m skeptical how much extra cash they can get just by agreeing to a GOR, but it isn’t necessarily an illogical decision.
LikeLike
The other possibility is if the conference promised to make concessions like realigning the divisions and/or adopting unequal bowl revenue distribution (as some FSU fans have speculated).
The former sounds plausible, but I would be very surprised if they did unequal splits of the bowl revenue. On the flip side they did just add ND as a partial member so who knows…
LikeLike
TV committee is North Carolina, Duke and Clemson. I don’t think anything is changing there. Tobacco road thoroughly in control.
LikeLike
Yep. We know which schools are most valuable to the ACC.
To be fair, an ACC without FSU but with UNC (and its gravitational force) can survive. An ACC without UNC can not.
LikeLike
To be fair, an ACC without FSU but with UNC (and its gravitational force) can survive. An ACC without UNC can not.
Actually, UNC would be much easier to replace than FSU from the ACC’s perspective. UConn wouldn’t be nearly as a devastating a financial drop from UNC than it would from FSU.
FSU is simply the ACC most valuable asset and without them the conference just would not have sufficient FB to stay together. They would probably lose their Orange Bowl bid.
LikeLike
Without UNC, UVa, NCSU, and Duke have no reason to stay in the ACC.
With UNC in the fold, those schools (and Clemson) have strong reasons for staying.
UNC is the linchpin.
LikeLike
Without UNC, UVa, NCSU, and Duke have no reason to stay in the ACC.
Without FSU, Miami and Clemson would have no reason to stay in the ACC. And if you think that the very first thing that UVA, V-Tech and GIT would do if FSU departed is anything other than immediately call the Big Ten and/or SEC and start negotiating membership terms you are nuts.
FSU is every bit as important to the long term viability of the ACC as UNC is.
LikeLike
Maybe. I thought that the UVa, at least, would be in the B10 by now. They’re not. I think that UVa is staying in the ACC more because of UNC than because of FSU (which they feel no attachment to).
My opinion.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree that UVa has no sentimental attachment to FSU (unlike UNC), but they have a significant financial attachment to them.
LikeLike
I’ve seen some people connected to the ACC say, that while they didn’t think FSU was seriously thinking of leaving, the ACC would have remained intact without them (although that would really be dependent on ESPN agreeing ACC was still worthwhile). So I agree with Richard that if UNC had left it was all over. If only FSU left, it might have held together, ESPN willing.
LikeLike
Don’t know if Delany’s comments about periphery schools has been posted on here (want contiguous states to avoid creating schools too far out on periphery which are most likely to leave), but FSU is very much a periphery school in the ACC. They fit much better in the SEC. They don’t even fit that much worse in the Big 12. Tallahassee is a long way from the rest of the ACC (especially if you have ever driven it). UNC, Clemson and Duke are core schools.
LikeLike
Actually, UNC would be much easier to replace than FSU from the ACC’s perspective. UConn wouldn’t be nearly as a devastating a financial drop from UNC than it would from FSU.
The ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas: the league as we’ve known it ceases to exist. Obviously, there’s a set of remainder schools that would probably choose to remain together, since they’ve nowhere else to go, such as BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Wake Forest. To call that motley assortment the “ACC” would be be making mockery of what the ACC has been, historically. They would probably have some company, depending on how big the Big Ten, SEC, and Big XII want to get.
In contrast, even without FSU, the ACC can remain together as a “basketball first” league as long as UNC wants to be there. Clearly, if UNC is in the league, then the other three Carolina schools, the two Virginia schools, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC will be there too. Plus, they can add UConn or Cincinnati at any time. It would be the poorest “Big Five” league, but most of those schools have nowhere else to go.
Bear in mind that if the Big Ten is not interested, FSU’s only other possible home is the Big XII, which would probably take the Seminoles and just one other school—either Miami or Clemson. Whichever one of those two the Big XII doesn’t take would have no option but to remainin the ACC.
LikeLike
Don’t know if Delany’s comments about periphery schools has been posted on here (want contiguous states to avoid creating schools too far out on periphery which are most likely to leave), but FSU is very much a periphery school in the ACC.
No they’re not. Seven of FSU’s top eight all-time opponents are in the ACC (all but Florida). These series date from well before FSU joined the league. These are, quite simply, the teams FSU has historically played the most. Obviously, every league has boundary states, but did anyone ever say that Minnesota was at the “periphery” of the original Big Ten, despite being located in its northeast corner?
They fit much better in the SEC. They don’t even fit that much worse in the Big 12. Tallahassee is a long way from the rest of the ACC (especially if you have ever driven it). UNC, Clemson and Duke are core schools.
Regardless of what league they’re in, I don’t think FSU’s varsity teams would be driving to very many games. Once they have to take an airplane, travel time is dominated by factors other than the length of the flight, unless they’re going a very long distance (e.g., California).
Most of the Big XII schools are much farther from FSU than North Carolina. Beyond that, the Big XII is a worse schedule fit and a worse academic fit. That’s why FSU did not want to join the Big XII. I am not sure that the SEC is open to them, even assuming they wanted to play there.
LikeLike
The ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas: the league as we’ve known it ceases to exist.
Marc, if UNC took football even half as seriously as Texas does, the ACC wouldn’t be in the predicament it’s currently in, because State. Duke and Wake would follow suit (just as A&M, Tech, Baylor, etc., did in SWC days and later the Big 12). Remember, football was the prime reason the ACC broke off from the Southern Conference; it wasn’t until the late ’50s (and most member schools’ reluctance to recruit black athletes for another decade, combined with stringent academic requirements that eventually led South Carolina to leave) that the ACC began transitioning from a football-first conference to one emphasizing basketball.
LikeLike
The ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas: the league as we’ve known it ceases to exist.
Marc, if UNC took football even half as seriously as Texas does, the ACC wouldn’t be in the predicament it’s currently in, because State. Duke and Wake would follow suit (just as A&M, Tech, Baylor, etc., did in SWC days and later the Big 12).
All I meant, is that as long as UNC wants the ACC to exist, it’ll exist; just as, if Texas wants the Big XII to exist, it’ll exist. Most of the ACC schools will be happy to be in the ACC (or have no other choice), as long as UNC is in it.
LikeLike
@bullet
I’ve seen some people connected to the ACC say, that while they didn’t think FSU was seriously thinking of leaving, the ACC would have remained intact without them (although that would really be dependent on ESPN agreeing ACC was still worthwhile).
I’ve seen people connected to the ACC say exactly the opposite, mostly because FSU would bring along at least one of Miami, Clemson and GIT. At that point the ACC would no longer be able to provide sufficient FB to hold things together. I guess it depends on who you listen too.
@Marc
In contrast, even without FSU, the ACC can remain together as a “basketball first” league as long as UNC wants to be there. Clearly, if UNC is in the league, then the other three Carolina schools, the two Virginia schools, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC will be there too.
Your probably right about UL, Pitt, ‘Cuse and BC due to lack of options, but you are almost certainly wrong about the Virginia schools. As the Maryland situation showed the only thing that needs to happen to get schools to jump is for the monetary difference between the ACC and the Big Ten/SEC to grow too large to justify staying. UVa is already one of the most heavily subsidized athletic departments in the country (amongst Big 5 schools last year only Colorado received a larger subsidy) so they literally can not afford to stay in a ACC without FSU.
Anyways, once the Virginia schools the Tobacco Road schools would have no choice but to split up.
The ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas
No, FSU is. Just like UT is the Big XII’s most valuable asset, FSU is the ACC’s.
LikeLike
All I meant, is that as long as UNC wants the ACC to exist, it’ll exist; just as, if Texas wants the Big XII to exist, it’ll exist. Most of the ACC schools will be happy to be in the ACC (or have no other choice), as long as UNC is in it.
Texas couldn’t hold the Big XII together without Oklahoma.
LikeLike
The ACC losing UNC is like the Big XII losing Texas
No, FSU is. Just like UT is the Big XII’s most valuable asset, FSU is the ACC’s.
This nails it on why the ACC is perceived to be behind its four rival conferences: In no other league is the “alpha dog” not a king in football. UNC can scream “basketball” until the cows come home, but until it’s a genuine king in football, no one will take Chapel Hill seriously.
LikeLike
Frug:
Probably, but we won’t find that out. They aren’t leaving until UT does, can’t leave OkSU, etc…
LikeLike
As the Maryland situation showed the only thing that needs to happen to get schools to jump is for the monetary difference between the ACC and the Big Ten/SEC to grow too large to justify staying.
It is already quite large, and UVA stayed. Realistically, UVA won’t be leaving unless UNC leaves too: that’s why UNC is the link that holds it all together. The fate of the league hinges on what they do.
Texas couldn’t hold the Big XII together without Oklahoma.
But there is no league that wants Oklahoma without Texas coming along.
LikeLike
It is already quite large, and UVA stayed.
They stayed because right now it is large but sustainable. If FSU left it would become unsustainable. That is exactly what happened to Maryland; the subsidy they would have needed to stay in the ACC would have been unsustainable.
LikeLike
Frug:
“They stayed because right now it is large but sustainable.”
Is there a number we can attach to becomeing unsustainable?
LikeLike
Well Colorado and Maryland jumped after their subsidies exceeded 25% of total revenues so that would probably be a pretty good starting point.
LikeLike
For the record, that would equate to about a $20,000,000 in UVa’s case, or about $7 million more than their current subsidy.
The question then is would losing FSU + whatever school left with them (Miami, GIT, Clemson…) cost the ACC $7 million a team? Probably.
LikeLike
Alternately, if you look at the subsidy in terms of $ amount instead of %, then Maryland bolted after subsidy reached $17 million and Colorado left after it reached $16 million.
Right now UVA is a little over $13 million, so it would only need revenues to drop by $4 to reach Maryland levels.
LikeLike
Everyone accounts for things differently. Subsidies may mean different things to different schools. How do they account for IT support? Do they pay rent for offices? How are they charged for scholarships?
There were some schools generating plenty of $ that showed as still having subsidies.
LikeLike
In what way did giving FSU giving up their chance to be on an island in the Big12 imply them giving up their King status? It would be a different thing if they had given up a chance to be in the Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
Why?
LikeLike
The question is why would it be different with the B1G and SEC?
LikeLike
With regards to GreatLakeState’s claim that FSU sold its King status down the river by agreeing to the GOR ~ that comment was a response to GLS ~ the difference with the Big Ten or the SEC would be the incremental financial benefit that FSU would be giving up by turning down an offer from the Big Ten or SEC and instead agreeing to a GOR. That would be a case of the GOR actually involving a substantial sacrifice. But there’s no substantial reason to believe they had an offer from either the Big Ten or SEC to turn down.
By contrast, not joining the Big12 in return for stabilizing the ACC is no loss, since the ACC as it exists is better for FSU than joining the Big12. So if the only alternative on the table was exit to the Big12, then FSU “sold out” exactly nothing in agreeing to the GOR.
LikeLike
Depends on what they would be able to make on Tier 3 on their own. They could have given up quite a bit. And even Slive has said its quite possible the Big 12 will be making more than the SEC in the short run. Its clear Nebraska is making less in the Big 10 than if they had stayed in the Big 12. If FSU could have made $7 million extra like OU, they would be ahead for a number of years over what they would make in the SEC and certainly until 2017 over what they would make in the Big 10.
A “king” stays where they want to, even if its for less money, so I agree with you there. But if they had an opportunity to go only to the Big 12 or opportunities to go multiple places is irrelevant.
LikeLike
FSU’s President sold their King status down the river with that GOR. It’s not like the ACC would have kicked them out if they didn’t sign. There has to be more to this story.
I think @BruceMcF has it right. FSU didn’t have a Big Ten or SEC offer, and none was likely forthcoming. They didn’t want the Big XII. That meant their best bet was to ensure the ACC survived intact.
FSU is still a king. They’ve got at least two premier games every year (UF and Miami), the Clemson game is a very solid draw, plus Notre Dame periodically. Their Big XII schedule would almost certainly be worse.
They’d make more in the SEC or the Big Ten, but they don’t have offers to join those leagues. That meant their best bet was to maximize the value of the league they’re in.
LikeLike
At this point, I just don’t see how the ACC schools can back out now. They’ve essentially told the rest of the world that they plan to stick together. Maybe some FSU fans would seethe in anger at their program getting *at worst* a $2M dollar bump up from the Alleged Worldwide Leader but no way would the former Big East schools allow their gravy train to end soon. They’re going to make sure everyone else stays in place well into the next decade. So we will still have the ACC to kick around.
By the way, you think any conference has been more grateful that a member was not an AAU member than the ACC?
LikeLike
You’re referring to Florida State, of course. That assumes that the theory that only Florida State had to leave for the conference to collapse, thereby freeing up schools that B1G presidents really wanted, was the one that would pan out. One of the things that I’ve learned about the ACC from the last realignment saga is that that conference is very vindictive bunch. You could blame that on Swofford, maybe. However, one doesn’t go through the exercise of first putting up a large exit fee, then increasing that exit fee years later, then bringing down a Grant of Rights and keeping the exit fee without communicating their true intent on the part of the most of the more valuable institutions of sticking together. Could it all not be enough? That’s possible. But from where I’m sitting, it’s much more probable that they stick together than they all fall apart.
The problem is people think linear when it comes to the rise and fall of conferences. As the Big East has broken up and its component members scattered to different conferences, so would eventually the next most vulnerable conference. However, the ACC is not the Big East. Far from it. The real difference is not so much money but institutional acumen and cultural concerns. Frank touched upon those in this blog. I would add that what really did the Big East in is that the members were too selfish to put the interest of the conference. Just among the members who offer Division 1 football, there was so much backbiting, mistrust, snobbery and elitism that they became a circular firing squad. Rutgers wanted nothing to do with Syracuse playing in their state and taking away New Jersey recruits. Syracuse wanted nothing to do with members who don’t step up in basketball. Same with Connecticut, Louisville and the C7 schools. The C7 schools couldn’t afford FBS football but wanted to have a say on how football was governed. Notre Dame wanted its own deal and couldn’t care less about the welfare of the Big East and played the C7 (and, thus, indirectly the whole conference) like suckers. Then there were former members like Virginia Tech and Miami who thought they were too good for the Big East and wanted a different association. However, to me, the biggest chutzpah was Boston College, who abandoned the idea of Northeastern major college sports to play in a conference (until this year) whose closest member was Maryland. Of course, there’s the case of the BE turning down Penn State but I would say that PSU would have eventually associated with the Big Ten down the road, so I don’t think it’s that relevant of a point.
There is this popular notion is that the ACC is centered around Tobacco Road but what people miss is that the schools who are located in the SC/NC/VA region feel a kinship with each other. They were formerly members of the Southern Conference but several schools already had broken away to form the SEC, leaving those schools in the Carolinas and Virginia to fend for themselves. So I would not be surprised if those schools felt they share a common destiny. Of course, the story was a bit more complicated than that. WVU and VT weren’t in. Virginia went indy from the SoCon before joining. USCe eventually went indy to then join the SEC years later. Still, there is a history there that we can’t just dismiss. Maryland began to fell more and more like an outsider as the demographic changes preceded a gradual reorientation of its cultural and institutional outlook. The Mason-Dixon became just another state line as that state turned solidly left-leaning blue. So UMd turning to the Big Ten isn’t that much of a surprise to me. But to the good fortune of Rutgers, it happened.
Look at the ACC as a Rubik’s Cube. You could try to tear individual pieces out of that toy to “take what you really want.” Or you could try to solve the puzzle. The Big Ten chose “not to solve the puzzle” or maybe they weren’t interested in anyone beyond Maryland. Who knows, really? Perhaps they prefer a stable ACC to a couple of valuable members defecting to the SEC, which was very possible due to cultural history.
The ACC is essentially made up of three factions: 1) the Carolina schools + Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Clemson; 2) Florida schools (FSU, Miami); and 3) former Big East schools other than Miami and VT
People make the mistake of putting FSU and Clemson together because of football. However, that completely misses the behavior of the elites who actually run the institutions. Clemson and UNC may have differences over which sport to emphasize but both are good ‘ol Southern boy institutions who share the same region and each school’s alumni mingle together at functions in the South. Georgia Tech values the association with Duke, UNC and UVa. Virginia Tech values associating with those same schools. Pitt, SU, UL and ND simply value being able to play Duke and UNC on a regular basis. FSU and Miami value playing football games against each other and FSU entered the conference partly so that they can regularly play Miami. Swofford knows all of these and, if one could be honest with himself, should acknowledge that he used these associations to tighten up that conference better.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts but I have two quick responses:
Still, there is a history there that we can’t just dismiss. Maryland began to fell more and more like an outsider as the demographic changes preceded a gradual reorientation of its cultural and institutional outlook. The Mason-Dixon became just another state line as that state turned solidly left-leaning blue. So UMd turning to the Big Ten isn’t that much of a surprise to me
By their own admission, Maryland’s departure was a purely financial decision. It had nothing to do with culture or history.
Look at the ACC as a Rubik’s Cube.
As I’ve said before, I prefer to view as a Jenga tower. It’s fine left alone and could even afford to lose a pieces, but pull the right piece and the whole thing comes crashing down…
LikeLike
But fans of schools with a football-first culture, as is the case for 90 percent of the FBS members elsewhere, don’t like being led by an “alpha dog” (UNC) which doesn’t possess such a culture.
LikeLike
… fans of schools with a football-first culture, as is the case for 90 percent of the FBS members elsewhere, don’t like being led by an “alpha dog” (UNC) which doesn’t possess such a culture.
Since when did fans get a vote? Before 100 percent of the ACC signed a grant of rights, all but two schools agreed to what was, by far, the highest exit fee ever imposed by any conference. These schools want</em. to be there, either because they genuinely love what they have, or because they realize that most of the alternatives are worse.
LikeLike
Before 100 percent of the ACC signed a grant of rights, all but two schools agreed to what was, by far, the highest exit fee ever imposed by any conference.
The Big XII agreed to impose the then highest exit fee in history in 2010 and it took less than a year for Texas A&M and Missouri to leave and Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. to try to.
LikeLike
And the Raycom deal comes back to bite the ACC in the ass yet again.
Can someone explain to me why Jack Swofford still has a job?
LikeLike
*John Swofford
LikeLike
Plenty of people in College Park are currently laughing. Despite its financial woes, Maryland looks like geniuses compared to the ACC.
LikeLike
Because he, by hook or by crook, held the Tobacco Road fiefdom together. Everything else is secondary.
LikeLike
Head coaches salaries. Assistants. It was only a matter of time.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22274150/pac-12s-larry-scott-now-highest-paid-commissioner
“We must not allow a mine shaft gap…err, a commissioner salarie gap” ( in George C. Scott’s voice)
LikeLike
In terms of foresight & proactiveness, Scott & Delany have shown more than Slive.
Slive has the beneficiary of some quite fortuitous circumstances (the strength of SEC football & A&M wanting to be unshackled from Texas).
LikeLike
I agree with you in terms of TV stuff, but remember Slive is essentially godfather of the new playoff. He proposed back in 2008 I believe and everything it involves (semifinals at bowl sites and no requirement for conference champs) are things Slive has pushed for from the beginning.
Contrast Delany who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting a playoff and got virtually nothing from his original proposal (most importantly on campus semis and consideration for conference champs).
LikeLike
On campus sites was a sacrificial anode. Nobody expected that would fly for a national semi.
Conference champs certainly will be a consideration, but not a requirement that I don’t think Delaney wanted either.
LikeLike
Nobody expected that would fly for a national semi.
Delany and Scott both did. It was the key point in Delany’s proposal.
And even after Delany was forced to abandon it, he still couldn’t get his second choice; non-bowl neutral site (specifically one in the Midwest).
Conference champs certainly will be a consideration
I wouldn’t be sure about that. Slive has been adamant that the only criteria be the four best teams and he has gotten everything he wants so far.
LikeLike
@frug – I tend to agree with you on the playoff (although I’d weigh the creation of the BTN as a greater commissioner accomplishment since the playoff format was much more than just Slive’s creation). While most of us have a special love for the Rose Bowl and want to elevate the value of winning a conference championship as Big Ten fans, Slive and the SEC had the perceived moral authority and certainly a majority of the fans (whether they were SEC supporters or not) behind them: taking the top 4 without strings attached was believed to be the most “meritocratic” system regardless of how much people wanted to argue that winning conference championships was a more concrete and tangible way of measuring success.
Where I think the Big Ten presidents (not necessarily Delany, as you’ll see quotes from him when he first got the Big Ten commissioner job that he talked about supporting a playoff before the presidents scolded and indoctrinated him) made a mistake was that they legitimately thought that the current system was going to last into perpetuity. If the Big Ten and Pac-12 had presented an unseeded plus one back several years ago as an alternative to Slive’s first playoff proposal, it may well have been seen as a progressive compromise (as no one other than the SEC and ACC advocated for a playoff at that time) and would have protected the value and Big Ten/Pac-12 tie-ins of the Rose Bowl a helluva lot better than what it will be in the new system (while also making that a de facto playoff game in many seasons). When they tried presenting that concept last year, though, it looked regressive compared to the top 4 playoff and was perceived as a Big Ten attempt to stop progress.
LikeLike
Appearently you don’t understand the sacrificial anode concept. Who enters a bargaining situation with only there final demand as the starting point?
LikeLike
Who enters a bargaining situation with only there final demand as the starting point?
Slive did.
LikeLike
Plus, what was Delany trying to get by offering up on campus semis as a sacrifice?
LikeLike
A playoff wasn’t in the B1G’s best interest before Bowl-fatigue set in around 2011.
Also, conference championships ARE supposed to be considered in the selection process.
Scott (and to a lesser extent Delany) wanted automatic bids for CC, but in the end had to settle for the assurance it would carry considerable weight with the selection committee.
Delany and Slive are clearly the Masters of the Universe in College athletics.
LikeLike
A playoff wasn’t in the B1G’s best interest before Bowl-fatigue set in around 2011.
A playoff was always in the B1G’s best interest. They’re going to be making far more money in this system than the previous one, and they would have before. They were leaving a lot on the table by refusing to agree with a playoff.
LikeLike
No it wasn’t in the Big Ten’s best interest. If it had been, Delany would have championed it. The Golden Age of Bowls was tailor made for the Big Ten, but times change. I highly doubt Delany left one dime of ‘money on the table’.
LikeLike
As others have noted, Delany was pro-playoff until his presidents overruled him. Dan Wetzel wrote a whole book about how the presidents got snookered by the bowls. The math is pretty obvious and extremely compelling.
LikeLike
If that’s true, I stand corrected.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
A playoff wasn’t in the B1G’s best interest before Bowl-fatigue set in around 2011.
“A playoff was always in the B1G’s best interest. They’re going to be making far more money in this system than the previous one, and they would have before. They were leaving a lot on the table by refusing to agree with a playoff.”
How about you restate that as “A playoff was always in the B1G’s best financial interests” instead? We could have a very long debate about the other interests and how to weigh them versus money and not persuade anyone to change their minds.
LikeLike
The math is very debatable based on what you think it will do to the system long term. I think 4 teams will make more money. I think 8 or 16, long term hurts the value of the regular season contracts more than the playoff money would help. At that point, you can stop carring about games around the country not invovling your team or your conference until the last week or two of the season.
LikeLike
I think 4 teams will make more money. I think 8 or 16, long term hurts the value of the regular season contracts more than the playoff money would help. At that point, you can stop carring about games around the country not invovling your team or your conference until the last week or two of the season.
That is counter to the experience of practically every other sport. For instance: the value of the college basketball season has not suffered, even though the number of teams in the NCAA tournament keeps increasing.
I can’t believe they’d ever go to a 16-team playoff. But hypothetically, just imagine they did. As late as mid-season, there’d probably be up to 30 teams that still had a mathematical chance of making the playoff. This is opposed to the current system, where the second loss (and sometimes, even the first loss) is enough to knock a team out of contention.
It would be interesting to check how many teams are ranked in the top 16 of the polls at some point during the season. I’m sure it’s at least 40 teams in a typical year. That would be 40 teams that, at some point or another, had a chance of reaching the playoff; whereas, in the current system, it’s nowhere near that.
I do see the other arguments against expanding the playoff, but the claim that it would “ruin the regular season” is absolutely nuts. Giving more teams a chance means you have more games with post-season implications. That makes the regular season more important, not less.
BTW, I agree with Brian that the playoff was always in the B1G’s financial interests, but there were other interests that are at least debatable.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That is counter to the experience of practically every other sport. For instance: the value of the college basketball season has not suffered, even though the number of teams in the NCAA tournament keeps increasing.”
Really? What’s the rate of growth of hoop TV deals versus CFB TV deals? It seems like all the articles indicate ratings and attendance have struggled in hoops, but maybe that’s a false impression.
“I can’t believe they’d ever go to a 16-team playoff. But hypothetically, just imagine they did. As late as mid-season, there’d probably be up to 30 teams that still had a mathematical chance of making the playoff.”
And about still only about 6 with a realistic shot at a title.
“This is opposed to the current system, where the second loss (and sometimes, even the first loss) is enough to knock a team out of contention.”
And do all those fans stop watching games? The ratings data says no.
“I do see the other arguments against expanding the playoff, but the claim that it would “ruin the regular season” is absolutely nuts.”
How many fans watch regular season hoops versus waiting for March Madness? That’s where the fear of ruining the season comes from. At some point the playoff is so big you don’t really need to watch the regular season if you’re a casual fan.
“BTW, I agree with Brian that the playoff was always in the B1G’s financial interests, but there were other interests that are at least debatable.”
I figured that clarification was easier than a 30 comment argument.
LikeLike
“I agree with you in terms of TV stuff, but remember Slive is essentially godfather of the new playoff. He proposed back in 2008 I believe and everything it involves (semifinals at bowl sites and no requirement for conference champs) are things Slive has pushed for from the beginning.
Contrast Delany who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting a playoff and got virtually nothing from his original proposal (most importantly on campus semis and consideration for conference champs).”
And among those things that a conference commissioner can control, what gives one conference a competitive advantage over another one? Long-term, the BTN, the SEC TV contract, and what schools get/got added will have a far bigger impact on the 2 conferences than the playoff setup.
LikeLike
Some people claim the Big Ten is stuck in the Mad Men era (how’s that for a contrived segue)
Here’s the Hollywood Reporter’s two part deconstruction of the freakiest MM episode ever.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/mad-men-deconstruction-vol-1-525592
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/mad-men-deconstruction-vol-2-525677
Just thought it was interesting.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Yes, that was possibly the funniest yet most disjointed Mad Men episode ever. I still can’t figure out whether it worked. Best comment that I’ve seen is that watching that episode was like being the only sober person in a room of people that are all high out of their minds.
LikeLike
I liked it. Don has sort of jumped the shark for me this season, so I found it a refreshing jolt.
Also, that ‘sober person’ analogy is spot on.
LikeLike
the star of that show is a mizzou alum. heh.
LikeLike
College Baseball update.
The regular season is over and conference tournaments begin this week.
Vandy and LSU are #1 and #2 in all the polls. LSU and Vandy did not play each other in the regular season. Vandy won the SEC regular season with the best SEC regular season record in the history of the league. LSU finished with its most wins and conference wins in its storied history. Hopefully, these two clubs will meet in the SEC Tourny and the CWS.
North Carolina stumbled down the stretch, losing its last two ACC series. The Heels are now ranked as high as #3 and as low as #6.
Congrats to the FTT Hoosier fans on their B1G baseball championship. With an RPI of 13, a new stadium, being ranked as high as #12 in one poll, Indiana is a lock to host a regional. Indiana also drew an average of 1,495 fans per game. Other good news for the B1G is that Kendall Rogers of perfectgame.com (a very well respected college baseball writer and the Joe Lunardi of CBB) projects that Illinois and Ohio State will also make the tourney. Nebraska did well in attendance, averaging 2,864 fans per game.
Rogers also projects 9 SEC teams and 8 ACC teams to make the NCAAs. His top eight national seeds are #1 Vandy, #2 UNC, #3 LSU, #4 Oregon State, #5 Virginia, #6 Fullerton, #7 Florida State, and #8 Louisville. I think the first seven are locks.
LSU obliterated its regular season attendance record by drawing 413,638 fans over 38 home games.
LikeLike
Illinois and OSU certainly produce enough in-state talent to be able to make the postseason every year, if they could only keep the majority of the top kids from going out of state.
The BTN should help in that regard.
LikeLike
Wilner: “The 58% year-over-year increase was due a variety of factors, first and foremost the football championship game and the increased broadcast inventory resulting from the addition of Utah and Colorado.
More football inventory = more money.”
The PAC’s last year under the old (atrocious) media deal. I guess adding Colorado and Utah was not such a bad thing on their own.
Or am I mistaken?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9298443/detroit-lions-launching-ford-field-bowl-sources-say
Looks like the Pizza Bowl is going away to be replaced by a new bowl in Detroit. No more MAC, the opponent should be ACC. Personally, I’d prefer the MAC. For a bowl that far down the list, I prefer the regional interest.
LikeLike
Might this be the lead-in to the five big conferences playing only each other in the postseason, relegating AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, MAC and MWC into either joining FCS or becoming a level of its own? (If it’s the latter, I hope they ditch games with the big five, though I doubt they’d have the courage to do it. It would also bring the SEC back down to earth a bit.)
LikeLike
vp19,
“Might this be the lead-in to the five big conferences playing only each other in the postseason, relegating AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, MAC and MWC into either joining FCS or becoming a level of its own?”
I doubt it. The B10 only played one group of 5 team in a bowl. Most power conferences play several.
LikeLike
“Might this be the lead-in to the five big conferences playing only each other in the postseason, relegating AAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, MAC and MWC into either joining FCS or becoming a level of its own?”
No, they will keep the best of the Go5 champions as one team in the Big Bowls, for the anti-trust fig-leaf.
Plus in the case that a given conference in the vagaries of the season and semi-final placement, they’ll still use the occasional Go5 school as a replacement school, the infrequency of the event helping to keep down the threat of bowl fatigue.
LikeLike
Agree. While I have no interest in playing any of the other non-power 5 in bowls, the MAC is completely in our footprint and we should leave one spot for them.
LikeLike
I agree that the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC are striving to play only other Big Five leagues (Pac-12 included) for all their bowl games. The Pac-12, though, is in a unique position where accomplishing that goal will be difficult. Yes, it will get its top 3-5 teams in games against other power leagues: Rose vs. B1G; Sun vs. ACC; Alamo vs. Big 12; Holiday vs. B1G; maybe BWW vs. B1G. But somewhere down the line, the will have to accept its limitations. Its teams are far away from most of the second-tier bowl games and far away from the Big Five schools whose fans can drive to them. Thus, the league will have to have a few games against the Mountain West. But that’s not all bad, though. Las Vegas for a 7-5ish team vs. a likely top 25 Mountain West champ isn’t bad. The Poinsettia Bowl in sunny San Diego for a 6-6 Pac-12 team against a 2- or 3-loss MWC team is pretty good. It’s better than the alternative of sending those teams to the east coast, or even to Texas, where their teams will be playing in front 10 times more fans of the opponent than of themselves.
LikeLike
The Mountain West and AAC are on a different level than the Sun Belt and Conference USA. I honestly do not mind not playing those types of teams if they are local (Temple), or in a Bowl if it is a good team like Boise Or San Diego St. But non In-State teams or the likes of UTEP in a Bowl ( might as well call that the Toilet Bowl), simply do not cut it.
LikeLike
That comparison isn’t even close. UTEP is a vastly better program historically than SDSU. AACK and MWC homers are trying to pretend they’re better than CUSA, but it doesn’t work out in the real world. There is only one real distinction, Power5 versus the rest. Groupings in tier 2 will ebb and flow every year.
LikeLike
I agree; the notion that there are tiers below the Big 5 is laughable. Perception-wise, they’ll end up grouped as “non-Big 5” and in reality, given that the money differences won’t be that material, strength will be cyclical.
LikeLike
At the size of media payments for the Go5, the media payments being similar doesn’t do much to determine the size of Athletic Department budgets. There’s certainly the possibility that the MWC and AACK!! will emerge as the Best of the Rest in both FB and BBall.
Obviously, claiming that status before its been earned involves a bit of hopeful future projection by MWC and AACK!! fans, but an ability to engage in hopeful future projection is a useful skill for those following schools who are not perennial heavyweights.
LikeLike
Personally, I prefer the ACC. It’s really hard to get excited about traveling to Detroit to play a MAC team. Even a 6-6 ACC team is better for league bragging rights, and you’re more likely to be going against someone you compete with in recruiting.
LikeLike
But why Detroit? Why not Indy?
Just when it looked like the MAC was going to get four bowls, the Big Ten pulls the rug out from under. That’s kind of predictable.
The four times in the last decade and a half that the bowl got over 50K were two Big Ten Schools ~ Purdue and Northwestern ~ UConn and MTSU, against either Central Michigan or one of the two Toledo schools from the MAC.
LikeLike
The Detroit Lions organization (along with others I’d guess) are the ones paying the bills for this bowl game, not the city of Indianapolis.
LikeLike
Hence the question ~ how are there bowl backers in Detroit for a second bowl, when there isn’t anyone in Indianapolis to back one? Is it different ownership of the Detroit and Indianapolis stadiums?
LikeLike
@BruceMcF – Probably. It seems that the Lions and Tigers (and Bears, oh my!) want to run their own bowls in their separate respective venues. Frankly, I think Indianapolis would be a very good site for a lower-level Big Ten/ACC bowl, but a lot of this is driven by how much money the owners of the applicable facilities are willing to put up.
LikeLike
I just saw an account that said Ford Field gave the MAC a deadline to find another FBS conference to sponsor the Pizza Pizza Bowl Bowl, and the MAC was unable to do so. So this would be Ford Field going looking for what other tie-in might be available, and it turns out with the new Northeastern schools in the ACC, there was BigTen/ACC interest. If its at or about #7 each, neither would require a formal secondary conference, since both are positioned to certify well over seven bowls apiece.
Unless the SEC wants one more bowl as a safety bowl than it can get P5 tie-ins for, the MAC would seem to be SOL for a P5 bowl. That seems a long shot, but on the other hand the SEC seems to have been adamant about not playing CUSA or Sunbelt teams, and The American would now fall under that cold shoulder rule, so the only Go5 conferences it could turn to for a safety bowl would be the MAC or the MWC.
LikeLike
Is the Power 5 trying to avoid playing the AAC in bowls? Why want to kick them while they’re down? Good teams like Cinci, UH and Connecticut might be better match-ups for some of the lesser bowls than another ACC team outside of FSU/Clemson/Miami.
LikeLike
I thought of the AAC as well, though only Cincy of the AAC will be close to Detroit while the ACC will have Pitt, Louisville, and even Syracuse within a 6 hour drive of Detroit.
Personally, I’d like the B10 to share the DC bowl (vs. the ACC) and FtW bowl (vs. the MWC) with the AAC. The AAC probably will get those bowl tie-ins to themselves, however.
LikeLike
Each of the Power 5 are trying to organize bowls with the other Power 5 conferences ~ the loss of bowls by the AAC is just collateral damage to that effort. As before, any bowls between Major Conferences and Mid-Majors are due to mismatches between the numbers of bowl slots they want and the numbers of bowl tie-ins they can organize against fellow Power 5 conferences.
With more bowls in the Big Bowl club, and with more arrangements at the top to cope with different balance of power between the Major Conferences in different years, there may be less perceived need for an extra “just in case” bowl slot at the bottom of the lineup.
But as far as a deliberate effort to avoid the AAC ~ I don’t think so. Like any other Mid-Major, the AAC is part of the discussion when convenient to the Major Conferences, and not when not. So its more like, “Welcome to the Mid-Majors”.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/SPORTS08/305210096/
Follow up. The Pizza Bowl may try to move to Comerica Park and stay a bowl rather than being replaced by the Lion Bowl.
LikeLike
That’s pretty crazy on several levels.
1. Detroit with 2 bowl games.
2. One of them being played outdoors in a baseball stadium in the dead of winter.
Pizza! Pizza! would almost certainly match up MAC vs. AAC.
LikeLike
The answer is all of those fly-by-night bowls are being subsidized by ESPN. Considering the news that ESPN is cutting staff by the hundreds, I don’t know if that trend would continue.
LikeLike
Cutting staff doesn’t imply they are going to cut content. It could, indeed, be a move to free up funds to increase spending on content.
But in any event, ESPN’s view of the strategic value of the filler bowls is surely relevant, since ESPN stepping in to suggest that the BigTen or ACC slot the MAC into the bottom of their bowl lineup is the MAC’s best hope for four bowls ~ a lesser lights of the P5 bowl, and then MWC, CUSA/AAC and Sunbelt among the balance of the filler bowls.
LikeLike
If they move the Motor City outside, I would hope they would push it early in the schedule and not actually play in the dead of winter.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/77119/big-ten-tuesday-mailblog-2
Adam Rittenberg: Jeremy, I reached out to Big Ten scheduling czar Mark Rudner to get some clarity on your question. The main thing to remember, as you point out, is the league-wide directive to have each Big Ten team play every other conference member at least once every four years. That will happen in the post-2016 scheduling model. To meet that goal, the crossovers after 2016 will be staggered, so you won’t always see the same teams in consecutive seasons. You also won’t always see direct home-and-homes with crossover opponents. Eventually every game will be, in a sense, returned, but it won’t be as “clean” as the current setup. The goal remains to avoid these long breaks without certain matchups.
B10 scheduling will be a lot messier in the future. Not always home and homes. A gap between games sometimes and probably 2 in a row at the same site on occasion. Once in 4 years is the only guarantee.
LikeLike
If they do it right, I think they can avoid 2 in a row at the same site.
I expect only 1 interdivisional series to be HaH while the other 2 games will consist of playing the other 6 teams once every 3 years.
LikeLike
One pattern for the unlocked schools that maintains the four year rule is for three schools to be on a single rotation and four schools to be on Home and Away, two on, two off. But without three locked schools, those can’t be the same three schools all around, so where it gets messy is swapping schools into and out of that three school single rotation.
LikeLike
Can’t really do it that way because IU-PU has to be permanent.
More likely is that you’ll have 6-year cycles where each school gets a locked interdivisional rival for that period (which for IU & PU will always be each other while it would rotate for everyone else) while the other 6 schools fill the other 2 slots, cycling through every third year.
LikeLike
I know that IU-PU has to be permanent. PU (or IU for the West) would be one of the three single rotation for each unlocked school, first in the rotation for two, second in the rotation for two, third in the rotation for two.
If you were doing it with parity scheduling among the six unlocked schools each side, the top two on each side would have the cross division bottom two in the single rotation along with the locked school, which means the middle two would have the top two and bottom two in their two one / two off rotation and the other middle two in their single rotation.
LikeLike
So if Minny & Illinois are in the bottom tier in the West while OSU & Michigan are in the top tier in the East, the LBJ and Illibuck games will be played less often than most other interdivisional series?
Not sure that will fly.
I think an equal rotation over 36 years is still most likely.
LikeLike
That follows from any parity scheduling, so its rather a complaint against parity scheduling than a flaw of that particular rotation.
Your claim started out that it was infeasible because of the locked schools ~ if a fundamental implication of parity scheduling when applied to that rotation distracts you, imagine that the three divisional pairs are drawn by random lottery and the cross division pairing rotated every six years, which gives a balanced rotation across eighteen years.
LikeLike
I thought it was unworkable but it turns out to be workable.
Still think that an equal rotation over 36 years is what will happen.
Delany seemed enthusiastic about parity-based scheduling, but there was a notable lack of enthusiasm for such a scheme expressed by the B10 ADs.
LikeLike
Still think that an equal rotation over 36 years is what will happen.
Well, they’re still saying parity scheduling, and that inherently means an unequal rotation.
Besides that, a rotation that takes 36 years to equalize is basically unequal. I think there are zero Big Ten ADs who expect to complete even an 18-year rotation, much less 36.
LikeLike
“Well, they’re still saying parity scheduling, and that inherently means an unequal rotation.”
Who’s “they”?
From what I heard, Delany is enthusiastic about that, but the B10 AD’s who’ve expressed an opinion are decidedly not.
“Besides that, a rotation that takes 36 years to equalize is basically unequal.”
Right, which is why I think it will be an equal rotation (which Delany has also said would happen), but front-loaded, so that everyone is satisfied to an extent (everyone besides Brian, in other words, since nothing can satisfy Brian).
LikeLike
One scenario I can envision has Big Ten doing its best to couple Michigan and Ohio State with Nebraska and Wisconsin as often as possible starting in 2016 when the nine-game schedule kicks in.
Assuming UM plays the Badgers in 2016/7, then the Cornhuskers in 2018/9 as part of that first rotation. Per the Big Ten, Michigan has games with Northwestern and Minnesota in 2014/5 as part of the eight game schedule, which means Purdue, Illinois and Iowa would be up to bat for 2016/7.
The Eastern Division is supposed to play five home conference games in the even years. During those seasons, Michigan hosts Penn State, Indiana and Maryland while playing at Ohio State, at Michigan State and at Rutgers.
In these four seasons, there are 12 scheduling slots for the seven western teams. 4 of those 12 go to Wisconsin and Nebraska, meaning there are eight left for the five other western teams.
Here’s a possibility for the conference games over that four-year span
2016 Home (5): Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Iowa
2016 Road (4): At Ohio State, At Michigan State, At Rutgers, At, WIsconsin
2017 Home (4): Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
2017 Road (5): At Penn State, At Indiana, At Maryland, At Purdue, At Illinois
2018 Home (5): Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota / Non Conf – Arkansas
2018 Road (4): At Ohio State, At Michigan State, At Rutgers, At Nebraska
2019 Home (4): Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Nebraska
2019 Road (5): At Penn State, At Indiana, At Maryland, At Minnesota, At Northwestern / Non-Con – At Arkansas
In this lineup, the eight spots are divided as follows: Purdue (2), Illinois (2), Minnesota (2), Northwestern (1), Iowa (1). For 2020 thru 2024, I imagine Northwestern and Iowa would get four of the eight spots with Purdue, Illinois and Minnesota taking the remaining four.
2020: Purdue, At Iowa
2021: Iowa, at Illinois
2022: Illinois, at Northwestern
2023 Northwestern, at Minnesota
LikeLike
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/5/8/4304780/big-ten-parity-scheduling-predictions-2016
LikeLike
Mandel with projected bowl lineups:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130521/projected-conference-bowl-lineups/?sct=uk_t11_a4
I’m going to also project that the AAC will send its champ to either Memphis or Shreveport vs. the SEC (depending on which one the B12 decides not to pick). Also that it will have the St. Pete (vs. CUSA), Birmingham (vs. SEC) and DC (vs. ACC) bowls. Also projecting a slot in either the Ft. Worth or New Mexico bowls (likely vs. the MWC). I’m projecting that it will share the other one (FtW/NM) along with the Poinsettia and Hawaii bowls with BYU & Army.
Maybe the DC bowl will be shared with Army while FtW will be shared with BYU, but i thinkth ese are the bowls the AAC will have.
CUSA’s bowl lineup figures to be comparable to the MAC’s and SunBelt’s. They’ll all have about 2 bowl tie-in’s each and will have to depend on the big boys not being able to fit their slots to place their teams (via secondary tie-ins).
LikeLike
Actually, on second thought, a few changes:
New Mexico bowl may pick CUSA over AAC.
Birmingham bowl may pick the CUSA champ over AAC (though the SEC might hate that; though I don’t know how they can avoid playing both the AAC and/or CUSA unless they manage to get the ACC to take up 2 slots and the B12 to take up 1 against the SEC in the Liberty, Independence, and Birmingham bowls.
Hmm. I suppose that if Birmingham matches up SEC vs. ACC and Independence/Liberty matches up SEC vs. B12, Liberty/Independence could match up the AAC champ vs. the CUSA champ. . . .
LikeLike
You know, when you stop and think about, this has been a monstrous amount of changes to college football since the current 4 year deals were signed. When the current 4 year deals were signed, realignment had not happened. Nebraska and Colorado were still in the Big 12 and had not announced going anywhere. There was no playoff or guess one would be coming. The Big East hadn’t lost virtually every member.
LikeLike
An excerpt from Mandel’s article:
Big Ten
2010-13 lineup:
1. BCS
2. Capital One
3. Outback
4-5. Gator
4-5. Buffalo Wild Wings
6. Meineke Car Care of Texas
7. Heart of Dallas
8. Little Caesars
Projected 2014-19 lineup:
1. Rose*
2-4. Capital One
2-4. Outback
2-4. Holiday
5-7. Music City/Gator**
5-7. Kraft Fight Hunger
5-7. Pinstripe
TBD: Detroit bowl
TBD: Military? Heart of Dallas? Armed Forces?
* The Big Ten will also share a spot in the Orange Bowl with the SEC and Notre Dame.
** The ACC and Big Ten will likely share spots in the Music City and Gator bowls.
The Big Ten’s new lineup is the furthest along, and it’s also the most different from its predecessor. In keeping with Jim Delany’s pledge to go “national,” the league is adding games in San Diego (Holiday), San Francisco (Kraft Fight Hunger), New York City (Pinstripe) and, three times in six years, Nashville (Music City). The Big Ten is set to part ways with the Buffalo Wild Wings and Meineke Car Care of Texas bowls.
Because it’s expanding to 14 teams, the conference will likely go from eight partners to nine. The Big Ten’s third pool would consist of the new Detroit bowl and one or two more from among the Military, Heart of Dallas and Armed Forces bowls. It’s expected that at least one of the two Texas games will be among those included.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130521/projected-conference-bowl-lineups/#ixzz2U3Wp866X
The ways in which I dislike this:
1. I don’t like pooling 3 bowls in a tier, especially at the top. Unless the Holiday and Outback really increase their payouts, they shouldn’t get equal rights to the top team after the CFP bowls. More importantly, the SEC isn’t pooling for their Cap 1 team. That could mean B10 #4 versus SEC #2. Ouch.
2. I don’t like the Gator.
3. If you’re pooling, why do you also split a bowl with the ACC? That’s completely unnecessary.
4. 2 more CA bowls is silly. Why not add the HI bowl next time? Let’s see how far you can force B10 fans to travel and how much you can make them pay.
5. I’d much rather play the MAC than the ACC in Detroit. The B10 and MAC have a good relationship and that bowl is an ideal way to keep it.
6. There isn’t a gain in diversity of locations when you have 3 CA and 3 FL bowls. We lost AZ and may lose TX. We gain 2 in CA, NYC and 1/2 of Nashville plus maybe DC.
7. There isn’t really an increase in diversity of opponents, just a gain of 1 bowl. There are still 3 SEC games. We might lose all 3 of the B12 games and instead end up with 3 P12 games. We’ll gain 2-3 ACC games, and trade the MAC for maybe the MWC.
Things I like:
1. It’s good to play the ACC.
2. I like adding NYC and Nashville.
3. Adding DC would be good, too.
LikeLike
I don’t like pooling 3 bowls in a tier, especially at the top. Unless the Holiday and Outback really increase their payouts, they shouldn’t get equal rights to the top team after the CFP bowls. More importantly, the SEC isn’t pooling for their Cap 1 team. That could mean B10 #4 versus SEC #2. Ouch.
As I understand, the pooling is coupled with giving the league office greater control. It comes down to whether you think the league would do a better job of maximizing its assets, or if bowl committees would.
In the current system, B10#4 doesn’t necessarily mean the fourth-best team; it means the fourth pick. Left to their druthers, a bowl might choose an 8-4 Michigan over a 9-3 Iowa, for example.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As I understand, the pooling is coupled with giving the league office greater control.”
Correct.
“It comes down to whether you think the league would do a better job of maximizing its assets, or if bowl committees would.”
I think monkeys might make better decisions than the B10. See Leaders and Legends.
“In the current system, B10#4 doesn’t necessarily mean the fourth-best team; it means the fourth pick. Left to their druthers, a bowl might choose an 8-4 Michigan over a 9-3 Iowa, for example.”
Yes. But in my complaint, #4 means 4th best. And that could easily happen based on where teams went bowling in previous years.
LikeLike
(1) I hope they keep a bowl with the B12
(2) Are you sure your criticism of both pooling the bowls and swapping the Music City & Gator is not just a different way of repeating your dislike of the Gator? If it were four bowls that you liked, maybe it would be clearer that four bowls in three slots is more variety than three bowls in three slots.
(3) The Big Ten could see the MAC about as often as they have at the Pizza Pizza Bowl Bowl if they signed a bottom of the list safety bowl with another conference and insisted that the MAC be the secondary partner on the other side.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“(1) I hope they keep a bowl with the B12”
Mandel makes it sound like they’ll probably have at least 1 of the TX bowls, presumably against the B12, at the very bottom of the bowl list (in a tier with Detroit).
“(2) Are you sure your criticism of both pooling the bowls and swapping the Music City & Gator is not just a different way of repeating your dislike of the Gator?”
In regards to pooling, yes. The Cap 1 is a better bowl than those other 3 and features a better opponent. It has always paid more and has the best reputation. The Outback has been a clear little brother to it for a long time. It definitely shouldn’t be lumped in with mediocre bowls like the Music City and Gator.
“If it were four bowls that you liked, maybe it would be clearer that four bowls in three slots is more variety than three bowls in three slots.”
It’s four location for 3 games, but those two share the same opponent so it’s not much variety. Always playing in TN would represent more variety because we already have 2.4 FL games (including 3/8 of the Orange).
If they pooled like with like, then pooling might make sense. That’s why I complained about it more at the top than for the 5-7 tier.
“(3) The Big Ten could see the MAC about as often as they have at the Pizza Pizza Bowl Bowl if they signed a bottom of the list safety bowl with another conference and insisted that the MAC be the secondary partner on the other side.”
The MAC is the likely backup conference for the Detroit game anyway. But there’s a difference between playing them because someone else couldn’t fill the spot and scheduling to play them.
LikeLike
I’ll get to a new post soon (hopefully within the next day or so), but here’s a brief synopsis:
(1) If the bowl lineup is in line with what Stewart Mandel is predicting and wmwolverine’s source is correct that the SEC will be swapped out of the Capital One Bowl in its Orange Bowl years in the same manner as the Big Ten, then it looks good to me. Not keeping the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe is probably the one that hurts in losing a strategic location for Big Ten alums, but if the reports are true that they were reducing their payout drastically while the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl was increasing its payout dramatically by moving to the new 49ers stadium (which was just awarded Super Bowl L), then I can’t blame the Big Ten for taking that deal. If the league members want high payouts, then the Big Ten is also going to playing a lot of bowls with the SEC, so that isn’t a surprise.
(2) I hope that the concept of “parity-based scheduling” will die a violent death prior to 2016. The thought of the Big Ten West ADs agreeing to a scenario where they could be playing Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State less than the ACC schools will be playing independent Notre Dame is unconscionable to me and, while I generally give Jim Delany a lot of credit in running the Big Ten, the notion of schedules eventually being balanced over the course of nearly 40 years as being an acceptable compromise is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’ll get to a new post soon (hopefully within the next day or so), but here’s a brief synopsis:”
Good. These start to slow down when they’re over 1000 comments.
“(1) If the bowl lineup is in line with what Stewart Mandel is predicting and wmwolverine’s source is correct that the SEC will be swapped out of the Capital One Bowl in its Orange Bowl years in the same manner as the Big Ten, then it looks good to me.”
The second part of that is important. I’d also like some clarity on the bottom of the bowl schedule before making up my mind entirely. Supposedly it should be announced in early June.
“Not keeping the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe is probably the one that hurts in losing a strategic location for Big Ten alums, but if the reports are true that they were reducing their payout drastically while the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl was increasing its payout dramatically by moving to the new 49ers stadium (which was just awarded Super Bowl L), then I can’t blame the Big Ten for taking that deal.”
Yeah, trading AZ for SF is not good to me either. As for the payouts, is that a chicken and egg thing? Do we know that the payouts were changing no matter what, or was that partially due to who would be in the games?
“If the league members want high payouts, then the Big Ten is also going to playing a lot of bowls with the SEC, so that isn’t a surprise.”
I’ve heard the payouts will go down a little (relative to what they could have been) because the leagues are demanding lower ticket allocations.
“(2) I hope that the concept of “parity-based scheduling” will die a violent death prior to 2016.”
Me too. You already skewed the divisions to get the kings in NYC and DC more. At some point you have to respect the old B10 over money.
LikeLike
“The Outback has been a clear little brother to it for a long time. It definitely shouldn’t be lumped in with mediocre bowls like the Music City and Gator.”
No one, including Mandel, is pooling the Outback with the Music City and Gator.
“The thought of the Big Ten West ADs agreeing to a scenario where they could be playing Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State less than the ACC schools will be playing independent Notre Dame is unconscionable to me ”
Hmm. Well, any realistic scheduling plan (including mine) has the western schools playing OSU/Michigan/PSU at least 1/3rd of the time. That’s as often as ND is going to play 13 of the 14 ACC schools over a 3 year period.
Finally, I personally regret losing Houston more than losing AZ in the bowl order.
Very “meh” about picking up Nashville (or keeping Jacksonville), but like the NYC, SF, and SD additions.
LikeLike
Where the Detroit game is rumored to slot in, it wouldn’t require a backup conference ~ it would be well within the sole sponsorship entitlement of both the Big Ten and ACC.
LikeLike
editing error:
Make that “It definitely shouldn’t be lumped in with a mediocre bowl like the Holiday.” Parts of two sentences got combined accidentally.
LikeLike
Eh. How mediocre a bowl the Holiday will be will depend on payout, and supposedly, the folks in SD raised their payout.
As a destination to visit, SD ranks up there with SF, DC, NYC, LA, and Miami (and it will be warmer than DC & NYC).
Definitely far above Nashville & Jacksonville. I’d give SD a slight edge over Orlando & Tampa as well.
BTW, checking airfares from where I am in the Midwest, SD is actually slightly cheaper to fly to than Orlando or Phoenix in late Dec/NYD.
LikeLike
Personally, I think that Mandel is wrong and that the top won’t be pooled and will go
1. Rose
2. Cap One
3. Outback
4. Holiday
LikeLike
ESPN is axing a single-digit percentage of its global workforce, a move that could pink-slip 300-plus employees around the world.
With revenue streams from advertisers and subscribers, the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Leader in Sports” rarely lays off staffers. But ESPN spokeswoman Katina Arnold confirmed staff cuts in a statement Tuesday.
More here: http://adage.com/article/media/espn-begins-hundreds-layoffs/241607/
From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/sports/espn-is-cutting-300-to-400-jobs.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Something to think about for the Big Ten as they go into the open market. I bet those layoffs would be of “non-essential” people but the “stars” like Steven A. Smith and Jay Bilas would be untouched. Could they be any more smug?
LikeLike
The “stars” like Smith, Bilas, Mark May, Rece Davis, etc… are the reason I have reduced my attention to the so-called sports leader… All camera hogging loud-mouths…
LikeLike
Just a reminder since the CUSA baseball tournament starts today. The Rice Owls won the regular season and so have now won EIGHTEEN CONSECUTIVE conference championships, dating back to the last year of the SWC. All hail Wayne Graham, greatest coach in Rice history.
LikeLike
CBS makes early TV selections.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/245358/cbs-game-of-week-kicks-off-with-alabama-texas-am.aspx
While not announced, it looks like LSU/Bama will be their primetime game on Nov 9.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“CBS makes early TV selections.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/245358/cbs-game-of-week-kicks-off-with-alabama-texas-am.aspx
While not announced, it looks like LSU/Bama will be their primetime game on Nov 9.”
Agreed, that’s the obvious choice for the night game.
That 10/19 double header doesn’t look particularly great on paper, though. This is the schedule:
Arkansas at Alabama
Auburn at Texas A&M
Florida at Missouri
Georgia at Vanderbilt
LSU at Ole Miss
South Carolina at Tennessee
On paper, those look like a lot of one-sided games. As the season progresses I’m sure that will change somewhat, though. UGA @ Vandy could be a good game, for example.
LikeLike
Forbes and Deadspin are both citing increased rights fees as the cause of the layoffs at ESPN with both specifically mentioning the SEC ESPN Network. Probably not a good sign for the prospects of an ACC Network.
http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off-hundreds-509043249
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/05/22/meet-the-rights-fees-responsible-for-espns-layoffs/
LikeLike
Excerpt:
The $5 billion in rights fees seem much less staggering in context of network revenue – ESPN generates $3.3 billion from ads and nearly double that from affiliate fees – but any threat to ESPN’s profitability is a threat to Disney’s bottom line. ESPN is the core piece of Disney’s cable TV arm, which is responsible for almost 60% of the company’s profits, and the network comprises about half of Disney’s total value.
ESPN takes in over 9 Billion in revenue. Managed properly, the ACCN would be a rounding error.
LikeLike
So is every person they let go but they still had layoffs…
LikeLike
Will some of these be among the supposed 200 new hires for the new digital center?
LikeLike
“UPDATE: Deadpin’s Josh Koblin has a follow-up report today that ESPN’s layoffs might be intended to free up an estimated $11-15 million needed to ensure the network’s new digital facility opens on time.”
Could have saved considerably more by punting the LHN.
LikeLike
Without the LHN, there is no Big XII to bring in tons of revenue for ESPN.
LikeLike
There is no more BE. No SWC. No B8. Yet ESPN continues making money with their former members.
You are correct though. ESPN now has a say in if, where, and when UT chooses to move, and retains media rights interest.
LikeLike
Well one additional conference has announced a pause on expansion-nothing for the Sun Belt for now:
http://www.newsadvance.com/sports/liberty_university/article_2a427500-c321-11e2-998f-001a4bcf6878.html
LikeLike
According to collegesportsinfo.com, Virginia Military Institute will leave the Big South and return to the Southern Conference, while Elon is leaving the SC for the Colonial Athletic Association.
LikeLike
That’ll be no movement for the MAC either, unless the MAC making a move was what left the Sunbelt with no add that they wanted to make.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/05/21/paul-finebaum-espn-alabama-auburn-college-football/2347917/
ESPN’s impartial coverage of CFB will continue with their recent hire of Paul Finebaum.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsportssouth.com/story/College-Football-Hall-of-Fame-constructi?blockID=904671&feedID=3648
The CFB Hall of Fame is under construction and on schedule to be open in 8/2014. Atlanta will be a huge improvement over South Bend, IN as a host city. Still, they have pretty ambitious targets to meet.
Today it is gravel, rebar and concrete trucks, but over the course of the next year the former parking lot will transform into a $66 million attraction. In order for the economics to work, the new Hall will need 500,000 visitors a year at a retail ticket price of $17.50 and an average per-person yield (with discounts and packages) of $9.50. In South Bend, the Hall averaged 80,000 visitors a year.
Elsewhere the article mentions that SB was projected to get twice as many visitors (160k). Is being in Atlanta enough to justify assuming you’ll get 500k visitors? That’s 6x as many as actually went to South Bend. It’ll do well down here, certainly, but that’s a big jump to expect.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/20/pac-12-revenue-soars-school-by-school-breakdown-scotts-compensation-and-more/#more-31475
Some fun financial details from the P12’s 990 form.
The 58% year-over-year increase was due a variety of factors, first and foremost the football championship game and the increased broadcast inventory resulting from the addition of Utah and Colorado.
More football inventory = more money.
58% is a huge jump.
*** The figures reported here are for July ‘ 11 through June ’12 — they don’t include the $3 billion deal with ESPN and FOX.
That revenue will be reflected in the 2012-13 tax filings, which we’ll get next spring.
Just in case someone thought that explained the big jump.
Each of the 10 continuing members is expected to receive approx $16 million in the current fiscal year as the result of the new deal, which is worth an average of $20.8 million/school/year but has an escalator clause.
(In other words, the early-year payouts are less than $20.8 million and the final-year payouts are in the high-$20 millions.)
Rough math tells me that’s about a 4.5% escalation rate and they’ll make a little over $26M in the final year assuming it’s a constant growth rate. Just in case anyone was curious how this worked out.
Despite the revenue increase, the Pac-12 continued to trail the Big Ten and SEC by a substantial amount.
The B1G is over $300 million annually in revenue, thanks largely to the incredibly-profitable Big Ten Network.
Quick math shows the P12 at $175M last year.
The league’s total expenses in 2011-12 were $184,959,700. The figure includes start-up costs for the Pac-12 Networks, which launched in August.
(Note: Source have told the Hotline that start-up costs were in the $60-$70 million range. Scott told the Wall Street Journal the figure was $57 million.)
Just to give you an idea what network costs are like.
Here’s the revenue breakdown:
TV rights: $85,630,000
Bowl payouts: $40,140,262
Championships: $27,685,925 (includes March Madness payouts)
Other: $22,053,188
What constitutes “Other”?
Good question.
I asked the conference for an explanation and was told the amount is “one-time revenue from a contractual agreement … Going forward, it will probably return to last year’s (amount).”
The $132,878,803 distribution to the schools in 2011-12 breaks down like this:
(Revenue figures from previous years are below.)
Stanford: $15,651,602
Oregon: $15,200,450
Washington: $13,520,128
USC: $13,464,426
UCLA: $12,753,358
Arizona State: $12,029,443
Cal: $11,595,746
Washington State: $10,564,842
Arizona: $10,562,878
Oregon State: $10,043,205
Utah: $4,079,028 (new member, partial cut)
Colorado: $3,413,697 (new member, partial cut)
That’s a pretty big difference between Stanford and OrSU. And look how little Utah and CO made.
LikeLike
The part I found most interesting is that Stanford went from to last to first in revenue in only three years.
LikeLike
I guess impressive would be a better word than interesting.
LikeLike
It’s just weird to see a football king be 4th in revenue and well behind #1 though.
LikeLike
2011-12 was the last year of USC’s bowl ban. If they didn’t get a share of the bowl payouts, which averaged $3.3M per Pac-12 team, that explains the difference.
Look at the earlier years. USC is on top in 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. 2000-11, when they were banned from the postseason, the difference between them and the top position is again less than the Pac-10 bowl revenue per team average.
Assuming that the Pac-12 still provides equal shares of bowl revenue, USC should be back on top for the 2012-13 season.
LikeLike
The old Pac 12 deal was very skewed. Last year I saw USC made $7 million and WSU around $2.5 million from TV.
LikeLike
TV is probably the bulk of the differences is those 5 year distributions.
LikeLike
Old PAC-10 set-up was the set-up which rewarded being on TV most. It’s the one reason I always laugh at the notion of the Big 12 being all about Texas greed being a reason for the defections. Colorado went to a conference which had even less equal revenue sharing at the time and Nebraska went to a conference with very equal revenue sharing despite having voted against that in the Big 12. I’m not arguing one way or the other on the issue (there are positives and negatives to both approaches), but it was always a red hearing as far as expansion went.
LikeLike
http://db.lsj.com/blogswp/couchonfire/big-tens-dumping-of-the-little-caesars-bowl-is-fine-unless-it-partners-with-new-ford-field-bowl/
An argument against the B10 keeping the Detroit bowl but dumping the MAC.
LikeLike
Makes a good point ~ a lot of the attendance for that bowl has been from the MAC ~ getting ACC fans to go to Detroit would be a lot harder.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130523/sec-schedule-models/?sct=uk_t11_a4
Andy Staples looks at the SEC’s scheduling model and what they should do.
LikeLike
The last few times I have read him, I’ve become more and more convinced Staples is an idiot.
You don’t toss Alabama-Tennessee or Auburn-Georgia. Maybe LSU-Florida isn’t as important, but its a nice game.
An interesting part about those teams with fixed rivalries-Tennesse, Georgia and Florida have won 20 of the 21 SEC East titles. Alabama, Auburn and LSU have won 17 of the 21 SEC West titles, despite their scheduling “disadvantage.” And those 6 teams have won every SEC title in the last 21 years. In fact, other than Kentucky sharing titles in 1976 and 1977, Noone other than those 6 has won or even shared an SEC title in 50 years.
LikeLike
I’m not a Staples fan, but if the SEC is going to stay at 8 conference then I think they should go ahead and dump the protected rivalries. If Georgia, Auburn, Alabama and Tennessee all want to keep their rivalries then they can just do it as an out of conference game.
Of course the best solution would just be to move to a 9 game schedule…
LikeLike
I think you have to keep the rivalries, but I say only protect what is absolutely necessary. Keep those games and none other. Nine conference games is better though definitely.
LikeLike
Eh. Why do schools have to play each other?
Sure, they’d essentially be 2 7-team conferences meeting in a title game, but so what?
Anyway, I also put a vote in for a 9-game schedule.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You don’t toss Alabama-Tennessee or Auburn-Georgia. Maybe LSU-Florida isn’t as important, but its a nice game.”
Agreed. But maybe not all 14 schools need a locked rival.
“An interesting part about those teams with fixed rivalries-Tennesse, Georgia and Florida have won 20 of the 21 SEC East titles. Alabama, Auburn and LSU have won 17 of the 21 SEC West titles, despite their scheduling “disadvantage.””
The disadvantage is cyclical. Right now, AL gets a huge advantage by having TN locked while LSU and UF get screwed by being locked. But I think his point wasn’t just the locked games but how that also reduces the odds of the other crossover game balancing it out. AL keeps missing all the top teams from the East, for example.
I’d say they should go to 9 and should consider dropping some of the locked games. Ask both schools if they want to keep the game locked. If either one says no, then unlock it.
AU/UGA – keep
AL/TN – keep
AR/MO – keep
MS/VU – keep I think
LSU/UF – drop
MSU/UK – drop
TAMU/SC – drop
LikeLike
I suspect the SEC will go to 9 conference games for the same main reason the Big Ten did: to improve TV inventory.
Once they do that, I think they’ll probably go with 6-1-2. I can’t imagine them unlocking everybody. Perhaps they’ll consider a hybrid (as the Big Ten has done), where some teams have locked rivalries (where they really make sense) and others don’t.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22295427/fairness-tradition-collide-in-argument-over-sec-schedules
And here’s a different opinion from Tony Barnhart. He’s as connected as anyone in the SEC.
I can tell you that the last time this issue was seriously discussed in Destin it was very contentious. Missouri and Texas A&M were coming into the conference and one side felt strongly that at 14 teams, the SEC couldn’t afford to hold on to the old scheduling model for the sake of those two traditional rivalries. The old model survived but there was an understanding that the issue would be revisited.
But I don’t think LSU and the other schools that support this position will win this debate. Two reasons:
1. The votes just aren’t there: It takes a majority of eight votes to do away with the permanent crossovers. Based on some digging around this week, I don’t believe LSU has the votes.
We know that Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Auburn are for the status quo. I feel confident in saying that Mississippi, Mississippi State, Kentucky and Vanderbilt also like the setup because their permanent crossovers (Ole Miss vs. Vanderbilt, Mississippi State vs. Kentucky) are games that both sides feel they will have a chance to win in most years.
“The reality is that many of us are comfortable with who our permanents are,” said Scott Stricklin, athletic director at Mississippi State. “If we’re going to keep the eight-game schedule I am for keeping the permanent crossovers.”
So that’s eight votes right there. And to that list add Florida, which is very happy playing LSU on a yearly basis.
“We’re fine with it,” said Florida AD Jeremy Foley. “I understand where Les Miles is coming [from] and I appreciate LSU’s point of view. But we think it’s a great game for us and a great game for college football. Yeah, it’s a tough game but we’ve got a lot of tough games in the SEC.”
LSU, Texas A&M and South Carolina appear to be interested in change. Arkansas and Missouri are expected to become permanent crossover opponents and an official rivalry game when the 2014 schedules are presented to athletic directors next week. Arkansas-Missouri will be a good game for both schools so I think they like the status quo moving forward.
That’s 11-3 for keeping things as they are. Even if I’m wrong on Arkansas-Missouri, it’s 9-5.
2. Tradition is a really big deal in the SEC. When the Big 12 went to divisional play in 1996 it did not employ permanent cross-division games. Oklahoma and Nebraska were placed in different divisions and, as a result, their annual rivalry, which had been played every year from 1928 until 1997, eventually came to an end.
“So many of these conference realignments have come at the expense of tradition and history,” said Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart, an Alabama graduate who played basketball for C.M. Newton. “I don’t think history runs any deeper than Tennessee and Alabama and the Third Saturday in October. I would hate to see us lose that tradition. I feel very strongly about this.”
This issue could get resolved down the road if the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule. That could potentially give the SEC enough flexibility to make all parties happy. We’ll see.
So with Miles and LSU leading the way, expect a lively discussion on this issue next week in Destin. Commissioner Mike Slive has said repeatedly that he is open to any discussion of how to make football scheduling better and he often reminds us that “The First Amendment is alive and well in the SEC.”
I think 9 games is the long term solution, but a hybrid plan may be the best short term compromise. I’m a little surprised he didn’t mention the idea. It’s clear that AL/TN and AU/UGA should be preserved. I’d also add AR/MO for now since they are in separate divisions and you want to help integrate the newbie. Vandy/MS is also worthy of consideration. But that still leaves TAMU, LSU, MSU, UK, UF and SC. I think an equal rotation makes sense there.
Year 1-2. TAMU/UF, LSU/UK, MSU/SC
Year 3-4. TAMU/SC, LSU/UF, MSU/UK
Year 5-6. TAMU/UK, LSU/SC, MSU/UF
To me that’s better than waiting for the once every 7 years rotation to get games like TAMU/UF and LSU/SC. It’s also more fair to LSU and UF.
LikeLike
What’s interesting, is that you’ve got no one in the SEC saying what Dave Brandon [and I believe others in the Big Ten] are saying: that you want to ensure a student-athlete plays each school in the league at least once in a four-year career.
LikeLike
That used to happen all the time in the SEC in the pre-divisional era.
Now, things how changed quite a bit in the last 20 years, but playing every other schools frequently is never going to be the same priority for the SEC as it is for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-notre-dame-football-weis-kelly-20130523,0,3445823.story
According to the Chicago Tribune, Charlie Weis’s buyout at ND may approach $19M.
Notre Dame’s current and former football coaches cost it at least $3,142,923 for the 2011 football season, but it’s the tab for the dismissal of ex-coach Charlie Weis that indeed may approach $19 million by the end.
Weis received another buyout payment of $2,054,744 as part of the separation agreement for his firing in 2009, bringing the total amount paid to the ousted Irish coach and current Kansas head coach to nearly $10.8 million, according to federal tax documents the school provided the Tribune on Thursday.
It is the second consecutive payment of $2,054,744 to Weis after the initial payment of $6,638,403 after his firing. The university is scheduled for “additional annual payments” through Dec. 2015, so four more installments of the same $2 million-plus figure would bring the total to $18,966,867.
That’s a Ferentz type of contract.
LikeLike
That is an insane deal.
I remember you mentioning the relative success & failure of Bobby Bowden & Weis. I wonder if Weis will make more money from his stint at ND than Bowden did from his entire career.
LikeLike
I doubt it. Bowden made $2.3M per year at the end of his tenure. Before that, he made $1.7M per year. In 1996-2000 he made about $1M per year. He didn’t give a huge discount like JoePa did.
Last contract ~ $6.9M
Penultimate ~ $8.5M
Missing data ~ ???
Previous ~ $5M
Early career ~ ???
That’s $20M there and only covers 1996-2000 and 2003-10. It’s disgustingly close, though, considering the success each had.
LikeLike
Frank, frug, other IL people:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-myke-henry-illinois-basketball-transfer-20130523,0,7720440.story
What the heck is going on at IL? Four players have transferred out from the MBB team since the season ended. Is Groce just cleaning house? Is he pulling a Crean and starting with about 7 players next year?
LikeLike
Is Groce just cleaning house?
Kind of. Since the season ended 3 players (including the reigning MAC PotY) have transferred to Illinois which is forcing a lot current players (especially holdovers from the Weber era) to look for expanded playing time elsewhere.
LikeLike
I meant MAC freshman of the year not player of the year…
LikeLike
I’ll add that in addition to the three transfers this offseason, two players transferred to Illinois last year and will be eligible to play this season.
LikeLike
Things continue to look up for the B10 in the future. A quick look at 2014 recruiting rankings from Scout.com.
Top 10:
SEC – #2, 4, 6, 8
B10 – #5 OSU, 7 MI
Top 25:
SEC – #2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19
B10 – #5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17 (PSU, NW, MSU, WI)
It’s still early, obviously, but that’s better than the B10 has been doing. It also has some new names up in the top group. And lest you wonder if this is just because of getting a lot of early commitments, here’s the data for the top 25 by average recruit ranking:
Top 10:
SEC – #1, 3, 4, 8, 9
B10 – #5 OSU, 6 WI
Top 25:
SEC – #1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25
B10 – #5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 23 (PSU, IA, MN, MI)
So IA and MN are also pulling some good recruits. It’s not as strong as the SEC, but it’s a nice step forward for the B10 if they keep it up.
LikeLike
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-acc-hearing-0523-20130523,0,7872265.story
A look at the hearing on the UMD/ACC lawsuit.
Here’s a couple of points of note.
“Maryland has not yet filed an official notice and need not do so before Aug. 15, 2013, in order to join the Big Ten Conference in 2014,” Kuchno said in a motion filed recently with the court. “Maryland is not presently subject to the Withdrawal Penalty (regardless of its enforceability) and remains an ACC member with full rights and privileges,” the motion said.
That seems like a fairly important point.
Kuchno, a Maryland graduate and Terps sports fan, told the judge the exit fee was not enforceable. He said the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting.
A technicality that may or may not be important.
LikeLike
I wonder which side feels it has the edge in this case. I am guessing Maryland, as I think the 52M figure is ridiculous. Is Maryland willing to go to court if they feel they have the advantage? Is the ACC?
LikeLike
The ACC will have to explain why $52M is not punitive. How did they suffer losses that large since they replaced UMD with UL right away and then added ND? Both sides claim they won’t settle, but we’ll see.
LikeLike
ACC will argue it was a defacto withdrawal, but IMO (non-legal) they get creamed on that point for withholding before it was official.
LikeLike
bullet,
“ACC will argue it was a defacto withdrawal, but IMO (non-legal) they get creamed on that point for withholding before it was official.”
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll try to say UMD is committed elsewhere and such, but the law is all about technicalities.
LikeLike
The ACC and ESPN have announced the conference schedule for the first three weeks of the season, plus nationally televised games the rest of the way (* means it’s nationally televised):
Date Time (ET) Game Network
Thu, Aug 29 6 p.m. North Carolina at No. 8 South Carolina * ESPN
6:30 p.m. Presbyterian at Wake Forest ESPN3
Fri, Aug 30 8 p.m. Florida Atlantic at Miami (Fla.) ESPNU
Sat, Aug 31 Noon Villanova at Boston College ESPN3
Noon Elon at Georgia Tech ESPN3
12:30 p.m. Louisiana Tech at NC State ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
12:30 p.m. Florida International at Maryland ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
3:30 p.m. BYU at Virginia ESPNU
4 p.m. North Carolina Central at Duke ESPN3
5:30 p.m. Chick-fil-A Kickoff: Virginia Tech vs. No. 2 Alabama (from Atlanta) * ESPN
8 p.m. No. 7 Georgia at No. 12 Clemson * ABC
Mon, Sep 2 8 p.m. No. 14 Florida State at Pittsburgh * ESPN
Fri, Sep 6 8 p.m. Wake Forest at Boston College * ESPN2
Sat, Sep 7 Noon No. 11 Florida at Miami (Fla.) ESPN
12:30 p.m. Middle Tennessee at North Carolina ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
12:30 p.m. South Carolina State at No. 12 Clemson ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
1:30 p.m. Western Carolina at Virginia Tech ESPN3
3:30 p.m. No. 3 Oregon at Virginia ABC & ESPN2
4 p.m. Old Dominion at Maryland ESPN3
6 p.m. Richmond at NC State ESPN3
Sat, Sep 14 12:30 p.m. New Mexico at Pittsburgh ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
12:30 p.m. Louisiana-Monroe at Wake Forest ESPN3 ^ / ACC Network
3:30 p.m. Nevada at No. 14 Florida State ESPN or ESPN2
3:30 p.m. Georgia Tech at Duke ESPNU
4 p.m. Wagner at Syracuse ESPN3
Thu, Sep 19 7:30 p.m. No. 12 Clemson at NC State * ESPN
Thu, Sep 26 7:30 p.m. Virginia Tech at Georgia Tech * ESPN
Thu, Oct 17 TBD Miami (Fla.) at North Carolina * ESPN
Thu, Nov 14 7:30 p.m. Georgia Tech at No. 12 Clemson * ESPN
Fri, Nov 29 TBD Miami (Fla.) at Pittsburgh * ABC, ESPN or ESPN2
Sat, Dec 7 7:45 p.m. or 8 p.m. Dr Pepper ACC Championship Game (from Charlotte)
A bit surprised to see Florida at Miami get relatively poor treatment.
LikeLike
vp19,
I removed all the ESPNU and ESPN3 games and reformatted a little:
(* means it’s nationally televised):
Thu, Aug 29
6 p.m. North Carolina at No. 8 South Carolina * ESPN
Sat, Aug 31
5:30 p.m. Chick-fil-A Kickoff: Virginia Tech vs. No. 2 Alabama (from Atlanta) * ESPN
8 p.m. No. 7 Georgia at No. 12 Clemson * ABC
Mon, Sep 2
8 p.m. No. 14 Florida State at Pittsburgh * ESPN
Fri, Sep 6
8 p.m. Wake Forest at Boston College * ESPN2
Sat, Sep 7
Noon No. 11 Florida at Miami (Fla.) ESPN
3:30 p.m. No. 3 Oregon at Virginia ABC & ESPN2
Sat, Sep 14
3:30 p.m. Nevada at No. 14 Florida State ESPN or ESPN2
Thu, Sep 19
7:30 p.m. No. 12 Clemson at NC State * ESPN
Thu, Sep 26
7:30 p.m. Virginia Tech at Georgia Tech * ESPN
Thu, Oct 17
TBD Miami (Fla.) at North Carolina * ESPN
Thu, Nov 14
7:30 p.m. Georgia Tech at No. 12 Clemson * ESPN
Fri, Nov 29
TBD Miami (Fla.) at Pittsburgh * ABC, ESPN or ESPN2
Sat, Dec 7
7:45 p.m. or 8 p.m. Dr Pepper ACC Championship Game (from Charlotte)
A bit surprised to see Florida at Miami get relatively poor treatment.
As an outsider, I don’t see many attractive games on that list. Only a single one matches 2 pre-season ranked teams. All the other games with ranked teams look like blowouts on paper. Four of the games don’t even have 1 ranked team. There are no Saturday prime time regular season games after 9/14, either, just 4 Thursday games and 1 Friday game.
To be fair, not all the ACC’s best games are on that list:
10/19 – 14. FSU @ 12. Clemson
11/2 – Miami @ 14. FSU
And I agree UF @ Miami is a good game, but there’s a lot of competition on 9/7. ND @ MI is in prime-time that night, for example.
LikeLike
Thanks for cleaning that up a bit; I was in a bit of a rush to get it done before TCM showed several recently restored Harold Lloyd two-reelers from about 1919. (Fascinating to watch him develop his on-screen persona, though the greatness of his features — “Safety Last!”, “Girl Shy” and “Speedy” — was still on the horizon.)
LikeLike
ESPN doesn’t set mid- & late-season Sat. primetime slots before the season begins for any conference except the B10 (and maybe SEC).
They like to pick and choose,
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
“But there is no league that wants Oklahoma without Texas coming along.”
Categorically false! The Sooners turned down Slive/SEC before A&M joined. The Sooners could have easily gone to the SEC without Tejas.
But, Boren is just as Southern high-toned as Powers, so OU’s President said no to the the perceived academically inferior/backward SEC. (Reasonable people do not believe this, but apparently Boren and OU’s administration does.)
LikeLike
Clay Hawkins,
“But, Boren is just as Southern high-toned as Powers, so OU’s President said no to the the perceived academically inferior/backward SEC. (Reasonable people do not believe this, but apparently Boren and OU’s administration does.)”
Those reasonable people may well be wrong depending on which B12 and which SEC you are comparing.
AAU:
old B12 – CO, NE, TAMU, MO, UT, ISU, KU
interim B12 – TAMU, MO, UT, ISU, KU
new B12 – UT, ISU, KU
old SEC – UF, Vandy
new SEC – UF, Vandy, TAMU, MO
—
USNWR:
old B12
46 UT, 65 TAMU, 77 BU, 97 CO, 97 MO, 101 ISU, 101 NE, 101 OU, 106 KU, 139 KSU, 139 OkSU, 165 TT
Average = 103, Median = 101, Standard deviation = 31.5
interim B12
46 UT, 65 TAMU, 77 BU, 97 MO, 101 ISU, 101 OU, 106 KU, 139 KSU, 139 OkSU, 165 TT
Average = 104, Median = 101, Standard deviation = 34.4
new B12
46 UT, 65 TAMU, 77 BU, 92 TCU, 97 MO, 101 ISU, 101 OU, 106 KU, 139 KSU, 139 OkSU, 165 TT, 165 WV
Average = 113, Median = 104, Standard deviation = 36.5
—
old SEC
17 VU, 54 UF, 63 UGA, 77 AL, 89 AU, 101 TN, 115 SC, 125 UK, 134 LSU, 134 AR, 151 MS, 160 MSU
Average = 102, Median = 108, Standard deviation = 41.2
new SEC
17 VU, 54 UF, 63 UGA, 65 TAMU, 77 AL, 89 AU, 97 MO, 101 TN, 115 SC, 125 UK, 134 LSU, 134 AR, 151 MS, 160 MSU
Average = 99, Median = 101, Standard deviation = 40.8
—
A reasonable person should see that the old B12 was clearly a better academic league than the old SEC. The interim B12 was still better, but not as much. The current versions are pretty similar.
A different question would be whether or not that’s a sufficient reason not to join a conference.
LikeLike
@Clay Hawkins: I wrote in the present tense; you wrote in the past tense. Big Difference.
Right now, there is no league that wants Oklahoma without Texas coming along, which is what I stated. The fact that it was different in the past is not what I was talking about.
LikeLike
@Marc,
Still wrong. The SEC propositioned the University of Oklahoma even before A&M, not long after Nebraska. (Actually, it appears that A&M Administration wanted the Sooners to come along even after OU had turned down Slive/SEC. Boren and OU’s Administration begged the Hissies to stay in the Big XII but it was a no go…..A&M wanted out of the Shorthorns’ shadow for good.)
And if Boren picked up the phone right now and called Slive, the Sooners would be admitted to the SEC in a heartbeat. It doesn’t matter if the offer was in the past….with arguably the most storied program in the history of college football the Sooners could get admitted to the SEC or the ACC right now without Tejas (not the B1G or the PAC as OU just doesn’t bring the academic cache).
LikeLike
*not long after Nebraska went to the B1G.
LikeLike
Clay – I agree that the SEC would take Oklahoma anytime. The problem is that OK State couldn’t tag along. There is NO way that the SEC is going to double up on the state of Oklahoma, when it apparently isn’t willing to double up in the state of Florida with Florida State.
OK State is a deal killer for the SEC. The only place OK State may be able to tag along is to the Pac-12, but apparently the Pac doesn’t want Oklahoma & OK State without Texas.
LikeLike
We don’t really know what might be possible for OU by themselves. They aren’t leaving OkSU, and don’t have to go anywhere as long as UT stays. Some (me included) think its highly likely OU’s flirtation with the PAC was an internal B12 leverage play, or possibly an attempt to dislodge UT. Point is OU doesn’t need or want to explore a move by themselves.
LikeLike
@CCrider,
>>>>>
Some (me included) think its highly likely OU’s flirtation with the PAC was an internal B12 leverage play
<<<<<
110% true.
LikeLike
Leaving aside the academic pros and cons, the SEC isn’t in Oklahoma’s best interest. Right now, as I understand it, the Big XII has pretty similar TV/bowl payouts as the SEC, because they’re spreading it across 10 schools, not 14.
On top of that, Oklahoma has won 8 of the 18 Big XII championships in football. Of the 10 they didn’t win, four were taken by schools no longer in the league (CO, NE, and A&M). So, in the Big XII, they figure to win the championship around half the time, and maybe even a bit more, which guarantees them either a Sugar Bowl berth or a playoff berth.
The SEC would need to offer them way more money, to compensate for being in a league where they’d be merely one of several perennial powerhouses. There is also the Oklahoma State problem. Once it loses either Texas or Oklahoma, the Big XII becomes a league on deathwatch.
LikeLike
Once it loses either Texas or Oklahoma, the Big XII becomes a league on deathwatch.
Unless some GOR challenge occurs in the interim, that probably won’t happen for a decade or so. The most likely scenario is the Pac, given yet one more chance, not blowing it this time, taking in Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State. Come 2027, the financial discrepancy between the ACC and the Big Ten/SEC (not helped any by ESPN’s follies with the ACC network) will grow to the point that its lead members have no alternative than to flee for greener pastures (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and either Florida State or Duke to the B1G, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC). The leftovers from the Big 12 and ACC would then merge into a new conference, aided by adding an AAC member:
West
Baylor
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Louisville
Texas Christian
East
Boston College
Duke/Florida State
Miami
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Wake Forest
West Virginia
LikeLike
Right…I was referring to the fairly distant future. I do not expect any league’s GOR to be pierced until it has, at the most, 2-4 years left to run.
The most likely scenario is the Pac, given yet one more chance, not blowing it this time, taking in Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State.
As I understand it — correct me if I’m wrong — the Pac-12 didn’t blow it. Texas was willing to move only if they retained their Tier 3 rights. That would have created a league where Texas had a different deal than everyone else, which the Pac quite rightly considered untenable. I mean, there’s no way a king like USC is going to let Texas keep Tier 3, when the Trojans, like everyone else in the Pac, have signed over their full rights to the league.
LikeLike
I think eventually what will happen is the Big XII will vote to disband the GOR. Once the College Football Playoff gets rolling and the conferences start complaining about 14 team schedules that don’t work out very well. The push to 16 will begin. Here are my guesses.
Big Ten: Iowa State & Kansas, they don’t have much of a choice unless Missouri does the unthinkable and joins the Big Ten or gets offered membership. Big Ten will want Kansas and I think Iowa State may get in through political manuevering and its AAU status, which in the end along with Kansas can help Nebraska earn its stripes back (I think it was a political move by people from Texas etc who didn’t like Nebraska help start this mess).
ACC: Navy (Football Only, maybe Baseball & LaCrosse too) & West Virginia. Navy adds another ACC game for Notre Dame and makes the other 15 teams split into 3 pods of 5 that Notre Dame can rotate for their 5 games a year and having a 6th game with Navy every year. I think it’s a logical fit and I wouldn’t be surprised if Pittsburgh pushed for West Virginia to be included.
Pac-12: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas & Texas Tech – I think the Pac-12 only wants Oklahoma & Texas but wouldn’t mind having New Mexico and Texas Tech is more of a throw-in. You then turn LHN into a Oklahoma/Texas Pac-12 channel while New Mexico & Texas Tech share a Pac-12 Southwest channel. Good academic fits (Texas Tech not so much).
SEC: Kansas State & Oklahoma State, now most people will laugh but both those schools fit the profile of the other SEC schools and gets them into two very good recruiting areas and two teams with strong football programs and basketball programs. They may not have many options and these two would not be bad in any way what so ever. Then an SEC West of Arkansas, K-State, LSU, Mississippi State, Mizzou, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M with the SEC East of pretty much the originals. It would work out very well for them.
Overall, I think the Big XII will be the league that gets destroyed or absorbs the new AAC or merge and are allowed to keep the TV deals in place.
Big XIV West: Baylor, Houston, Memphis, SMU, TCU, Tulane & Tulsa
BIG XIV East: Cinncinatti, ECU, UCF, USF, Temple, UConn & UMass
Then Mountain West reaches 14 football members by adding BYU (Football Only), Idaho & New Mexico State. C-USA will stay at 14 members too and at that point I think realignment dies down with the 4 Super-Conferences and 3 14-team member Mid-Major conferences with MAC & Sun Belt staying at 12 members and being irrelevent.
LikeLike
Coach K, on Dan Patrick, just directly pointed to a conference having lost teams to multiple conferences as the most likely volatile place for any big splashes in realignment to occur. Said also that he expects the PAC to grow. I’m sure glad eastern coaches have their finger on the administrative pulse in the west…(sarcasm)
LikeLike
Let’s see, the ACC lost South Carolina to the SEC and Maryland to the Big 10. Or is he talking about the Southern Conference which appears to be splintering one more time, 1933, 1953, 1970s, now.
LikeLike
Seems like the WAC and The American have both lost multiple teams to multiple conferenes ~ heck, The American has lost some teams before they actually started playing in the conference. Hard to see how anything they do as constituting a big splash, though.
Maybe the next big splash is to take place in the mid-20’s, when the Big12 GOR expires. They’ve lost schools to three conferences.
LikeLike
Would we pay any attention to his comments if he coached anywhere but Duke?
LikeLike
He’s also done very well with Team USA. But mostly it’s because he’s a Hall of Fame MBB coach and in the ACC, yes.
LikeLike
Well, considering that ESPN made the announcement about the job cuts, it’s entirely possible that they could cancel the Longhorn Network, as an example, after they fulfill that contract. Also, we’ve read articles about the difficulty of setting up an ACC Network, on top of committing to the SEC Network.
Another factor is new technology that allows streaming on a major scale and/or a-la-carte being shoved down the industry’s throats. How that goes down would be very interesting.
Where I have my doubts is why would any major conference would want to have their Grants of Rights severely tested in courts. Yes, Grants of Rights have had court tests before but when it comes to major public and private institutions already associating together the dynamics exponentially multiply.
LikeLike
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130523/SPORTS/130529834/1031/PU
In football, the Big Ten has fallen behind the SEC in terms of national success. Any reason for that?
You have two very different models. You have an SEC model and a Big Ten model. The SEC model, almost across the board, is sponsoring the minimum number of sports (16). I’m not being negative toward the SEC, but their strategy has been to take seven men’s sports and nine women’s sports. That puts them in a gender equity balance. If you are getting 80,000 to 90,000 in your stadium, what that means is you’re spending an awful lot on football. You have to call it what it is. I’m not saying it’s wrong.
The Big Ten model is, let’s get more kids, more opportunities. We have a larger athlete base. Our grant in aid (scholarship) base is bigger. It’s not that we don’t spend, but football in the south is a religion. It just is. When you look at the dollars and models, they’re very different.
For the Big Ten, the David Boudia story (the former Boiler won a diving gold medal in last year’s Olympics), and every school has one, are excellent reasons why you do it. Two sports (football and basketball) fund everybody else.
At Purdue, we’re at the low end of the sports funded. We’re at 20 if you count track and field indoor and outdoor as four sports. It’s one way we try to compete with Ohio State and Michigan. We don’t sponsor as many sports. I can’t afford them. I should have men’s soccer. Purdue should have men’s soccer. But to do that I’d have to add two women’s sports because of gender equity. It’s about $1 million a year, recurring. I don’t have that right now, particularly when scholarship dollars have doubled in the last last seven years. So that money is growing at a much faster rate than a lot of our revenue streams.
Having said that, the model in athletics, the compensation has gotten out of whack. The public has started to grouse about it. I don’t blame them. It’s like the CEO that makes all those millions of dollars. That upsets people. I can see that. I’m not sure where that ends up.
There are some things in athletics, because we’re not willing to go back in, that aren’t going to change. Some people measure the success of our coach in football in part by how much they’re paid. I’m not sure that’s the right way to measure it. There were performance metrics in (former coach Danny Hope’s) contract that would have paid had they been hit.
We have so much money tied up in the alumni base supporting our programs, that it almost becomes like if they don’t perceive you’re investing, they won’t invest. It’s an interesting situation.
We have some things in our own house that don’t make sense, but we also have different competing models. In particular, the SEC and Big Ten are opposite ends of the spectrum. It makes for a challenge if you’re going to try to challenge for a national championship.
Everything is cyclical. Everybody thought Big Ten basketball was dead a few years ago. It’s not.
Interesting comments from Purdue’s athletic director. Kind of goes hand in hand with the recent discussion regarding lower assistant coaching salaries in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a lot of explanations for the SEC’s dominance. I’m not sure yours is the correct one — or indeed, that ONE explanation is sufficient, all by itself.
You also say it’s cyclical, which would mean there’s no structural advantage, and eventually the competitive balance will revert to parity.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd
Sorry for the confusion. It’s not my explanation. These are comments from Purdue’s Athletic Director. I suspect he knows a little more about this subject than I do. I meant to put quotations beginning and ending “In football, the Big Ten has fallen behind the SEC in terms of national success. Any reason for that? Everything is cyclical. Everybody thought Big Ten basketball was dead a few years ago.”
LikeLike
The notion that it is cyclical has some appeal. The SEC has won the last 7 BCS championship games, but they won only 2 of the first 8. (One of those first 2 was disputed, as USC won the AP title, but didn’t make it to the BCS title game.) A lot of the SEC’s often-touted advantages were true when they were going 2 for 8, as much as they are now.
LikeLike
The SEC has a few advantages over the BIG in football; some can be overcome, some can’t.
1. Oversigning. That is an huge advantage. Not only does oversigning insulate the schools doing it against the normal bust rate of prospects, it also keeps highly rated prospects out of other schools hands. Oversigning schools essential run their program like a NFL training camp and cut underperforming prospects before they get a degree. The transfer rules help make this practice remain such a huge advantage. The institution of 4 year degrees can help big cut into this practice.
2. Coaching. Not only does the SEC pay their coaches, head and assistant, more on average, but they are quick to fire. One of the main reasons the BIG has declined is that a few coaches held on too long, like Carr and especially Paterno, that is was a detriment to the program. Recruiting is the life blood of a program. 18 year olds tend to like the hot new program on the block. Not to mention older coaches typically lose their “game” so to speak in the recruiting world to younger more hungry coaches. The BIG is starting to catch up here. The days of 10-20 year coaches are over.
3. Recruiting grounds. Right now the bulk of the great football players are coming from the south. Where once the industrial center of the country resided along the rust belt and help produced a huge amount of great players, that industrial complex started to migrate to other countries and the southern United States. Football is a rural/suburbs blue collar sport. The cities of the north do a much better job at producing basketball players as opposed to football players. This is a trend though, not something that will continue forever. The northern states will have to do a better job a bringing back manufacturing just to survive. With blue collar jobs, come sons of blue collar workers. The BIG coaches will just have to work harder to bring in southern talent or the BIG will have to expand to bring in southern schools.
4. It means more. This cannot be overcome. The BIG will always have to compete with professional sports for casual fans and interest. The SEC does not have that competition. SEC football is the only game in town. This is a huge advantage because SEC teams will do whatever it takes to win. Fans as well. As much as I love Penn State football, I am not about to poison an inconic tree because OSU won or rip out a mans testicle like what happened between an OU and Texas fan. I will just roll into Flyers hockey and now PSU hockey. College football is religion down south. Even Profootball takes a back seat in some competing marketplaces. That is not the case up north. Where things matter more, more resources both legal and illegal are poured into it.
I do believe that things are cyclical. The BIG of the 2000’s is really reminiscent of the SEC of the 90’s: Tressel dominated much like Spurier, yet each only won one championship and tended to crap the bed in the bowl games. However, the SEC won a couple of championships that decade with Alabama and Tennessee. The SEC’s dominance will subside a bit but they will always be the number 1 football conference, simply because it means more down there. The BIG will win some championships but the SEC will always be right there, even when they are down.
LikeLike
People say that Lloyd Carr held on too long, but he took Michigan to BCS bowls in three of his last five seasons, won the Big Ten title (or a share of it) roughly half the time, won the same number of national championships as Tressel did, and finished out of the rankings in only one season out of 13.
Now, I won’t deny that there’s plenty of room for complaint about Lloyd Carr, especially at the end: losing 6 of his last 7 to Ohio State, losing 5 of his last 7 bowl games (including three Rose Bowls), and the loss to Appalachian State, among other things. On the other hand, in his penultimate year, he missed a trip to the BCS title game by the margin of a field goal.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has too many complacent coaches who are getting outworked on the recruiting trail.
LikeLike
jokewood,
“The Big Ten has too many complacent coaches who are getting outworked on the recruiting trail.”
I don’t think that’s really true any more.
Too soon to tell – Hazell, Andersen, Kill, Wilson, Beckman
Not true – Meyer, Hoke, O’Brien, Fitzgerald
Maybe – Dantonio, Pelini
True – Ferentz
LikeLike
Meyer, Hoke, Fitz, and O’Brien — agree that they’re doing well. Meyer and Hoke are recruiting upgrades over their predecessors. Fitz does a good job selling Northwestern’s program. O’Brien is doing well considering his limitations. Also, Wilson had a decent class last year at Indiana.
Pelini, Ferentz — absolutely lazy at schools where demographics demand extra effort. Ferentz can only go so far coaching up 3* talent. Pelini isn’t bringing in the talent to move beyond 4-loss seasons.
Dantonio — not lazy, but certainly getting outworked. Made a killing off of RichRod’s poor regional recruiting. Misses Enos and Treadwell.
Andersen — too soon to tell. Bielema definitely needs to up his game in the SEC.
Beckman — downgrade from Zook as a recruiter. Zook was a mediocre coach, but he certainly could recruit… so much NFL talent with such poor results.
Hazell — can’t really be worse than Hope.
LikeLike
jokewood,
“Also, Wilson had a decent class last year at Indiana.”
Yep, but I like a bigger sample to be sure since it’s his first gig.
“Pelini, Ferentz — absolutely lazy at schools where demographics demand extra effort. Ferentz can only go so far coaching up 3* talent. Pelini isn’t bringing in the talent to move beyond 4-loss seasons.”
I said maybe with Pelini because I just didn’t follow NE as much until they joined. They do seem down on talent from where they should be, though, especially on D. I do know he’s often competing with Meyer and Hoke for some of the same guys, though. OSU and MI may be more attractive than NE rather than it being a lack of effort.
“Dantonio — not lazy, but certainly getting outworked. Made a killing off of RichRod’s poor regional recruiting. Misses Enos and Treadwell.”
I think he also suffers from often competing with OSU and MI for the same kids. You can work all you want, but it’s hard to win if the other guy has a better product to sell.
“Andersen — too soon to tell. Bielema definitely needs to up his game in the SEC.”
I’m curious to see how he does down there.
“Beckman — downgrade from Zook as a recruiter. Zook was a mediocre coach, but he certainly could recruit… so much NFL talent with such poor results.”
Yep, but Beckman still works hard. Look at all the effort he put into recruiting in State College. He’s not as effective as Zook, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t work as hard.
“Hazell — can’t really be worse than Hope.”
Assuming he does anything, he’s an improvement I agree.
My point is, the old reputation of the B10 is no longer fitting. It’s still not the SEC, but it’s competitive with everyone else.
LikeLike
“Dantonio — not lazy, but certainly getting outworked. Made a killing off of RichRod’s poor regional recruiting. Misses Enos and Treadwell.”
I think he also suffers from often competing with OSU and MI for the same kids. You can work all you want, but it’s hard to win if the other guy has a better product to sell.
I doubt that Dantonio suddenly stopped working as hard as he did a few years ago. Rich Rodriguez fielded poor teams and paid less attention to local recruiting than his predecessors. That left a void, which Dantonio filled.
When Michigan is getting the job done, MSU is just not going to get very many of the kids that Michigan wants. It has nothing to do with Dantonio. Nick Saban coached there too, and found the same thing.
LikeLike
The second tier of Big Ten schools need to watch out for programs like Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, and Vanderbilt. In the 6-7 months that he’s been on the job, Mark Stoops has already received LOIs or verbal commitments from 9 Ohio recruits with Big Ten offers. Those are Midwestern kids ditching the Big Ten for a rookie head coach at a bottom-feeder SEC school that went 1-10 against FBS schools last year. It’s one thing for elite programs like Bama/LSU/USC/UF/OU to come into the Midwest and steal a kid. But the rest of the conference needs to work harder to keep the top local kids who don’t get UM/OSU/ND offers. The Big Ten is going to be on the losing end of most recruiting battles in Texas, California, or the Southeast.
LikeLike
Re: “It’s one thing for elite programs like Bama/LSU/USC/UF/OU to come into the Midwest and steal a kid. But the rest of the conference needs to work harder to keep the top local kids who don’t get UM/OSU/ND offers.”
Collectively, the Big Ten does better than just about anyone else at keeping local recruits in conference. Here are “recruiting records” for the last three years (2011-2013), which looks at the offers a recruit receives and where they end up. It then assigns “wins” and “losses” appropriately.
As you can see, the Big Ten does very well in the Big Ten region, bested only by the Pac-12 in its home region. Its struggles overall in recruiting (second chart) are due much more to difficulty pulling recruits from out-of-region, especially from the southeast and Texas (e.g. Big Ten on SEC/ACC region and Big Ten on Big 12 region).
I would attribute Mark Stoops success at Ohio recruiting to the fact that he played and coached high school football there rather than to any sort of larger “Big Ten vs SEC” issue.
Rank Conference Region Rating Record
1 Pac-12 Pac-12 6.53 806-310
2 Big Ten Big Ten 5.89 2499-1196
3 SEC ACC 5.7 6957-4807
4 SEC SEC 5.68 8478-5653
5 Big 12 Big 12 5.65 1943-1315
6 ACC ACC 5.55 5211-4157
7 Big 12 Pac-12 5.49 164-212
8 SEC Big East 5.49 4643-3702
9 ACC Big East 5.45 4130-3274
10 ACC SEC 5.4 4799-4348
11 SEC Big 12 5.32 1131-953
12 SEC Pac-12 5.29 206-325
13 Big Ten Pac-12 5.27 174-305
14 Big 12 SEC 5.12 2944-2963
15 Big Ten Big East 5.04 3241-3323
16 Pac-12 ACC 5.0 868-1004
17 SEC Big Ten 4.86 498-604
18 Pac-12 Big East 4.84 807-1005
19 Pac-12 SEC 4.79 1509-1920
20 Pac-12 Big 12 4.78 717-893
21 Big East Big East 4.75 2622-3360
22 Big East ACC 4.57 2033-3001
23 Big East SEC 4.56 2074-3048
24 Big Ten Big 12 4.49 483-754
25 Big 12 Big Ten 4.44 329-513
26 Big 12 ACC 4.42 1063-1725
27 Pac-12 Big Ten 4.33 247-435
28 Big East Big Ten 4.33 599-1023
29 Big 12 Big East 4.29 1071-1850
30 Big Ten ACC 4.21 1554-2992
31 Big Ten SEC 4.11 1849-3721
32 ACC Pac-12 4.03 48-175
33 ACC Big Ten 3.95 325-726
34 ACC Big 12 3.43 110-353
35 Big East Pac-12 3.39 19-90
36 Big East Big 12 2.27 20-136
1 SEC 6.02 5987-3327
2 ACC 5.8 3799-3009
3 Pac-12 5.71 3276-2094
4 Big 12 5.53 2884-2231
5 Big Ten 5.52 4101-3203
6 Big East 4.87 2117-2547
7 C-USA 4.06 1539-2843
8 Mountain West 3.56 592-1413
9 Sun Belt 3.55 773-1807
10 WAC 3.34 459-1237
11 MAC 2.86 556-2372
LikeLike
jokewood,
“The second tier of Big Ten schools need to watch out for programs like Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, and Vanderbilt. In the 6-7 months that he’s been on the job, Mark Stoops has already received LOIs or verbal commitments from 9 Ohio recruits with Big Ten offers. Those are Midwestern kids ditching the Big Ten for a rookie head coach at a bottom-feeder SEC school that went 1-10 against FBS schools last year.”
The first year is the easiest time to sell your new program. I’m sure Stoops is busy explaining how it’ll be different with him there. Let’s see what happens after a few years. UL has actual results to point to. UL’s team is better than some of the B10 teams, so they should steal a few OH recruits. Truth is, they always have taken a few. So has UK, etc. OH feeds every team within 400+ miles to some extent. It’s the FL of the north in that sense.
As was also pointed out, Stoops is from OH and knows the coaches there. That matters.
LikeLike
prophet – just to be clear, the SEC sponsors 21 sports. 10 of the 14 schools sponsor 20 to 23 sports. The four smallest schools (Arkansas – 19, Ole Miss – 18, Miss State – 17 & Vandy – 16) sponsor less. Since 2000, SEC men’s teams from 9 schools have won a total of 43 NCs in every men’s conference-sponsored sport, and and 7 schools have won 37 women’s NCs in 8 of the 12 women’s conference-sponsored sports. It goes higher, if you count Vandy’s women’s bowling NCs.
People like to complain about the SEC not sponsoring more sports. Sure, it would be great to add wrestling and men’s soccer, but in order to comply with Title IX, additional women’s sports would have to be added. There just aren’t that many high school girls in the south playing field hockey, ice hockey, snow skiing or water polo. Realistically, women’s lacrosse is about the only other sport the SEC could add, but outside of Georgia, Florida, and Texas, I’d bet there are only a handful of girls high school LAX clubs within the rest of the SEC footprint. Rowing may be a possibility, but outside of a few elite prep schools in larger cities, there would be very few home-grown rowers.
What would be the point of bringing in athletes from a thousand miles away to play in a sport that very few local high schools sponsor?
LikeLike
@Alan – I’m very surprised that Women’s Bowling and Rifle are not SEC sports.
LikeLike
Mike – you’re right. Bowling and rifle are logical possible adds. If equestrian and sand volleyball become NCAA sports, that would help the SEC too.
LikeLike
@Alan – Bowling just might be the least expensive sport you can sponsor. I’m surprised that more schools haven’t used bowling to solve Title IX problems. Sand volleyball is another “cheap” sport to add since schools already have the coaches and the athletes are already insured and on scholarship. Despite the four SEC schools that participate in equestrian I think that is too costly gain widespread adoption.
I’m a little surprised to hear that rowing and water polo are not popular in the south. I figured the sunbelt would be their natural home.
LikeLike
South Carolina, Georgia, Auburn and TAMU have equestrian teams.
Alabama and Tennessee have rowing teams.
Kentucky and Mississippi have rifle teams.
Florida and Vanderbilt have lacrosse teams.
8 SEC schools have gymnastics teams.
Most SEC schools have softball and volleyball – I know Vanderbilt does not
All SEC women compete in basketball and soccer.
The 2 most pressed schools for funding women are the Mississippi schools
The issue is not participation but common sports as SEC women seem varied instead of centralized after you get past basketball, softball, soccer, and volleyball. This is not counting the coed sports like golf and tennis as they are by nature coed and not female only sports.
The easiest might be equestrian as almost every school has a club but only 4 of 14 are NCAA recognized teams. A school like Kentucky – which should be a natural for equestrian or polo – would actually be downgraded shifting to full NCAA status as their members are closer to olympic or professional level.
In the B1G you have more centralization as :
8 of 14 have a rowing team
10 of 14 have a gymnastics team
14 of 14 have a softball team
14 of 14 have a volleyball team
A school like Ohio State sponsors all kinds of sports but few schools in the country can match that financial outlay. In the SEC maybe only Florida and TAMU have that kind of depth in both money and native talent at the high school level. If you just look at rifle – where the participants must supply their own guns at around 5K per gun and a 2 gun minimum – and it drops participation greatly at the high school level. My guess is the personal cost for equestrian is through the roof. I remember they were raising money for Courtney King up around Traverse City to send her to the olympics but I can not remember if she had done equestrian in college at a B1G school.
LikeLike
@duffman – I found this chart handy when comparing SEC Women’s sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Conference#Women.27s_sponsored_sports_by_school
It doesn’t list Vandy’s Bowling team although. Vandy sponsors the least amount of sports for both Men and Women in the SEC.
LikeLike
Sand Volleyball is an emerging sport ~ I think that means they can count scholarships for Sand Volleyball, but it doesn’t get all that many scholarships ~ 6 FTE with 14 counters by 2014 if you sponsor women’s volleyball (on top of 12 headcount scholarships for women’s volleyball), 8 with 14 counters if you don’t sponsor women’s volleyball. Bowling allow 5 FTE.
Rifle is 3.6 coed, so even if you have a women-only team wouldn’t be much help with TitleIX ~ if you have a co-ed team, it could be set up to neutralize net TitleIX obligations, with scholarship money distributed in line with your M/F ratio.
For bigger budget schools, one appeal of rowing is the TitleIX flexibility it gives, with 20 FTE scholarships allowed. If they had a little leeway in their existing women’s sports, a school with a 45/55 M/F ratio or higher could well add two of baseball, men’s soccer or men’s lacrosse.
LikeLike
Allan:
It is a matter of priorities. Schools with similar incomes supporting disparate number of sports reflects that. I don’t think the recent SEC FB championships were dependent on that formula. $’s doesn’t hurt, but the level of diminishing returns has been passed. Other opportunities are being forgone.
This isn’t advocating against FB, but rather the anything/everything spent on football is required to make the money it does mentality. Entire sports could be run with an assistant coaches salary, let alone the payments many schools are making to fired head coaches.
LikeLike
let alone the payments many schools are making to fired head coaches.
This!
LikeLike
“What would be the point of bringing in athletes from a thousand miles away to play in a sport that very few local high schools sponsor?”
Some Hawkeye fans like to complain that the Iowa field hockey team has never had an Iowa girl on it’s roster. They have a point.
Their current roster is primarily from NJ and PA. A girl from Michigan is the closest to IC.
http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/w-fieldh/mtt/iowa-w-fieldh-mtt.html
LikeLike
So you are saying Iowa field hockey = Ronin?
Iowa is the home for the players without a home
LikeLike
“What would be the point of bringing in athletes from a thousand miles away to play in a sport that very few local high schools sponsor?”
Typically for Title IX compliance to allow the school to play a men’s sport that many local high schools sponsor … like soccer.
LikeLike
CFP breakdown with Bill Hancock. I don’t know if there is any new information here.
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/24/hancock-breaks-down-college-football-playoff/
A committee consisting of 14-20 members will select the four teams participating in the playoff and choose the four other bowl match-ups. But there are more questions than answers right now about the committee.
The semifinals also will be considered bowl games. That means the full bowl experience, including gifts.
PAYOUTS: $6 million to the semifinalists, $4 million to the other bowl teams. The championship qualifiers will not receive extra money. The rest of the revenue is distributed to the conference via a formula yet to be finalized.
LikeLike
greg,
It’s a good reminder of the basics of the setup and what remains to be decided.
Some key points you didn’t mention:
1. The committee makes all the decision about who’s in and the bowls and TV have no say.
A selection committee will determine the full, 12-team roster of semifinalists (four) and bowl teams (eight), consisting of at least the champions of the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 conferences and the highest-ranked champion from the other five leagues (American, MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, Conference USA). The committee will select the other six teams based on criteria.
The bowls no longer get a choice for at-large teams. Travel parties, geography or television prominence have no bearing on the selection process.
“Television will not have anything to say about that,” Hancock said. “As slots are open, the committee will decide what teams go to those games. Of course that’s a significant change over the BCS. The bowls have agreed to participate with the understanding that their teams will be assigned by the committee.”
2. Several factors could influence where you play. Common sense will be used.
The selection committee does have the option to slot match-ups based on regional emphasis. For instance, if Texas is considered an at-large team and the Cotton Bowl has an open slot, the Longhorns might fit better in Dallas than in Miami. Likewise, the committee will try to avoid scheduling rematches.
3. Also, there are the contracts.
The Rose Bowl will continue its traditional Big Ten-Pac-12 match-up the eight seasons it doesn’t host a semifinal. The Sugar Bowl will host SEC and Big 12 representatives the eight years it doesn’t host a semifinal. The Orange Bowl hosts the ACC champion in its eight non-playoff years. The Orange Bowl also worked out a deal with the SEC (at least three picks), Big Ten (at least three picks) and Notre Dame (maximum of two picks) as the ACC’s opponent the other eight years.
If the champions of those five conferences cannot compete in their contracted bowl because it is hosting a semifinal, they automatically qualify for another available bowl (Cotton, Fiesta, Peach). However if a league champion earns a semifinal spot, only a previous arrangement would guarantee another league team (Big Ten at the Rose or Orange bowls) a major bowl slot.
Emphasis mine. So when the Rose is hosting a semifinal, if the B10 champ makes the playoff another B10 team is not guaranteed to be a replacement like it would be if the Rose wasn’t hosting a semifinal.
LikeLike
Some other bowl nuggets in there:
Timing:
The Rose and Sugar bowls will air on Jan. 1 (or Jan. 2 if Jan. 1 falls on a Sunday). It doesn’t matter if either hosts a semifinal (years 1, 4, 7, 10) or a traditional bowl match-up. The Rose will stay at 4 p.m., while the Sugar Bowl will start afterward.
“All of them obviously have long traditions,” Hancock said. “It was just something that the conferences negotiated.”
The other bowls will rotate between Dec. 31 and the first time slot on Jan. 1. Semifinal games outside of the Rose or Sugar bowls will run in the second and third time slot on Dec. 31.
Exclusive windows on 12/31 and 1/1 after the early games:
An industry source told The Gazette it’s likely other bowls likely will air on ABC or ESPN2 concurrently with the first games on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 but not against the late afternoon games on those dates. The Capital One Bowl, for instance, has been played in early afternoon on Jan. 1 every year since 1987.
LikeLike
Biggest thing for me there is that the Citrus (and probably Outback) will remain January 1st. The later time starts are exclusive, but the first game isn’t.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Biggest thing for me there is that the Citrus (and probably Outback) will remain January 1st. The later time starts are exclusive, but the first game isn’t.”
The unfortunate thing is that it may mean the B10 has 4 simultaneous games again (Citrus, Outback, Gator, Heart of Dallas).
LikeLike
The Dallas bowl likely should be a morning (and the organizers want it to remain a NYD) game, and I think ABC would still like the Citrus/Outback (going against the Orange or Peach) to be a lead-in to the Rose. However, with the BCS bowls moving out of the space between NYD and the title game, I see no reason why the Outback/Citrus & Gator (and maybe even the Alamo and/or Holiday) should not fill the void by being played in the week or so between NYD and the title game.
In fact, as the Holiday and Citrus both have other bowls taking place on the same field earlier, they’re prime candidates for being moved back in to that space.
I
LikeLike
Richard,
“The Dallas bowl likely should be a morning (and the organizers want it to remain a NYD) game, and I think ABC would still like the Citrus/Outback (going against the Orange or Peach) to be a lead-in to the Rose. However, with the BCS bowls moving out of the space between NYD and the title game, I see no reason why the Outback/Citrus & Gator (and maybe even the Alamo and/or Holiday) should not fill the void by being played in the week or so between NYD and the title game.”
I think TPTB recognized that bowl games after 1/1 do terribly. If BCS games couldn’t maintain interest during the week, certainly lesser games won’t either. I think they recognize that only the NCG will get any attention other than the NFL playoffs. They may even try to move all the bowls back onto 1/1 or before.
The B10 seems to like having several games at once, and the SEC must be OK with it, too. I wouldn’t be surprised to see both leagues pushing to keep 1/1 for themselves with a glut of early games. It increases the odds that there will be a good game to watch featuring their league. On the other hand, maybe as part of the CFP people agree to limit 1/1 games so the CFP makes more money.
We’ll find out soon enough.
LikeLike
Brian – the Cotton Bowl has done really well in the Friday night slot after New Year’s after before the NCG. I would guess that the Houston Bowl will jump into that slot with a B12/SEC Cotton Bowl replacement with a much increased payout.
LikeLike
“I think TPTB recognized that bowl games after 1/1 do terribly”
Really? I know attendance has been a concern, but TV (ESPN) interests may be too compelling.
The B10 may want to limit games that are too far after NYD (due to concerns of games cutting in to classtime the next semester), but ESPN certainly seems to want at least 1 game every weeknight (where there isn’t an NFL game) between NYD and the title game. At least, filling every weeknight without an NFL game with at least 1 bowl game has been their practice so far.
Alan:
I hadn’t thought of the Houston bowl, but good point.
Certainly, a bunch of the NYE and NYD bowls are likely to move, and there’s not much space left between Christmas and NYD.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – the Cotton Bowl has done really well in the Friday night slot after New Year’s after before the NCG. I would guess that the Houston Bowl will jump into that slot with a B12/SEC Cotton Bowl replacement with a much increased payout.”
And yet one of the major comments the BCS people made about the move to a playoff was how spreading the big games over that week didn’t work. It hurt attendance and didn’t build momentum for the NCG. I don’t know how pleased they were with the TV ratings, either, as those had started to drop. With 6 big games on 12/31-1/1, the NCG a week or so later and the NFL playoffs starting, I’m not sure there will be a lot of attention left for a bowl game. The Cotton had a little better match-up than the Houston Bowl will.
The bigger the playoff becomes, the more it will drown out bowl games. Now the media will have fresh material to discuss since they have the semifinals to over-analyze during their obsessive NCG coverage.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Really? I know attendance has been a concern, but TV (ESPN) interests may be too compelling.”
I’m basing that on the comments people made when discussing what was wrong with the BCS and how the CFP would be better. They said those weekday games were a problem and that TV ratings were also sagging, especially when they got a bad match-up.
“The B10 may want to limit games that are too far after NYD (due to concerns of games cutting in to classtime the next semester),”
I’m guessing the B10 will refuse to play after 1/1 except in CFP games.
“but ESPN certainly seems to want at least 1 game every weeknight (where there isn’t an NFL game) between NYD and the title game. At least, filling every weeknight without an NFL game with at least 1 bowl game has been their practice so far.”
But that was when they had the BCS games to use. The lesser bowls after 1/1 always stunk, but ESPN could still make a little money from it. With the CFP, I think they’ll do obsessive playoff over-analysis instead since they’ll have the semifinals providing them with fresh material. I’m sure at least a few bowls will try to be after 1/1, but I think they’ll do worse than ever with the CFP.
LikeLike
I think Americans can never have enough football.
Personally, I’d rather watch even a MAC-SunBelt bowl game than watch talking heads blabber (unless it’s about a team I have a rooting interest in).
LikeLike
Hmm.
Looking at last season’s bowl ratings, there’s not much support for the assertion that people don’t watch regular bowl games after NYD.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/2012-13-college-football-bowl-tv-ratings-bcs-sec-top-the-charts/
3 of the top 5 non-championship bowl games were after NYD, and while the Fiesta and Sugar are BCS games, the Cotton isn’t (and it did better than the CapOne or Outback).
Lower down, the Birmingham bowl got better ratings than bowls with higher payouts like the Liberty and Gator.
The Birmingham and Mobile bowls both did better than the Dallas bowl (which was worst of all).
Being played after NYD doesn’t seem to hurt ratings (in fact, it seems to help), but putting a ton of bowls on at the same time on NYD certainly seems to hurt ratings.
LikeLike
The open issues around the “Committee” are enough to make one’s head spin. The article doesn’t mention the recusal rules, but it’s a huge issue. On the basketball committee, the rules (according to Wikipedia) are as follows:
To avoid a potential conflict of interest, committee members must leave the room when their own school is being discussed—or schools in the case of the conference commissioners. The member may be invited to answer factual questions regarding their team (e.g. status of player injuries). An athletic director may be present when other schools from his or her conference are discussed, but he or she may only speak if asked.
But basketball is different. Although the basketball tournament selects 68 teams, an 8 seed (one of the top 32) is the lowest ever to win—and that happened only once (Villanova, 1985). So in basketball, if the argument about a particular team is whether they make the field at all, then that team probably has zero chance of winning the championship. For those with a realistic chance of winning, the only conceivable argument is over seeding. The Big Ten’s Mark Hollis (MSU AD) was on the Committee this year, but there was never any doubt that his school was going to be in the tournament. No one would say, “MSU made the tourney because Hollis was there.”
But in football, the difference between being #4 or #5 is enormous. You could easily have a year where there are 6-7 teams with a credible argument that they belong in the top four, and almost everyone in the room would have an actual or perceived conflict of interest with one or more of those teams.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The open issues around the “Committee” are enough to make one’s head spin. The article doesn’t mention the recusal rules, but it’s a huge issue.”
I think they wisely saved it for the last thing. They’re about to finalize the financial details, and then they can focus on the only major issue left. Everyone will be so committed after agreeing on the money that they’ll just have to live with whatever terrible compromise solution they end up with. If they did the committee first, groups may have sought extra financial compensation to make up for whatever compromises they had to make on the set up.
“But in football, the difference between being #4 or #5 is enormous. You could easily have a year where there are 6-7 teams with a credible argument that they belong in the top four, and almost everyone in the room would have an actual or perceived conflict of interest with one or more of those teams.”
I think they’re counting on people having multiple connections and having a diverse group to fight the COI problem. Besides, I think the people they get will do a good job of ignoring those COIs. The bigger issue will be subconscious bias, I think.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2013/05/michigans_dave_brandon_not_a_f.html
Dave Brandon dislikes parity-based scheduling, too.
“I’m a big proponent that we should be rotating through to allow our student-athletes to visit all the campuses and play all the teams,” the Michigan athletic director said recently in Chicago. “I don’t think we should get into a situation where we’re limiting one program’s ability to visit a campus to participate in a competition against another program.
“I favor a setup where we’re rotating, giving ourselves a chance to see all the various schools in our conference. Give our student-athletes a chance to have that experience. And to me, that’s the way to do it.”
LikeLike
I like David Brandon a lot, but I’m calling b.s. that the reason why he doesn’t like parity-based scheduling is because it doesn’t give the football team the opportunity to go to Champaign-Urbana or West Lafayette enough times during their four- or five-year tenure (and if they’re on the travel squad).
If Notre Dame hadn’t cancelled out on the Michigan football series, he’d have been more than happy to have UM’s team go to South Bend every other year. For sure, it’s a lovely campus, etc., but if this was his main motivator, he’d have cancelled or curtailed that series and had Michigan playing a number of other major programs (to his credit or blame, he did set up the game with Alabama, but that wasn’t on a campus site) as part of the non-conference slate. And while I realize ND was a non-conference opponent, given the fairly regular place the Irish have been on Michigan’s schedule since 1978, this was essentially a de facto conference game.
But setting aside the non-conference slate for a minute, the 12-team Big Ten with eight conference games gave Michigan a 5-2-1 split, with the Ohio State game being a protected cross-divisional rival (and you could call it a 5-2-2 split if ND is included). UM wasn’t playing all the teams in the Leaders Division home-and-home in the old system anyway. The best Michigan could have done was to play four of those five teams during that 4-year time frame. I think the program that’s been “left off” of Michigan’s schedule in recent years was Wisconsin.
Now with nine games and parity-based scheduling, what Michigan is effectively looking at is something like a 6-2-1 split with the 1 being that annual game likely to be against Nebraska or Wisconsin. So instead of regular visits to South Bend, it’ll now be regular visits to Lincoln or Madison (if ND was still on the schedule, it’d be like a 6-2-2 split). That’s not a huge sea change over what was happening in the 12-team Big Ten.
In fact, if you add in the new non-conference game setup now that ND is off the schedule, you have Michigan teams travelling to Arkansas and Virginia Tech for games in the near terms and who know where else in the future. Playing those high profile games in different stadiums probably more than compensates for those games missed up in Minneapolis or Evanston.
I suspect what Brandon actually doesn’t like is that he might have to tone down the non-conference schedule and/or have fewer opportunities to play high end opponents in neutral site games.. I have every confidence he’s going to keep playing at least one major non-conference opponent per year in a home-and-home series. If you ask Michigan fans who they’d like to see (there’s a poll on MGoBlog about the ND “replacement”), the teams that get mentioned are Texas, Texas A&M, Miami-FL, LSU, Oklahoma and Tennessee among the more likely.
What I do suspect is that we may not see a second pretty good opponent on the schedule that he’d planned on before the parity-based schedule became part of his reality. Brandon talked about “boring Big Ten football in September”, but can he afford to schedule up in the non-conference portion in the latter part of this decade? 2016 has Hawaii, Colorado and Ball State on the non-conference slate–the first year of the parity-based schedule. Cincinnati is going to be a home opponent in 2017. Michigan has home and home with Arkansas (2018/9) and Virginia Tech (2020/1). It’ll be interesting to see the ten other non-conference games he’s going to arrange from 2017 thru 2021.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I like David Brandon a lot, but I’m calling b.s. that the reason why he doesn’t like parity-based scheduling is because it doesn’t give the football team the opportunity to go to Champaign-Urbana or West Lafayette enough times during their four- or five-year tenure (and if they’re on the travel squad).”
OK. I won’t argue with you, just point out that it’s what he said. I don’t know him, so I can’t judge his sincerity.
Would you agree if he said it was a reason and not the reason?
I think most B10 ADs do worry about players not playing all the old B10 schools during their career. Notice how careful the B10 has been to repeatedly say that everyone will play at least once every 4 years. I also think Brandon doesn’t like having a skewed schedule. The B10 is punishing their top programs to make a little more money, and the top programs aren’t necessarily happy about it.
LikeLike
@cutter: Even without parity scheduling, I am doubtful that Brandon would have regularly scheduled two tough OOC opponents per year. (I’m defining “tough” as a team that would demand a return game.)
There is no way to do that without averaging fewer than 7 home games per year, which all of the Big Ten ADs say they want. It doesn’t matter whether the extra league game is with a parity opponent or a randomly-selected opponent.
2016 has Hawaii, Colorado and Ball State on the non-conference slate–the first year of the parity-based schedule. Cincinnati is going to be a home opponent in 2017.
I’m sure that’s not his idea of a great schedule. Those are the first two years that Notre Dame is off the schedule. By the time he knew that Notre Dame was canceling, there weren’t any desirable OOC opponents that he could get. The potential candidates either said no, or were already scheduled far out into the future.
Most of the teams you’d want to play will schedule only one tough OOC opponent per season, and there’s a lot of demand to get on their dance card.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22295986/c-usa-looking-into-creating-bowl-game-in-boca-raton
Everybody and their mother is looking to create a new bowl for 2014. First it was the AAC, then the Lions replacing Pizza Pizza. Now it’s CUSA starting a game in Boca Raton (@FAU or maybe in Marlins Park). The Cure Bowl is trying yet again to form in Orlando (proceeds fight breast cancer) played @UCF. The SB may be trying to start one in Little Rock, too.
Who is going to fill all of these new games? Which old bowls will die?
LikeLike
I think all of them are going off of what Maryland’s Prez was talking about… it’s about TV viewers and TV sponsors and all that.
These lower tier bowl games are following that kind of model. Even an empty stadium will still draw a good viewership number in a good timeslot.
LikeLike
5 more bowls?
🙂
LikeLike
I’m waiting for the Bowl Bowl.
LikeLike
Perhaps Frank the Tank and I can go in on a bowl. The Frank the Tank/Atlantic Coast Confidential Bowl. I envision Big 10 and ACC tie-ins. With our vast revenue resources via WordPress, we can offers tens of dollars to each team.
LikeLike
Well, note that there will be quite a few more members in FBS (and thus more bowl-elgible teams) soon. As it stands, I’ve calculated that the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA will have only 2-3 bowl spots each, which I doubt they would be satisfied with.
LikeLike
Michigan softball headed for the Woman’s College World Series.
(Thank you BTN for making me a softball convert)
-And Good luck to Nebraska on their uphill climb against Oregon!
LikeLike
Huskers took game #1 by 3 beating the Ducks 5-2
LikeLike
If they pull it off, huge! But losing game 2 to the home team is likely devastating.
LikeLike
They did it! Impressive series by Nebraska. Next to Michigan, Northwestern, & Iowa – BIG Softball is respectable. I can’t say the same for baseball : (.
Michigan = 10 CWS
Nebraska = 7 CWS
Northwestern = 5 CWS
The above three have all played in a NC series – game, though Nebraska’s appearance was vacated. Michigan being the first team East of the Miss. to win it all, Alabama the other.
Iowa = 4 CWS
LikeLike
http://tracking.si.com/2013/05/25/everett-golson-no-longer-enrolled-notre-dame/?sct=uk_t11_a5
ND’s starting QB is no longer enrolled there. That’s big news for a team expected to be a top 5 sort of team.
LikeLike
No Gunner Kiel either.
Eh, watching Tommy Rees QB should be entertaining.
LikeLike
More problems on the banks of the Raritan — the new Rutgers AD has a background of allegations of player abuse from her days as volleyball coach at Tennessee: http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/9312798/julie-hermann-new-rutgers-athletic-director-faces-abuse-allegations-report
LikeLike
Did anyone do a background check? After the debacle with Pernetti, how could they possibly let this happen.
LikeLike
A poorly run program is run poorly.
/money will fix
//or just call more attention to the problems.
LikeLike
Rutgers is becoming the Sarah Palin of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Anthony Weiner is more like it
LikeLike
It was 16 years ago.
LikeLike
watch the video:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/05/julie_hermann_should_never_hav.html
she’s still lying about it now. not good.
LikeLike
1. That’s not about the abuse allegations.
2. The reporter got his facts wrong in asking about an event 17 years ago, so how can she be expected to answer correctly?
3. It was 17 years ago. How accurate is your memory of events from 17 years ago?
4. I don’t care if she “mentally abused” her players 17 years ago. Things were different back then and I’m sure she was a little different.
5. Many people have had it out for her from the get go because they’re mad the previous AD got fired. They’re searching for dirt and trying to make mountains out of molehills in some vain attempt to get Pernetti back.
6. I also don’t care that she didn’t want her assistant coach to get pregnant at the wrong time. AC is an 80 hour a week job and the rest of the staff shouldn’t have to do her job, too.
LikeLike
No matter how you try to spin it, it’s a mess. A mess they don’t need because their athletic department sucks and needs strong, healthy leadership.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/9314419/former-colleagues-come-defense-julie-hermann-new-rutgers-scarlet-knights-athletic-director-abuse-allegations
Former colleagues still defend her. A former AC of hers says the players are lying. UL hired her right after this issue happened and didn’t regret it. The woman who shot the wedding video says she didn’t remember it either until she saw actually the video again. This is much ado about nothing.
LikeLike
Looks like another scandal to me. What is this, the third one this year?
LikeLike
So you’re saying the B1G preferred a dumpster fire to Mizzou?
LikeLike
Missouri was not available at the time. I guess you forgot about that.
LikeLike
Then what the are you concerned about? Why are you interjecting Missouri into a Rutgers and the B1G discussion? Go enjoy the SEC.
LikeLike
Because I am a Michigan alum and I think Rutgers was a terrible addition to the B1G.
A question for you: why do you think making ridiculous lying arguments helps you in any way?
Don’t you know that Notre Dame was going to join the B1G but Delaney refused to give them a special deal and insisted on taking them as a junior member so they joined the ACC instead?
Don’t you know that the SEC has more AAU members than the B1G?
Don’t you know that the whole Sandusky thing was a fraud to try to force Penn State to stay in the B1G because they really wanted to join the Big East?
See how easy that was? Do I gain anything from this? No. It’s dumb. So why do it? And yet you do it all the time. And then you complain when I retort your bullcrap. How about you just don’t say the bullcrap in the first place and save us both the trouble?
LikeLike
This is a B1G alum expressing concern for/about a new member?
Andy:”enjoy rutgers, suckers! man, what a disgrace.
but you’ll get on basic cable in NYC and make billions, right?”
Fooled me. Looks like a comment from a vindictive, myopic, paranoid fan still feeling slighted that another school is where he wanted to be.
LikeLike
I’m primarily a Missouri fan, of course. But I do have a stake in the B1G, being an alum from a B1G school. If Missouri didn’t get that spot I would have liked for that spot to have gone to someone at least as if not more worthy than Missouri. It disturbs me that it did not.
LikeLike
Also, I get vindictive. That’s a fair complaint. But myopic? That would be anyone saying Rutgers was a good addition. And paranoid? No idea where you got that one. Seems like you wanted to send your insults in threes and that was the first thing that popped into your head.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“This is a B1G alum expressing concern for/about a new member?”
He’s only a MI alum in name. He’s a MO alum that went to grad school at MI (according to him).
LikeLike
speaking of paranoid… why the hell would I lie about going to Michigan. That’s ridiculous.
I lived in Ann Arbor for 2 years. Went to about 13 or 14 games. Not enough time to get all that invested.
also it was way too cold up there. I didn’t like it all that much.
LikeLike
enjoy rutgers, suckers! man, what a disgrace.
but you’ll get on basic cable in NYC and make billions, right?
LikeLike
…Yes?
LikeLike
Andy, you’re making a blanket statement. Why do so many fans forget about the student athletes & fans? Too many have a tendency to dismiss an entire program-institution because of a few rotten apples, which I won’t dismiss. But again, you’re making a cheap, rushed blanket statement.
Andy, you tow the line on here, too often.
If Rutgers finds the right leadership, they’ll be fine & let’s not expect instant transformation.
This particular story is unlike say PSU or other Rutger’s issues, it reeks of bitterness, unforgivable dwelling, jealousy and political hack & sack. Granted, the president could have done better job with the hiring process, but Jesus H Christ, Bobby Knight coached again at TTech. Mizzo’s basketball coach fled some truly shady issues at Miami. As a society, we do have a capacity to forgive and evolve – this was too long ago to be the issue it may become.
LikeLike
The fact remains that Rutgers has never really been good at any sport. And by good I don’t mean national championships. I mean like top 20 teams. That has basically never happened at Rutgers. And if it did it was for such a brief period of time that it escaped my notice and probably most everybody else’s as well. And now that they’re having one scandal after another they’re even more behind the gun than they already were, just as their level of competition is rising dramatically. Rutgers will be the doormat of the B1G for a very long time. New Yorkers will not care about them. Their value to the B1G is questionable.
LikeLike
They had a very respectable Men’s Soccer program at one time, two consecutive college cups and a NCG (1989-1990). Their women’s basketball program is solid – two FFs in the past 13 years. And believe it or not, their Men’s Basketball program has a FF, in fact they were undefeated until they met Michigan in the FF that year (1976). You said “never really been good at any sport”. They didn’t even join a big time conference, fully, until 1995. They barely got a taste of being in a conference with the likes of VaTech & Miami, football side, 1991 until 2002-3. They’ve simply not had safe harbor in a big time athletic conference. Mizzo, on the other hand, has never had this issue. Neither has my alma mater, Minnesota. We’re lucky in this sense.
As for academics, they are a solid AAU school: very good at the undergraduate level, and even better at the graduate level. In my field, Urban Regional Planning, they simply one of the best graduate schools – period. They’ve put some movers and shakers into the world of politics, higher learning and private enterprise, pop culture as well.
Moreover, NJ still produces very good basketball and football players at the amateur level, esp for a northern school. In fact, they are often one of the best basketball-producing states in the nation (Tobacco Road and the likes of UConn and Syracuse have yielded great results from NJ players) & NJ, lately, has become the best per capita hs football in the Northeast. Schiano had Rutgers going in the right direction. They’re still there. They lost heartbreakers to Lville and VaTech to end last season. We know what Lville did to Fla in a BCS game.
It’s about cultural transformation, the same sort of process that has made Oregon a contender in many sports, Wisconsin in football the past two decades, and what we’re seeing with various Louisville sports. Btw, NJ has better high school football and basketball than any of those schools, their respective states: Wi, Or, and Ky. The same sort of phenomenon that has made Northwestern Women’s Lacrosse a powerhouse in just a decade – Ill is not a hs lacrosse haven. And let’s not forget Neb football. Come on now, they’re great teams were never even remotely dominated by local talent. Cultural transformation then maintenance! Rutgers has plenty of upside.
LikeLike
Fvck, my grammar stunk below – sorry about that.
LikeLike
Let’s look at the last 6 years of football and basketball rankings from Sagarin:
Football
2007: 6 Missouri/38 Rutgers
2008: 19 Missouri/37 Rutgers
2009: 54 Missouri/41 Rutgers
2010: 17 Missouri/90 Rutgers
2011: 16 Missouri/36 Rutgers
2012: 40 Missouri/53 Rutgers
Average: 25.3 Missouri/ 49.2 Rutgers
Basketball
2007-08: 62 Missouri/197 Rutgers
2008-09: 7 Missouri/161 Rutgers
2009-10: 20 Missouri/140 Rutgers
2010-11: 40 Missouri/83 Rutgers
2011-12: 8 Missouri/117 Rutgers
2012-13: 33 Missouri/103 Rutgers
Average 28.33 Missouri/ 133.5 Rutgers
I don’t know how you as a Golden Gopher fan (my wife is a Golden Gopher so I have a pretty good idea), but as a primarily Missouri fan I catch a lot of grief for my program being “mediocre”. Well, if Missouri is “mediocre”, then Rutgers is flat out terrible. OK, so they were good at men’s soccer at one point. At least that’s something. Men’s soccer isn’t played in the Big 12 or SEC so I haven’t followed it much. In the sports I do follow Rutgers has been pretty bad.
LikeLike
Andy, you’re judging Rutgers using Missouri-style criteria, which isn’t fair considering the vastly different histories of those two schools. Mizzou has been part of a big-time conference of one sort or another for more than a century (Big Six/Seven/Eight/12, now SEC). As recently as 40 years ago, Rutgers football was playing an ersatz Ivy schedule, along with Lafayette, Lehigh, Bucknell and their ilk, and its basketball arena was the 3,000-seat College Avenue Gym. Heck, Iowa State, longtime weakling of the Big Eight, had better facilities in the late ’60s, before Jack Trice Stadium and Hilton Coliseum were built.
For a variety of reasons, the concept of big-time college athletics took longer to brew in the Northeast than it did elsewhere; until the post-World War II boom, Maryland’s program more closely paralleled Delaware’s than its future rivals in the ACC, and it then was way behind even the weakest members of the Big Ten. But its six decades in the ACC give College Park a substantial jump on Rutgers.
LikeLike
Rutgers will be a doormat in the BIG, just like Missouri will be a doormat in the SEC. New Yorkers don’t care about Rutgers in large numbers just like St Louis and Kansas City residents barely care about Misouri. Missouri takes a back seat to other colleges in the major cities of its own state. That is why the BIG passed. Missouri and Rutgers are both filler programs, a rounder to get a more important school. Yet Rutgers adds a growth opportunity for the BIG’s brand by bring big time programs that already have a presence in the northeast, Michigan and PSU, to New York/New Jersey, the SEC can only pray to get good coverage in the northern part of the state and in the metropolitan areas, where the BIG and prosports already dominate St Louis and Kansas and Nebraska are more popular in Kansas City.
LikeLike
“As recently as 40 years ago, Rutgers football was playing an ersatz Ivy schedule, along with Lafayette, Lehigh, Bucknell and their ilk . . . .”
Are you sure they stopped?
Last year, Rutgers was forced to take on Arkansas because of the West Virginia leaving issue. The rest of the OOC was Tulane, Howard, Kent, and Army.
2 years ago: North Carolina, North Carolina Central, Ohio, Navy, and Army.
3 years ago: Norfolk State, Florida International, North Carolina, Tulane, and Army.
4 years ago: Howard, Florida International, Maryland, Texas Southern, and Army.
5 years ago: Fresno State, North Carolina, Navy, Morgan State, and Army.
6 years ago: Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State, Maryland, and Army.
7 years ago: North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Howard, and Navy. At least they scheduled a whopping TWO BCS-level teams that year. Of course, Illinois and North Carolina were a combined 5-19 that year.
8 years ago: Illinois, Villanova, Buffalo, and Navy.
Keep in mind… these are the GREAT years of the Rutgers program. Other than being forced into the Arkansas series, the best OOC challenges were middling programs from the ACC and Big 10. And that is on top of a Big East conference schedule.
And if you want to go back the prior 8 years… that is the era where Rutgers was 21-69.
Enjoy.
LikeLike
Psu, I don’t know where you get your info but it’s laughably false. Nothing you said even remotely resembled the truth.
Just a few posts up I posted the average Sagarin (unbiased, objective, computer-based) ranking of Missouri over the past 6 years in football and basketball. Average of 25.3 and 28.3. Feel free to try to disprove this, but I’d bet good money that Missouri’s combined average of football and basketball over the last 6 years would rank in the top half if not top third of the B1G and SEC. Those aren’t “doormat” numbers. Also, polls and tv rating numbers showed Missouri to be far and away the most popular college team in St. Louis, and far and away the most popular football program in Kansas City (above Nebraska, K-State, and KU). The only out of state program that rivals Missouri in a Missouri metro-area is KU basketball in KC, but Missouri’s popularity is still quite strong there.
This isn’t even that hard to check against in practice. Missouri has beaten Illinois in basketball something like 4 straight times, and in football something like 7 straight times. They lost to Iowa on a last second interception in a bowl a couple years ago and around 4 years ago they beat Northwestern in a bowl. Missouri typically does alright when they play Big Ten schools. They had a home and home with Michigan State 8 or 9 years ago and split the series. Yes Missouri was flat out terrible from 84-96. We would have been the doormat of any league during that period. If you want to use that as your sample set then Missouri will always look awful. But pick any sample set from before or sense and Missouri has not put up doormat numbers.
Also, it makes no logical sense for you to claim that the B1G would not pick Missouri because they’d be a doormat when a much tougher league, the SEC, would pick Missouri, while the B1G would pick two much more doormat-ish programs in Rutgers and Maryland.
So basically your post didn’t make a lick fo sense, it was obviously a half-witted troll, and I just obliterated it. Have a good day.
LikeLike
You just don’t get that conference realignment is not about on field results, other than for those who have enough success over enough time to become a brand. Neither Missouri or Rutgers have achieved that. Factors other than transient success or failure in athletics are weighed. If was next door to NYC I’m sure they would have been invited.
LikeLike
If Missouri was next…
LikeLike
Missouri’s branding is doing just fine, thank you very much. Apparel sales ranked #21 in the country last year, ahead of Florida State, Kansas, Clemson, Illinois, Miami, Washington, Purdue, Arizona State, UCLA, Ole Miss, Duke, Cal, Minnesota, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc. Rutgers didn’t even make the top 50. They ranked just behind East Carolina. To try to compare Missouri’s branding with Rutgers is preposterous. But then this forum is filled with preposterous falsehoods on a daily basis and has been for years. Luckily I’m here to bring facts into the discussion now and then. But I’m sure you guys will have a Big 20 in no time.
link
http://www.clc.com/News/Archived-Rankings/Rankings-Annual2012.aspx
LikeLike
bah, made my own case weaker by misreading the chart. Missouri was ranked #20, not #21. One spot behind Texas A&M and one spot above Florida State. Missouri’s brand is quite strong.
LikeLike
Andy,
“The fact remains that Rutgers has never really been good at any sport.”
After being refuted, you follow up with this:
“Let’s look at the last 6 years of football and basketball rankings from Sagarin:”
Only you would think that’s even remotely supporting your case. You said never, then give data for 6 years. You said in any sport, then give data for 2 sports.
LikeLike
Brian, I know you live on here 24/7 and have endless time to look up all manner of sports facts, but I do not. Looking up 6 years worth of data for 2 sports was all the time I cared to spend. These are the two most popular sports and the only sports that most fans carea about, so I chose those.
So Rutgers was once good at men’s soccer. Okay. Good for them? Point is they are a very weak brand, have weak attendance, weak ratings, weak performance, and their only success has been in a sport that less than half of schools participate in and is lucky to get a couple hundred fans at a game and is rarely if ever on tv.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Brian, I know you live on here 24/7 and have endless time to look up all manner of sports facts, but I do not. Looking up 6 years worth of data for 2 sports was all the time I cared to spend.”
If you’re too lazy to do the work, then don’t make blanket claims you can’t support. It’s not that tough. If you only meant FB and MBB, then say that instead of “any sport.” If you meant recently, then say that instead of “never.”
It’s like everyone here thinking all MO grads are complete imbeciles because of you. Thankfully for the rest of them, not all MO alumni are you. We shouldn’t all refuse to hire a MO graduate based on the small sample set that is you.
Not all sports are FB or MBB. The past few years aren’t all of history, either. If you want to make the bigger argument, you need some facts to back you up.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll rephrase my statement to accomodate extremely OCD Brian: Rutgers has, save for very brief flashes, always been bad, or at least not very good, at the revenue sports, and hasn’t been anything special at any of the non-revenue sports either except for I guess men’s soccer at some point in the past that I never heard about. Does that about cover it? Score another victory by nit-picky technicality to add to Brian’s pile. Brian, the OCDiest, Nit-Pickiest Super-Poster in the Frank The Tank Universe. Kudos, man, you’re the best!
LikeLike
Andy,
“OK, I’ll rephrase my statement to accomodate extremely OCD Brian:”
Translation: Multiple people have proven how terribly wrong my initial statement was so I’m going to backtrack but try to act like I’m not completely changing my position.
“Rutgers has, save for very brief flashes, always been bad, or at least not very good, at the revenue sports,”
So except for when they’ve been very good in one of two sports, they’ve been bad or not very good. That’s a huge difference from never being good at any sport ever. If you had just said that at the beginning, people would have let it go.
“and hasn’t been anything special at any of the non-revenue sports either except for I guess men’s soccer at some point in the past that I never heard about. Does that about cover it?”
Nope. Rutgers is a WBB power (princess?), with the 11th most AP poll appearances all time (over 53% of all polls). They are also solid in lacrosse (9 NCAA appearances). If I can find this stuff out in about 5 minutes, why can’t you?
LikeLike
“Feel free to try to disprove this, but I’d bet good money that Missouri’s combined average of football and basketball over the last 6 years would rank in the top half if not top third of the B1G and SEC. Those aren’t “doormat” numbers.”
Exactly what I keep cautioning people: while the Sagarin rankings are appealing for discussions the span the FBS and FCS, since they include both in the same rankings, they do need to be taken with a grain of salt … even though Mizzou in the Sagarin rankings looks like a school that would go bowling on a regular basis out of the SEC, its no accident that the only schools it ended up ahead of in the SEC East were perennial cellar dweller Kentucky and a Volunteer program at the end of a multi-season implosion.
And with Butch Jones taking over in Knoxville, long odds against finishing any here next season.
LikeLike
Brian, you’re a freak if you think you’re somehow scoring major points here. Lacrosse? Really? OK, so Rutgers has had some minor success in 2 or 3 of the non-revenue sports and hasn’t always been terrible in every single sport always. Who cares? I sure don’t. They still suck.
LikeLike
Bruce, that’s weak as hell. Missouri was playing with it’s starting QB, RB, and 6 out of it’s top 10 OLs injured. They were worse last year, largely due to those injuries, than they have been in 8 or 9 years. It proves nothing.
LikeLike
“Missouri was playing with it’s starting QB, RB, and 6 out of it’s top 10 OLs injured.”
Yes, it’s well known that one-eyed fans of a team always have an excuse at hand for disappointing results.
Seriously, you claim that “The fact remains that Rutgers has never really been good at any sport.” which is simply flat out false, but the bowl-ineligible finish of Mizzou, only above perennial cellar dweller Kentucky and imploding Tennessee in the East, wasn’t a “real” fact, even though true, because there were injuries.
LikeLike
flaming, trolling bullcrap.
1) Rutgers sucks at just about every sport. Fact.
2) How did Oklahoma do a couple years back when their #1 QB went down with an injury? Yeah, I thought so. That’s how it works. Douche.
LikeLike
“1) Rutgers sucks at just about every sport. Fact.”
Obvious weaseling ~ you started out with a clear and checkable statement. The bad part of that for you was that someone bothered to check. You abused Brian as being “OCD” for checking whether what you said was truth or a lie. Because it was, in fact, a simply a lie.
So you edit it after the fact to a statement that can be modified on demand as you redefine “sucks” and “just about every” to keep your conclusion. Which is quite evidently nothing but shifting the goalposts in order to avoid admitting that you were talking based on low information prejudice without checking your facts.
As far as Mizzou’s chances in the SEC ~ its likely to help out the BBall, which has been very top-heavy and shallow of late, but the SEC added Mizzou because it was the state on its border that was available to even up the the Texas A&M add. The Vols won’t need to get anything like all of their mojo back to clobber you in football.
LikeLike
If you guys want to throw tiny little parties in your heads for your tiny little victories of nitpicking my statements then feel free. I for one think it’s incredibly lame. Laughably so.
Rutgers has maybe the weakest athletics department of any BCS school. Definitley bottom 5. I could give two shits if they were once good at lacrosse or men’s soccer at one point. Who cares? But obviously it’s enough to get you all hot and bothered so have at it.
As for Missouri, nobody’s arguing that they’ll win any SEC titles any time soon. But “doormat” is undoubtably overblown considering Missouri’s average Sagarin ranking over the last 6 years is 25.3. When a team loses it’s QB to injury during the season it typically struggles. This is an almost universal rule. It would be easy to find a couple dozen examples of this without any effort. If Mizzou struggles this year without any QB injuries then you’ll have a point. We’ll see.
LikeLike
You could post a novel in response, you posted a lazy lie that you could have easily found out was false and instead of manning up to it, you spin and spin and spin and spin.
Trolling Rutgers at this board is not going to get any more wins for Mizzou in the SEC this coming Fall.
LikeLike
it wasn’t a lie, it was an underresearched mild exaggeration.
your responses aren’t all that novel, btw. mostly just weak petty trolling.
LikeLike
“Under-researched” is a wonderfully flattering way to say you just tossed it out there without bothering to find out if it was true or not.
When you do that and when it happens to be false, that’s what a “lazy lie” IS. People in the habit of just tossing claims out without checking them will be right and sometimes be wrong ~ after all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The claims they toss out without checking that happen to be false are the lazy lies.
I thought you were just a one-eyed homer that cherry picked facts to put the mediocre program you root for in a flattering light. I hadn’t realized before that you were also a lazy liar about other programs.
LikeLike
Wow, Bruce, you have issues. Maybe you should step away from the keyboard for a while. I think you’ve lost your perspective.
Me averaging out the last 6 years of rankings for football and basketball isn’t “cherry picking”, it’s me accurately assessing the immediate past for the only two college sports that most people care about. If this is somehow “unfair” to you then you’ve lost it.
As far as Rutgers, yeah, I knew I was probably exaggerating. I knew they were probably good at ping pong or bowling or lacrosse or somthing at some point and I hadn’t heard about it. So what? The point I was trying to make is that they are one of the weakest if no the weakest athletics department in all of the BCS. And that’s true. You getting your panties in a wad over my mild exaggeration doesn’t make it any less true.
LikeLike
“The fact remains that Rutgers has never really been good at any sport. And by good I don’t mean national championships. I mean like top 20 teams. That has basically never happened at Rutgers. And if it did it was for such a brief period of time that it escaped my notice and probably most everybody else’s as well.”
The wonderful weaseling in this comment is the “brief period”, since whatever period Rutgers would have been good in whatever sport will be ret-conned after the fact to being a “brief period”.
It does leave out, “or else, in a sport I don’t count as a “real sport””, but if, for instance, Rutgers had a great track team for two or five years, then two or five years will be a “brief period”. If the women’s soccer team has earned six at-large bids to the NCAA tournament, each of those seasons will be a “brief period” of being good in the sport.
LikeLike
wtf did I just read? are you having a conversation with yourself? what’s your problem, anyway?
I doubt even a Rutgres fan would argue that Rutgers doesn’t suck at sports.
LikeLike
http://www.onthebanks.com/2013/5/15/4333282/not-our-athletic-director
And Rutgers’ fanbase wasn’t thrilled with the pick even before all this broke.
LikeLike
http://www.onthebanks.com/2013/5/26/4366988/julie-hermann-is-not-our-fault-but-she-is-our-problem
And here is the followup addressing the current allegations.
LikeLike
From having lived for more than a decade in New Jersey, I can vouch for that state’s parochialism. Many people there wanted Eddie Jordan or one of the Hurleys to replace Rice, even when the likes of Ben Howland was available.(and it sort of backfired on Rutgers when it was discovered Jordan had no degree, a la Sidney Lowe at N.C. State). Now, many want Pernetti back as AD, but that isn’t happening (and while some credit him for Rutgers getting into the Big Ten, it wouldn’t have occurred unless Maryland had been available as well). Rutgers really needs to hire an AD with legit big-time experience, even if he or she is a dreaded outsider with no ties to the university or state.
LikeLike
http://www.onthebanks.com/2013/5/26/4369120/rutgers-may-have-violated-gender-discrimination-laws
Now speculation that Rutgers may face gender discrimination lawsuits
Multiple sources confirmed that committee co-chairwoman Kate Sweeney, who personally added Hermann to the list presented by Parker Executive Search, was intent on getting a woman hired, a plan so obvious that it caused some male candidates to pull themselves from consideration when they felt it was apparent Hermann was the clear favorite.
I think it is a longshot, but with the way this story in developing who knows.
LikeLike
They’d have to prove they were better candidates that got turned down solely for gender reasons. One person on a committee adding a woman to the list is a lot different from the whole committee preferring a woman solely for gender reasons. Still, this story will have legs as they continue to sling mud.
LikeLike
More trouble.
http://deadspin.com/report-rutgers-ad-fired-coach-after-sex-discrimination-510164097
Hermann allegedly fired an assistant coach after she complained to HR about sexual harassment. The coach sued and was awarded $300k at trial but the award was overturned on appeal and the coach is trying to get the case before the state supreme court.
LikeLike
frug,
“More trouble.”
It’s not trouble unless the state supreme court steps in. She won in appeals court.
LikeLike
She will be gone by the end of the week, expect significant big ten pressure
LikeLike
The problem is at this point the president’s fate is now tied to her so it is tough seeing the prez actually firing her. And since Christie believes he can’t change the president until after the merger with the medical school is complete the AD may survive.
LikeLike
The governor said he won’t micromanage RU and the president told her she’d keep her job. She’s refused to resign. She may well get fired, but it doesn’t look any more likely now than a few days ago when Barchi said she wouldn’t be fired. I don’t see a lawsuit she prevailed in eventually as a reason to fire her.
LikeLike
It may not be legal trouble, but it is PR trouble, and that is the last thing Rutgers needs.
LikeLike
If they have any more problems simmering now would be the time to expose them. Adding more garbage to this PR version of “Fresh Kills” isn’t going to increase the stink…
LikeLike
I don’t think that particular story has legs. It makes headlines for a day or two, but they’ll move back to another facet really quickly. That’s why I don’t think it’s a problem. The other stuff is much heavier baggage.
LikeLike
@Brian
The problem is this just keeps the overall story alive. Thanks to this the story of Rutgers embattled AD is back on the frontpage of ESPN’s website.
LikeLike
frug,
“The problem is this just keeps the overall story alive. Thanks to this the story of Rutgers embattled AD is back on the frontpage of ESPN’s website.”
I’d agree if the story had ever gone away. New things are popping up so much that this one really didn’t make any difference.
LikeLike
One of the Lady Vol volleyball players, Erin Zammett Ruddy, writes in her own blog about her experiences in the volleyball team during the 96-97 season, if anyone cares to read it
http://www.erinzammettruddy.com/my-take-on-the-rutgers-scandal/
LikeLike
In the College Baseball Game of the Century, #2 LSU defeats #1 Vandy 5-4 in 11 innings to win its 10th SEC Baseball Tournament. It was LSU and Vandy’s first meeting of the season, but for some reason, I think they’ll meet again in Omaha. LSU pulled out the win without its starting right fielder and it starting second baseman.
LikeLike
College Baseball regional hosts were just announced.
ACC: VA Tech, UNC, UVa, NC State, Fla State
SEC: LSU, Vandy, South Car, Miss State
Pac-12: Oregon State, Oregon, UCLA
B1G: Indiana
Big West: CSU-Fullerton
Big East: Louisville
Big XII: K-State
Brackets come our tomorrow at Noon EDT.
LikeLike
How do those two programs only meet once in the whole season? And that time only because they both reached the conference championship game?
LikeLike
cc – the SEC plays 30 regular season games. That’s 10 three game series against all six division foes, and four OOD teams. During the regular season, LSU didn’t play SEC East Champ Vandy and the two worst teams in the SEC (UGA & Tenn). Vandy missed out on playing SEC West Champ LSU, Arkansas (2nd place in the SECW), and A&M (who shut out Vandy 5-0 earlier in the SEC Tourny).
LikeLike
Understandable. Breaks of the schedule. Just a bit irritating. It would be a shame if they missed meeting all year, as good as they both are. Perhaps they should/could schedule an OOC game with those who don’t make the conference schedule? I’ve seen some schools play a rival OOC even though they play a conference set.
LikeLike
cc – before the season nobody could have predicted the historic seasons LSU and Vandy have put together. LSU has had some pretty good baseball teams over the last 30 years, but this was the Tigers’ best regular season and SEC campaign ever, but it wasn’t even good enough to win the SEC regular season title. Vandy won the most SEC games in the history of the 30 game conference schedule.
LikeLike
Allan:
I understand and agree. However as he applied it to the 2011 season he says it had little effect on the top teams.
“For the most part, the teams that move the most aren’t that interesting, since who really cares if Tennessee moves from #120 to #150, but there are some teams in the at large range that are greatly affected; for example, Dallas Baptist drops 15 places, while St. John’s moves up 19. On the other hand, the poster children for the “EEEVUL Scheduling Practices” claims, LSU and Texas, are virtually unchanged, so this is probably not going to be a panacea, even on the political front.”
LikeLike
NCAA College Baseball brackets announced.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/article/2013-05-27/regional-fields-announced-countdown-begins-college-world-series
Top 8 National seeds with Super Regional Pairings
#1 UNC v. South Carolina
#2 Vandy v. Louisville
#3 Oregon State v. K-State
#4 LSU v. VA Tech
#5 CSU Fullerton v. UCLA
#6 UVa v. Miss State
#7 Florida State v. Indiana
#8 Oregon v. NC State
Illinois is the other B1G team to make the tournament. The Fightin’ FTTers are the #3 seed in the Vandy regional. Good luck Illini!
The national seedings are largely determined by the very f*#%’ed up college baseball RPI that over-rewards tough road games. The most important part of being named a national seed is that you get to host the Super Regional next, assuming you win your regional this weekend.
I’m very pleased with my Tigers regional (#2 ULL, #3 Sam Houston State & #4 Jackson State), as well as its Super Regional pairing with the VA Tech regional.
LikeLike
And for Omaha purposes you have Vandy, OrSU, UVA, FSU in the opposite half. Beware Fullerton. They seem to have recovered nicely from U of Nike purchasing their coach.
LikeLike
Final regular season baseball polls are out.
LSU is #1 in three of the four polls. Vandy stays at #1 in Baseball America.
Indiana is as high as #8 (BA) and as low as #22 (Collegiate Baseball).
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
The committee said it was close between UNC and Vandy but the polls are all LSU. Is it a power ranking (poll = How good are you right now?) versus a season ranking (seeds = How good were you all season?) issue or is it a faulty system the committee uses or is the poll faulty?
LikeLike
Brian – from what I understand, the college baseball RPI rewards OOC road games and LSU really doesn’t do that. LSU only plays a few OOC road games a year, usually only to help in in-state school get a sell-out. The reasons LSU doesn’t schedule tough OOC road games is two-fold: they don’t have to to get a national seed and they need a bunch of home games to meet local fan demand to pay off their $50mm new stadium.
Whether your team is seeded #1 or #8 really doesn’t matter that much as the super regional pairings are fairly arbitrary, and they don’t re-seed in Omaha.
UNC lost their last two weekend series, but was #1 most of the season. I have to think the Tar Heels were rewarded by the committee for playing a few tough games at Minute Maid Park (Rice & A&M) early in the season and having a tougher slate of mid-week games with NCAA qualifiers Elon, Coastal Carolina, UNC-Wilmington, and Liberty. The ACC also had more highly ranked teams than the SEC, since Vandy and LSU dominated the league this season.
LikeLike
Boyd Nation has UNC as a freakin’ juggernaut:
http://www.boydsworld.com/data/fieldprobs2013.html
He has LSU, Vandy, UVa and Fullerton making up the second tier of title contenders.
Boyd certainly seems to think that college baseball is top-heavy this year, pegging the likelihood of the national champ being one of those 5 teams at around 80%.
LikeLike
Brian – from what I understand, the college baseball RPI rewards OOC road games and LSU really doesn’t do that.
@Alan- You are right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index#Baseball_Formula
LikeLike
I don’t believe OOC maters. They manipulate the values of winning/losing by road or home games for conference games the same. Thinks they over/under value away/home results.
When the change was announced Boyd’s World had a good discription/evaluation.
http://www.boydsworld.com/data/new_rpi.html
“To be clear, there’s nothing wrong at all with the idea of a properly sized adjustment for home field advantage. The problem is that they have the magnitude set much too high in an attempt to use the RPI to drive behavior. The home winning percentage in conference games is always right around 55% for each season. It follows pretty quickly that the correct adjustment would be a 1.1/.9 pair.”
LikeLike
@cc – I somehow missed the OOC part as just away games. My fault.
LikeLike
@cc – on a side note, according to the Wikipedia link I provided, the basketball adjustment is .6 and 1.4
LikeLike
cc – OOC road games do matter in the RPI, in that the school controls those games. Conference road games are determined by the conference. North Carolina is rewarded for playing Rice and A&M in Houston. LSU gets no reward for playing Maryland at home. In the big picture though, it doesn’t really matter whether your team is a #1 national seed or a #8 for CWS purposes. Unless there are a rash of upsets in the Regionals and Super Regionals on one side of the CWS bracket, nobody has an advantage in Omaha. If the national seeds win their regional, it hosts the Super Regional. That is the advantage of being named a top eight national seed.
LikeLike
Sorry for double posting. I accidentally put this up page.
Allan:
I understand and agree. However as he applied it to the 2011 season he says it had little effect on the top teams.
“For the most part, the teams that move the most aren’t that interesting, since who really cares if Tennessee moves from #120 to #150, but there are some teams in the at large range that are greatly affected; for example, Dallas Baptist drops 15 places, while St. John’s moves up 19. On the other hand, the poster children for the “EEEVUL Scheduling Practices” claims, LSU and Texas, are virtually unchanged, so this is probably not going to be a panacea, even on the political front.”
LikeLike
Congrats to Nebraska for upsetting Oregon and earning a spot in the Women’s College World Series! Love to see the Huskers do well in the B1G.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/22311553/attendance-lags-put-sec-on-offense-looking-to-enhance-fan-experience
Even the SEC is worried about home attendance. That may end up being the primary issue that pushes them to a 9 game schedule eventually.
LikeLike
It’s not just the 8-game league schedule, but the quality of opponents OOC. Quite a few of the SEC teams’ home OOC schedules are really pathetic.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s not just the 8-game league schedule, but the quality of opponents OOC. Quite a few of the SEC teams’ home OOC schedules are really pathetic.”
I think their main problem is that their schedules vary so much that some schools will reject any proposal that impacts scheduling. They also tend to extremes, playing 1 very hard game but then 3 cupcakes. I think that’s where the arguments come in. The SEC touts their top games and others point out their cupcakes. I also think the SEC suffered for having a I-AA weekend the week before rivals week. All too often SEC schedules seem to grant bye weeks before tough conference games.
Locked OOC rivals:
UF/FSU – legitimate tough game for them
SC/Clemson – legitimate tough game for them
UK/UL – legitimate tough game for them
UGA/GT – not a very tough game anymore, but it used to be
Vandy/WF – not a very tough game anymore, but it used to be
Usually have at least 1 tough OOC game:
AL, AU, LSU, TN
AR – start playing 1 decent game in 2016
That’s 8-10 teams playing at least 1 solid OOC game.
Play nobody:
MS, MSU
Too soon to tell:
MO, TAMU
LikeLike
They also tend to extremes, playing 1 very hard game but then 3 cupcakes.
The problem is that their cupcakes are really soft. Selling out the stadium for one tough game doesn’t fully make up for having three others with essentially zero competitive interest.
The SEC is also developing a fondness for neutral site games. Both LSU and Alabama are playing such games (Arlington and Atlanta respectively), which don’t count when they tally home attendance.
LikeLike
There is a huge pushback right now, especially from the eastern SEC teams, against schedule changes, specifically the 9 game SEC schedule. South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia all enjoyed the ridiculousness of early season rankings last year. Each one of those teams was ranked in the top 5 at one point in the beginning of the year by beating only each other. They beat no one to start the season, unlike Alabama and LSU who usually try to play someone big OOC. Throw is the cream puffs in the SEC east now that Tennessee is awful, and they have a pretty easy schedule through the year, except Florida who plays LSU. So there is no impetus for the teams to schedule better opponents. Those teams get ranked high for merely playing in the conference. But with attendance dropping and the SEC network, things will have to change to the detriment of those teams.
LikeLike
What’s with this PSU guy? Everything he says seems to be a lie. It’s weird.
SEC East teams have creampuff schedules? What?
National SOS ranking of East teams:
Missouri 1
Florida 4
Kentucky 8
South Carolina 23
Tennessee 25
Georgia 27
Vanderbilt 42
Compare that to some Big Ten schools:
Ohio State 60
Northwestern 50
Wisconsin 30
Penn State 58
Minnesota 54
Iowa 39
Purdue 48
Indiana 56
Illinois 37
etc.
At least try to make sense when posting on here people, ok?
LikeLike
Though its only a couple doing the trick of both an FCS school and a school promoted from FCS in the last year or two … that’s something that it seems half of the Big12 is doing.
LikeLike
Andy,
The reason the SEC’s strength of schedule is ranked so high is because of the teams in the conference are over ranked every year. South Carolina ranked as a top 5 program for beating Vanderbelt, East Carolina, UAB, Missouri, and Kentucky. They beat 3 BCS teams with winning record in Georgia and Clemson and the powerhouse Vanderbelt. The only BCS teams with a winning record that Georgia beat was Florida and again that powerhouse Vanderbelt. They certainly deserved to be ranked in the top 5 with those accomplishments when you also factor in their tough non conference opponents of Buffalo, Florida Atlantic and Georgia Southern and a Georgia Tech team that finished .500. Throw in Arkansas who was ranked 10 in both polls to start the year only to lose to ULM in week 2 and finish 4-8. Or how bought Texas A&M who’s only wins against BCS schools above .500 were Alabama and the Mississippi Schools, which collective beat not a single wining BCS team except each other and yet Mississippi State was actually ranked in the top 25 lasy year at one point. Texas A&M OOC conference schedule last year was Lousiana Tech, SMU, South Carolina State, and Sam Houston State. Its easy to have a strong strength of schedule when every team in the conference in ranked high when they beat Kentucky and UAB. Instead of just sprouting off espn and SEC propaganda, take a little deeper look into things.
By the way, I am sorry the BIG didn’t want Missouri but you need to get over it. Your in the SEC now which is a fine conference. No need for the spurned lover troll act you like to bring over here.
LikeLike
South Carolina and Georgia both won their bowl games. They deserved their rankings.
LikeLike
And as for my concern about the B1G, I understand why they waited and didn’t take Missouri while they had the chance. They were gambling and hoping that they’d get a Notre Dame or a Texas or even a Virginia. So they let Missouri walk to the SEC and missed their chance. So when it came down to the B1G picking up #14, I hoped that they would have gotten one of those three schools, or at least maybe a Florida State or a Duke. But no. They got Rutgers. Pathetic. It pisses me off. What a pitiful addition. Maryland I’m basically fine with. They’re a mediocre addition but not bad. But Rutgers is terrible. They’ll regret this move for decades.
LikeLike
Maryland I’m basically fine with. They’re a mediocre addition but not bad.
Uh, Andy, if a school wins national titles in football and men’s and women’s basketball (with both hoop championships coming within the past dozen years) and is labeled “mediocre,” how does one define Missouri, which has achieved none of these things? (It could be argued that as of 2001, Mizzou succeeded Maryland as the best men’s basketball program never to reach a Final Four.) Yes, the past few years have been down in College Park, but on the whole, the Terrapins have achieved more than the Tigers.
(And, may I add, Mizzou has never beaten Maryland in football, though all the meetings took place during the Faurot-Tatum era and included a tie, IIRC. It’s an anomaly, to be sure, and Missouri probably would have won its share of games against Maryland had the teams played in recent decades, just as Maryland likely would have beaten Penn State several times had they met during the Terps’ glory days of the late ’40s and early ’50s.)
LikeLike
Oh, the ranking there is pretty clear ~ Mizzou would have been a mediocre add, perhaps not bad, though not as good as Maryland if available.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Oh, the ranking there is pretty clear ~ Mizzou would have been a mediocre add, perhaps not bad, though not as good as Maryland if available.”
I think most people would agree on this order, based on the combo of athletics, academics and demographics (all judged on the B10 scale of acceptability, not overall):
1. UMD – solid academics, decent athletics, strong demographics
2. MO – weak academics, decent athletics, decent demographics
3. KU – weak academics, bad football, MBB king, small state
4. Pitt – solid academics, decent athletics, PSU rival, no demographic gain
The question is where to put RU – solid academics, weak athletics, strong demographics. They could be as high as #2 or as low as #5 depending on how you value the different areas.
In terms of financial value to the B10 over the next 50 years (obviously pure guesswork):
1. UMD (could be RU if things went perfectly)
2. RU (could be MO if things go poorly)
3. MO
4. KU
5. Pitt
LikeLike
Mizzou is playing Indiana for a home and home. The last few non-conference serieses were with Arizona State, Syracuse, Illinois, Ole Miss, Michigan State, Clemson, and going back farther, Ohio State, West Virginia also mid-tier teams like Central Florida, San Diego State, New Mexico, Nevada, UAB, Memphis, Toledo, Bowling Green, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, etc.
Mizzou is trying to re-start the series with Kansas. Failing that they would likely agree to a series with some other former Big 8 school like Kansas State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, or Iowa State. If none will agree then they’ll probably look to the Big Ten to schools like Illinois and Iowa. Missouri pretty much always has at least one BCS school on their schedule if not 2, and also a mid-tier team or two.
LikeLike
Mizzou is trying to re-start the series with Kansas. Failing that they would likely agree to a series with some other former Big 8 school like Kansas State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, or Iowa State.
Ames yearns for the revival of the Telephone Trophy series.
LikeLike
Believe it or not Iowa State fans were as pissed as anyone about the Missouri move. The Missouri/ISU rivalry goes back more than a century. Their fans really got up for it. Missouri fans not as much.
LikeLike
The Missouri/ISU rivalry goes back more than a century. Their fans really got up for it. Missouri fans not as much.
Part of it was because for more than 3 1/2 decades, that other school in black and gold (the one in Iowa City) refused to schedule ISU in anything. As a result, from the mid-1930s to the 1960s, the Cyclones’ chief rivals were Nebraska and Missuori.
LikeLike
Yeah, I guess, part of it. Or maybe it’s because ISU’s campus isn’t all that far from Columbi and they were conference rivals since the 1800s maybe.
LikeLike
Why the fuck do you people feed the troll?
LikeLike
They love Missouri so much that they just can’t stop talking about us. Like every god damn day. Mostly lies of course.
LikeLike
tweet:
Matt Hayes þMatt_HayesSN 27m
Look for SEC to bridge with 2014 schedule of 8, and move toward 9 games beginning 2015.
LikeLike
I honestly believe that the SEC joining the B10 in going to a 9 game schedule is just the beginning of the move to a 13 game schedule. I can tell you that Schools like Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky who play traditional opponents Out Of Conference need that. From the Penn State perspective, that is what we need so we can schedule Pitt every single year, plus some kind of cream puff home game ( such as Temple) to make sure we get 7 home games, and schedule a team like Miami or USC that generates national interest, and helps with recruiting until probation ends.
LikeLike
I think the days of multiple cream puffs will be coming to an end. The public is just not interested in those games, much like preseason NFL football. If they are having trouble selling them out in the SEC, without much competition for he sports dollar down there, other schools will have trouble too. Right now schools schedule up to 3 of these games a year. That is a lot for fans to pay for. Taking PSU for example, that’s close to $300 dollars for a hotel room, $40 bucks to park, and another $50 or so for a tank of gas to get up there on top of ticket prices and food/drink for the weekend. I do think a 13 game schedule is in the future, but I think that will be more to accommodate a 10 game conference schedule in the future if there is any more realignment, which in my opinion there will be down the road.
LikeLike
While I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 13th game, I can also see the change to be allowing for an exhibition game. I have to believe if they added a game to the schedule, it would be on the front end. This year, that’s Saturday, August 24th.
I know that the schools don’t want to play games in late August when students are off campus and families are on their last vacation before summer ends, and TV ratings wouldn’t be as solid. And of course, they always want to protect “the student-athlete” from playing too many games /sarcasm.
Selling a game on 8/24 as an actual full-price and meaningful game to TV, alums, and season ticket holders on August 24th gets diminishing value and pisses some people off. But an exhibition game on August 24th of Iowa-Northern Iowa or Michigan-Harvard or Ohio State-Youngstown State provides some positives and some political cover.
Every single FBS school gets the added home game; not just half of the teams. It won’t be a full-price ticket, but every school should still be able to turn a nice profit when you add everything up. And the schools get the cover that it’s not a “real” game, so it isn’t a burden on the student-athlete.
LikeLike
Nobody else seems to have heard what Hayes heard.
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
Mike Slive states SEC will have 8-game, 6-1-1 league format in 2014. Also probably in 2015
Also:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/jeremy-fowler/22314763/no-plans-for-sec-vote-on-ninegame-schedule
The Southeastern Conference will discuss a nine-game football schedule during this week’s spring meetings but has no plans to vote on the matter, according to two league sources.</i?
LikeLike
Who knows, but it’s possible that there’s the official word and the unofficial word, so to speak.
LikeLike
Could be some in a minority in favor of it are leaking the “news”, hoping that as the gullible spread it around it will build up momentum.
LikeLike
I suppose any of a number of things are possible. We’ll find out eventually.
LikeLike
They’re talking about it. Georgia says they are being open minded. They need to keep Georgia Tech and 7 home games. With Florida in a neutral site, that may not work.
LikeLike
‘Yahoo! Sports’ on the Rutgers disaster:
The Scarlet Knights were selected to join the Big Ten in 2014. Nobody, aside from Rutgers hitting the realignment lottery, was excited about that news. The Scarlet Knights don’t add anything to the Big Ten. Their inclusion makes no sense, aside from a little bit more TV money for the schools that no fan is ever going to see. Ask a Big Ten alum if he or she is excited about the news that Rutgers is coming. We bet we know the answer.
It was a transparent cash grab by the Big Ten to add Rutgers, the kind of move that is so audacious it should force everyone to realize that fans no longer matter in college athletics. Even without anything that has happened over the past few months with Rice or Hermann, Rutgers to the Big Ten was still a poor move that made the conference look greedy and awful. Now the Rutgers addition looks even worse, if that was even possible.
Is it too late for the Big Ten to rescind the invitation?
LikeLike
The writer is asking the wrong question. It’s not whether Rutgers was a good move, but whether Maryland & Rutgers together made sense. Once the Big Ten decided to take Maryland, they needed a 14th team, and I haven’t seen a better 14th that was realistically available. Go ahead and argue that the Big Ten should have taken neither; I can respect that. But to evaluate Rutgers in isolation makes no sense.
LikeLike
I’m enjoying the Rutgers implosion as I strongly disliked the Maryland and Rutgers expansion. Both schools add nothing but bad games I don’t want to watch. Maybe the madness can be overturned.
LikeLike
@ Mark, your opinion is nothing but a blanket statement, and a very poor one.
LikeLike
Mark,
The problem is that it’s too late. Delany and the COP/C will dig in like mules no matter how bad this gets. It’s only HR issues, after all. An academic scandal or criminal issues might be different, but they’ve already started integrating RU to the CIC. They’ll be a full member by 7/1/2013.
If you like the B10, you should stop enjoying this because it only hurts the B10. RU isn’t going away no matter how much many of us want them to disappear.
LikeLike
The one thing I’ve realized with all of this expansion is that it’s made me much less a conference homer. Rooting for a conference was fun because of regional (Midwestern) pride. With a 1/3 our conference games now against east coast schools, I’ve realized I care a lot less about the Big Ten’s overall fate and reputation (to an extent). When Nebraska joined, I was rooting hard for the Cornhuskers in their last Big 12 year. I stopped and thought about it this year and realized I didn’t care much how Rutgers and Maryland finished in their current conferences.
None of this is to say my conference pride is gone (it’s definitely not), but my days of caring how much money the schools get relative to others or about the conference being embarrassed by non-athletic stuff are pretty much gone. If Rutgers and Maryland end up a brilliant move or dumb move financially or academically, I just don’t care anymore.
LikeLike
Lets be honest about this. If Penn State was not thrown out of the Conference over Sandusky ( this from a hard core Nittany Lion fan), than Rutgers is going nowhere. That said, Rutgers was a mistake. New York ( and New Jersey) have a rooting interest that is Baseball ( mostly the Yankees) first, followed by the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and then everything else (Rutgers, St Johns, Red Bulls and WNBA Liberty included). Rutgers presence will not move the sports needle more than marginally towards the B10. The thing that will get more providers putting the B10 Network on a basic tier, will be Fox purchasing the Yes Network (and bundling the B10 Network with Yankee Games). Keep in mind what happened with the Tennis Channel and Comcast. The Tennis Channel lost in the US Court of Appeals the right to be on basic cable, so Comcast, Cablevision and Time Warner would have a stronger bargaining position when dealing with Fox and the B10 Network ( except for the Telecasts of the Yankees (and Brooklyn Nets)). Rutgers Football and Hoops is like Soccer. Why? I have heard for decades they will be the next big thing, and millions have been invested in the program as well as in the MLS. But, like Soccer it simply has not happened, and despite trying yet again (Rutgers in the B10 and Manchester City putting an expansion team in the MLS), they are likely to get the same results as before…. Failure.
LikeLike
That said, Rutgers was a mistake.
What do you think they should have done? (Bearing in mind, they’d already taken Maryland, and somebody had to be #14.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What do you think they should have done? (Bearing in mind, they’d already taken Maryland, and somebody had to be #14.)”
But they took UMD knowing RU would be #14. If one believes RU is a big mistake, the obvious answer was to say no to UMD until a better partner could be found or else stick at 13 while searching for that partner.
LikeLike
Competitively this was a loser. Going beyond 12 is a loser. But my hunch is that 20 years from now, no one will be happier with expansion than the Big 10. Rutgers and Maryland will help in non-athletic ways in recruiting students who aren’t athletes, in connecting with alumni and connecting with decision makers on the east coast.
LikeLike
I don’t agree at all with the commentary. For Big Ten teams on the East Coast, the additions of Rutgers and Maryland was exciting news. While RU and MD aren’t major football powers, the opportunity to watch their teams play in this area (I live in suburban DC) is a big bonus. Then add in other competitions (basketball, baseball, lacrosse, etc) to the mix and that only improves the nature of these moves.
I also would like to know which major conference expansion move wasn’t a transparent cash grab. While lack of confidence in conference leadership could be pointed to as a factor, most all of these moves have been motivated by the school or the conference or both by the prospect of increased revenue. Goodness know those were major factors for Maryland and Rutgers to leave the ACC and BIg East respectively for the Big Ten.
I have to laugh at the idea that they don’t add anything but a “little television money”. If the Big Ten is looking at the conference payouts its projecting at around $42M in 2017, then it’s more than just a “little television money”. And by the way, that “little television money” is what helps build and improve existing stadiums, arenas, etc. that actually do make the fan experience better.
LikeLike
cutter,
“For Big Ten teams on the East Coast, the additions of Rutgers and Maryland was exciting news.”
Did you mean fans? There are no B10 teams on the east coast. Assuming you meant fans, I promise you that all depends. I personally know several east coast B10 fans and they were all definitely not excited about the additions. I’m not saying no east coast B10 fans were excited, but many were not.
“While RU and MD aren’t major football powers, the opportunity to watch their teams play in this area (I live in suburban DC) is a big bonus.”
Wanting to see your team play near you is not the same as being excited about expanding the conference. West coast fans don’t really want to see the B10 expand to add all of the P12, but they do want their team in bowl games near them.
“Then add in other competitions (basketball, baseball, lacrosse, etc) to the mix and that only improves the nature of these moves.”
Rutgers is also horrible in MBB, the only other sport most fans care about. Now you’re talking about small fractions of the east coast fans, and that wasn’t a huge number to start with.
“I also would like to know which major conference expansion move wasn’t a transparent cash grab.”
The B12 adding TCU?
“I have to laugh at the idea that they don’t add anything but a “little television money”. If the Big Ten is looking at the conference payouts its projecting at around $42M in 2017, then it’s more than just a “little television money”.”
Is it? We don’t know what the projections were for a 12 team B10 versus one with RU and UMD.
“And by the way, that “little television money” is what helps build and improve existing stadiums, arenas, etc. that actually do make the fan experience better.”
They raise prices for tickets, concessions and parking faster than they improve stadiums, so I’d say the value tends to decrease for the fan.
LikeLike
I am an East Coast Penn State fan ( New York City), but Rutgers simply does nothing for me ( although I prefer them to Michigan State). I spend extra for the Big 10 Network, just for football ( I will watch hockey (although Nittany Lion Hockey is behind the Penguins)). Even the B10 knows that Rutgers does nothing for the PSU fan ( most of us would have preferred the Pitt Panthers), it is all about the TV Market. If RU would have been a great match-up, we would be playing them and not be stuck with Sparty
LikeLike
Pitt, Mizzou, Kansas.
LikeLike
How do you balance the factors to see Pitt as a better addition? RU and Pitt are on par academically, so no edge for Pitt there. Pitt is better athletically, certainly, but they add nothing in terms of TV households or demographics. How could Pitt be even close to revenue neutral?
As for KU, are you assuming they could leave KSU behind? How would they pay to break their GOR? How sure are you that a MBB king that is terrible at football and is in a small state (only NE is smaller in the B10) makes money for the B10?
LikeLike
Ousting Tim Pernetti was a gross overreaction. He was the perfect partner for the Rutgers transition.
LikeLike
Well, one thing is for sure: the anti-RU people should be grateful that they’ve been given more ammo by RU’s administration. If you think about the fans of the schools that were passed over in favor of Rutgers, let alone fans of competing Power 5 conferences, this should not surprise anybody.
Also, I can’t dismiss the role ESPN is having in ginning up the works here. They are a vindictive bunch and will make hay of anybody who doesn’t toe their line (see: the Big East turning down the offer to extend the TV contract, right before several schools started *conveniently* leaving). The B1G’s move toward the Atlantic coast *potentially* puts a competitor getting greater exposure, *potentially* taking college sports viewers away from ESPN in the northeast corridor. ESPN knows this and will take advantage of any weaknesses that develop. If they can help amplify the scandals to the level of toxicity then they’d achieve their goal of neutralizing that threat before it can start affecting their bottom line.
LikeLike
If you think about the fans of the schools that were passed over in favor of Rutgers, let alone fans of competing Power 5 conferences, this should not surprise anybody.
What schools can realistically claim to have been “passed over”? By the time the Big Ten took Rutgers, what other schools meeting the league’s criteria were available? The Big XII had signed its GoR, so that rules out Kansas. Missouri had joined the SEC, and nobody has left the SEC in decades. Pitt would have loved a Big Ten offer, but the league isn’t going to take a second school in a state they’re already in (other than Notre Dame). Syracuse, UConn, West Virginia, and Louisville aren’t AAU. None of the ACC’s other AAU schools were ready to leave.
Also, I can’t dismiss the role ESPN is having in ginning up the works here.
What has occurred that ESPN, by any stretch of the imagination, could have ginned up?
LikeLike
Syracuse and Louisville would have picked the ACC, anyway, as that conference fits their profile much better. Pitt might’ve gone either way but, since they’ve been a traditional Big East basketball power, the ACC also isn’t a bad fit for them. Connecticut could have been #14, even without AAU. They’re a state flagship that is serious about upping their research capacities. And they’ve actually won at sports, including winning the Big East football league outright while that league was still part of the BCS. I know they don’t border any current B1G state but they’re neatly straddled between the Boston and NY markets. Perhaps that state was too much of a reach this time but they’re still out there in case of conference emergency, if you get my drift.
As for ESPN, considered how deep their tentacles are in all of the major conferences. Look at all the people they’ve hired as analysts, bloggers, so-called experts, etc.. These same people have connections to the people who are in positions of authority in the major conferences. I bet that some of those individuals are working on those authority figures to influence their decision making. When the Mike Rice scandal hit, it was blood in the water for the ESPN sharks to circle around. And they’ve been given gift after gift by how the RU administration has reacted.
LikeLike
Syracuse and Louisville would have picked the ACC, anyway, as that conference fits their profile much better.
Doubt it, especially Louisville. The money, stability and academics are better in the Big Ten and geography is about the same for both schools. Plus, Louisville doesn’t have any historic ties to anyone in the ACC.
Connecticut could have been #14, even without AAU.
If the Big Ten wasn’t willing to take Florida St. because it lacked AAU membership what makes you think they would have taken UConn?
LikeLike
Rutgers needs to hire an outsider as AD, because the transition to the Big Ten is going to be far tougher than what Virginia Tech experienced in its move to the ACC, or what Pitt will go through next year. (I mention those schools because both underperformed in Directors Cup rankings in their final Big East years.) Tech improved its program after entering the ACC, but moving into the Big Ten will be a vastly bigger challenge; in the latest Directors Cup, Rutgers was 92nd, far behind the lowest current Big Ten member, Iowa at 71. (Fellow newcomer Maryland was 43rd.) If Rutgers people think Pernetti is the answer because he’s a “Jersey guy,” they’re blindly mistaken. He would be in over his head. Maryland has six decades of big-time experience with the ACC; Rutgers was never in that kind of high-profile environment, even at the peak of the Big East. The Scarlet Knights will be playing a vastly different ballgame.
LikeLike
Christie voices “absolute confidence” in Barchi
http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/rutgers/2013/05/28/christie-voices-absolute-confidence-in-barchi/
LikeLike
bullet,
Rutgers and Maryland will help in non-athletic ways in recruiting students who aren’t athletes, in connecting with alumni and connecting with decision makers on the east coast.
This leads me to a question I have been thinking about since this last realignment finished: Could it be possible sometime in the future for the Committee on Institutional Cooperation to open its doors to colleges and universities outside of the Big Ten other than U. of Chicago? Before you dismiss it, consider that many Big Ten fans have already soured on further expansion. So, even throwing out the other conferences’ Grants of Rights as a factor, there seems to be a growing opinion that the athletic conference can not go any bigger without losing what made that conference special for many people.
However, I think most of us know the reason why there is an academic arm to the Big Ten in the first place. University presidents and academicians love the idea that they can influence world events and culture (maybe not all of them but lots of them go into academia for that very reason). Perhaps by knowing there are limits to Big Ten expansion that the CIC could be free to invite like-minded institutions without requiring their sports to join up the athletic arm. Now, I don’t suggest that the door be thrown wide open but maybe start with those who only compete in Division III.
I think the UAA schools would be a perfect potential partner in this. Chicago is already in that conference. Johns Hopkins was once part of UAA and may be looking at joining the B1G in lacrosse. Should they join the CIC, that should make it easier to argue that NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve and Rochester be invited as well. Lots of good institutions that could positively affect the CIC and also benefit the Big Ten schools by opening their library and research resources to Big Ten students.
Should the Big Ten-UAA academic alliance work out, then I think the Pac-12 schools could be brought in. Imagine if the library of the University of California system could be integrated into the CIC. That would be gangbusters! I think schools like USC, Stanford, Arizona, Washington and Oregon would find such an association very appealing. By then, only the Ivy League and the AAU schools in the other P5 conferences would be holding out and they’d be fighting to keep the best students from going to the B1G/UAA/Pac-12 schools (which may be realized by merging the B1G/PAC in 20-25 years).
Yes, crazy idea but it’s the summer months. There’s not much to do until football season starts! 🙂
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/play/collegefootball/qyx5pQoFXP0O/tony-barnhart-on-sec-non-conference-scheduling
An interview with Tony Barnhart about all the various SEC scheduling issues.
LikeLike
http://collegebasketball.ap.org/article/sec-exploring-having-hoops-tourney-primary-site
The SEC may select a permanent site for their MBB tourney. If not permanent, it’ll at least be the primary site. FB is in Atlanta, baseball in Hoover, AL, and MBB may be in Nashville, apparently.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/28/pac-12-football-previewing-espn-fox-and-pac12nets-early-season-broadcast-assignments/
A good look at how the P12’s TV partners select games.
*** Before the three networks begin their so-called draft, Fox and ESPN will make four initial selections. (The entire season of Pac-12-owned games is available.)
Fox has already announced it will broadcast Notre Dame at Stanford on the Saturday of Thanksgiving weekend, a strong indication that it had the first pick in the four-game draft.
Assuming Fox picked first, ESPN owned the No. 2 and 3 selections, with Fox picking the fourth and final game.
And yes, Fox has the right to move Pac-12 games to its new, all-sports network, Fox Sports 1, which is set to launch in August.
*** I have to think ESPN used one of its picks on Stanford-Oregon, a Thursday showdown (Nov. 7) that could very well be the Pac-12 game of the year (and has the added benefit of not conflicting with Alabama-LSU, which is two days later).
But it’s important to note that the four games pulled off the table by Fox and ESPN aren’t necessarily what the networks would consider the four best games.
The process is a bit more nuanced, with value coming into play:
If there’s a weekend with one game that’s vastly superior to the others — even if it’s not one of the four best of the season — then Fox/ESPN might grab it. The fact that Oregon and USC miss each other this fall reduces by one what the networks would consider must-have games.
…
*** My guess on the initial selections:
1) Notre Dame at Stanford (Fox)
2) Oregon at Stanford (ESPN)
3) Stanford at USC (ESPN)
4) UCLA at USC (Fox)
*** After the four initial selection, the draft began.
The weekly selection order was determined in advance, with the Pac12Nets having the No. 1 pick twice and the No. 2 pick on six occasions (don’t hold me to that: it might be seven).
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity is anyone else being redirected to .me domain for this site instead of the usual .wordpress.com?
Did you move to Montenegro Frank?
LikeLike
@frug – Your eyes aren’t deceiving you (although I haven’t physically moved to Montenegro). We’ll see how it works. Unfortunately, frankthetank.com has long been unavailable.
LikeLike
frankthetank.net isn’t taken, FWIW
LikeLike
There’s not site, but according to Go Daddy someone already owns the name
LikeLike
Squatters are easier to get rid of than ever before.
LikeLike
So we won’t be discussing University “Mediterranean’s” attempt to get the University “Mediteran” basketball club up to the First League?
(And yes, the preferred printing of the name includes the quotation marks)
LikeLike
@Frank – it appears the .com address for your real name isn’t taken.
LikeLike
😦 corporate overlords block the enitre .me domain.
LikeLike
I can’t recall the setup for the new Fox Sports 1 channel. Will it be a rebranding of an existing channel, or a new one? Will there be carriage concerns? I saw the release of the PAC’s early season broadcast lineup and I don’t see FX and only a couple big FOX, but I do see a number of FS1.
LikeLike
FS1 is replacing Speed.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/29/pac-12-football-tv-schedule-for-early-season-games/#more-31563
Here’s a look at the schedule.
Key points:
*** The Pac-12 Networks broadcast lineup is, well, ho-hum:
Of the 13 non-conference games scheduled to air the weekends of Aug. 31, Sept. 7 and Sept. 14, a grand total of one is against a BCS-level opponent, and that’s Boston College at USC.
Meanwhile, more than half of the Pac12Nets games are against FCS-level teams.
and
*** You’ll notice that the Pac-12 title game has been moved to Saturday (Dec. 7).
Yes, the poor attendance at Stanford last season played a role in the decision.
The P12 CCG has moved to eastern prime time on Saturday instead of Friday. That means it’ll go head to head with the ACC CCG and likely the B10 CCG, too. Meanwhile, the SEC stays unopposed by major conference CCGs at 4:00 ET.
LikeLike
Probably the SEC will be unopposed in their time slot because it will be the most watched nationally.
LikeLike
They’ve been opposite another conference in the past. I imagine it will be two and two, depending on who has the rights. ESPN has the ACC. I believe Fox has the Big 10.
LikeLike
“The P12 CCG has moved to eastern prime time on Saturday instead of Friday. That means it’ll go head to head with the ACC CCG and likely the B10 CCG, too.”
Actually, i think that it means that the P12 CCG will go head to head with the B10 CCG and maybe the ACC CCG.
ESPN has put the ACC CCG on the early afternoon slot before, and never have 3 Big-5 CCG’s been shown on the same time slot.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Actually, i think that it means that the P12 CCG will go head to head with the B10 CCG and maybe the ACC CCG.
ESPN has put the ACC CCG on the early afternoon slot before, and never have 3 Big-5 CCG’s been shown on the same time slot.”
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/05/acc-college-football-games-added-to-espns-2013-schedule/
ESPN has already scheduled the ACC’s CCG for prime time this year. As far as I know the B10’s CCG isn’t set yet, but it has been a prime time game.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22321536/commissioners-expected-to-be-excluded-from-selection-committee
More evidence how screwy this CFP process is. There’s a Friday deadline for each conference to submit names to be considered for the committee, but there’s still no decision on what type of people should make up the committee. The current plan is that conference commissioners will not be eligible, but ADs could be.
LikeLike
LSU’s AD says LSU/Wisconsin in Houston to begin the 2014 season is “95% done.”
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2013/05/lsus_joe_alleva_said_wisconsin.html#incart_river
It also sounds like a return trip to Lambeau is likely.
LikeLike
The more I hear, the more it sounds like LSU doesn’t really want to play in WI. The inability to pick a year for the return game makes it seem to me like LSU wants the Houston game and then will opt out of the return game. I’m not saying they’re chicken or anything, and I know WI has to clear some OOC space for the return game, but LSU gets a lot more value out of playing in Houston than in remote WI.
Alvarez just had a knee replacement last week I believe, so maybe they can wrap this up soon. I hope to see two firm dates or at least a strong buyout clause.
LikeLike
Brian – I think you are wrong. LSU fans, big money donors, and the players are very excited about the possibility of a Lambeau game. Unlike some other SEC teams, LSU has never had a problem traveling outside its region. In the 80s and 90s, LSU even played Notre Dame in South Bend in November. When I was in college, we also played a home and home with Ohio State. Over the last decade, LSU has travelled to Tucson, Tempe, Seattle, Morgan Town, and Blacksburg. I am also not aware of LSU bailing out of games. Recently, other teams have backed out of games with LSU, including Texas Tech under Leach, and Colorado before they completely sucked.
LSU’s OOC (non-cupcake) schedule for the next few years is as follows: 2015 Ariz St (H); 2016 Ariz St (A); 2017 NC State (H); 2018 Oklahoma (A); 2019 Oklahoma (H); and NC State (A). None of these games are season openers. Also, the SEC schedule isn’t even set for 2014 yet.
That being said, I could easily see a Lambeau game in ’15, ’17, or ’19, when LSU doesn’t have to travel for another OOC game, even though LSU played only 6 home games in ’11 in order to play Oregon in DFW, and at West Virginia.
LikeLike
Jeremy Fowler of CBS Sports is now reporting that LSU/Wisconsin in Lambeau is likely in 2017.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/22321360/lsu-and-wisconsin-planning-2014-in-houston-lambeau-once-from-201618
That makes the most sense, with NC State coming to Baton Rouge that year.
Maybe the SEC goes to a seven game conference schedule in 2018.
LikeLike
A seven game schedule?
LikeLike
Brian – sorry, I meant to write nine.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“I think you are wrong.”
I hope I am.
“LSU fans, big money donors, and the players are very excited about the possibility of a Lambeau game. Unlike some other SEC teams, LSU has never had a problem traveling outside its region.”
That’s why I was careful to say I don’t think LSU is afraid of the game. I just think they might see more value in 1 neutral site game near them than adding a second in near-Canada.
“I am also not aware of LSU bailing out of games. Recently, other teams have backed out of games with LSU, including Texas Tech under Leach, and Colorado before they completely sucked.”
It wouldn’t be bailing out if they never could reach an agreement for the second game.
LikeLike
Eh, PSU evidently sees value in a game in Ireland (more than one in FL as they’re trying to get UCF to move their home game there).
A game at Lambeau would be something pretty exciting for the LSU boosters, players (and possibly recruits). Saban will play a neutral site game nearly every year, but Miles can point to a trip to a more historic locale than Arlington or Atlanta.
LikeLike
Things like this were the basis for my statement:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22172541/lsu-ad-on-playing-wisconsin-at-lambeau-well-see
“The biggest thing to consider is the value of playing a game that far away versus the value of playing a game in Tiger Stadium,” Alleva said.
LikeLike
Also this:
http://theadvocate.com/sports/5826906-32/lsu-in-talks-to-play
The games between LSU and Wisconsin would be at neutral sites. Possible venues include Reliant Stadium in Houston; Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas; and historic Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wis., home of the Green Bay Packers.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported Friday, quoting unnamed sources, that Wisconsin would like to play LSU at Lambeau.
Alleva said he isn’t interested in playing a game at Lambeau, mentioning instead the two Texas sites.
As for PSU, that’s an entirely different situation. They’re trying to replace the bowl experience with a trip to Europe.
LikeLike
Purdue’s baseball team makes a trip down to Baton Rouge next March 7-9, 2014.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/2013/05/29/emails-recruiting-changes-angered-b1g-officials/
Gazette with emails and texts of B1G officials responding to proposed wide-open recruiting changes.
LikeLike
“Emmert retorted that the proposals were vetted for months by the NCAA’s membership committee with opposition from only Rice University, “who I don’t believe is a mainstream D1 school,” ”
He just made my list…
LikeLike
My opinion of him keeps dropping. He’s concerned about the investigation of Miami, no so much what they did. He doesn’t think the academic fraud at UNC is his concern. But a school with integrity is not mainstream. I think he is demonstrating that.
LikeLike
More from the “ACC vindictiveness against College Park” department:
We knew none of the Research Triangle members (NCSU, UNC, Duke) would play men’s basketball at Comcast next season. Now, we learn none of their women’s teams will, either: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2013/05/29/maryland-womens-basketball-receives-acc-opponents/
LikeLike
Get used to it. The Big 12 is still in full boycott mode against Missouri. Who knows how long it will last. Maryland may not play another ACC team for a while after this season.
LikeLike
Well, maybe not full boycott mode. I’m looking forward to the upcoming MBB Mizzou-WVU matchup.
LikeLike
The SEC coaches voted 13-1 to stay at 8 games and they’ll keep the 6-1-1 model. However, reporters at the meetings say that the coaches and ADs generally agree that moving to 9 games is inevitable.
LikeLike
Slive apparently told the ADs & coaches today to start scheduling better OOC games.
quote:
Brett McMurphy ?@McMurphyESPN 3m
SEC commish Mike Slive: “I made it clear (to the schools) to upgrade (their non-conference) schedules.”
quote:
Brett McMurphy ?@McMurphyESPN 3m
SEC’s Mike Slive: “I don’t want (our schools) to play four (non-conference) games that don’t interest our fans”
LikeLike
This is for basketball, and is much needed.
LikeLike
Never mind, looks like he also addressed football. This is the other one I was thinking of:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–sec-confronting-men-s-basketball-scheduling-issues-head-on-with-league-approval-process-232500614.html
LikeLike
I like it, but laugh at these kind of things a little. The schools do not work for Mike Slive, it’s the other way around. Now as a conference they can agree to or he can encourage it, but he’s got no power to force them, which is how his quote comes off.
LikeLike
Yeah, but Delany said the same thing and made the schools toe the line. Usually when the CC speaks it’s with the backing of the presidents.
LikeLike
Interesting lacrosse news that could be an indicator of Hopkins’ conference decision:
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/29/sources-denver-announce-move-big-east-mens-lacrosse
The author speculated that this could lead JH to not pursue a Big East membership. I wonder if St. Louis University or Dayton, schools rumored to join the Big East in the future, have lacrosse programs. I’m not that knowledgeable in lacrosse, so any info is appreciated.
It also looks like the ECAC is in for some rough waters going forward.
LikeLike
Dayton doesn’t play Lacrosse, SLU plays intercollegiate club lacrosse, not Div1. If a BigTen LAX league was formed, the New Big East would be one team short ~ now they’ll be at six.
Bad news for Richmond, LAX was one of their advantages over Dayton. If the New Big East felt they needed a sixth, it would indicate they weren’t getting a sixth from a Richmond add.
OTOH, the ECAC would be ranked a little above the New Big East, with the conference losing their power program to the power ACC, and Denver is a leader in the ECAC ~ the New Big East might take them anyway, especially if they come along with their women’s program.
LikeLike
SIAP. It looks like the speculation of the Alamo replacing the Cotton as the Big 12 #1 bowl is happening.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/alamo-close-replacing-cotton-atop-235815354–ncaaf.html
LikeLike
Indiana baseball kicks off the post season tomorrow – friday – at 7pm on ESPN3.
LikeLike
Having some fun at the expense of Rutgers and the Big 10.
LikeLike
The logo for the American Athletic Conference: http://theamerican.org/
LikeLike
Far inferior to the Bill the Cat logo.
LikeLike
“The American ~ We can’t even afford graphic artists who can draw stars properly!!!
LikeLike
Captain America on crack?
LikeLike
“The president of Ohio State University said Notre Dame was never invited to join the Big Ten because the university’s priests are not good partners, joking that “those damn Catholics” can’t be trusted, according to a recording of a meeting he attended late last year.”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-osu-head-jabs-notre-dame-catholics
LikeLike
“You tell the SEC when they can learn to read and write, then they can figure out what we’re doing,” Gee said, when asked by a questioner how to respond to SEC fans who say the Big Ten can’t count because it now has 14 members.”
LikeLike
At some point Ohio St. has to figure out this guy is embarrassing.
LikeLike
Maybe he can replace Emmert at the NCAA!
LikeLike
The fans and many alumni figured it out a long time ago. But he raises a lot of money so the BOT loves him.
LikeLike
I’m sure you’ll all be interested to read this section of the article:
“During the meeting, [Ohio State University President] Gee also said he thought it was a mistake not to include Missouri and Kansas in earlier Big Ten expansion plans. Missouri has since joined the SEC.”
LikeLike
I don’t know about you guys, but I think a B1G West with Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin would have been very nice. I suspect if you took a poll of B1G fans they would have strongly preferred that to what ended up happening in the end.
Oh well at least Missouri ended up in a good conference.
LikeLike
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/the-big-tens-fab-five/
LikeLike
What am I, chopped liver?
LikeLike
As a Nebraska fan, Kansas and Missouri as part of the Big10 would have been cool.
LikeLike
That seems reasonable in general: if you did conference realignment by taking votes among fans, LOTS of moves would turn out differently. Its neither here nor there for actual realignment moves made by people who have to consider both what fans like and also the needs of the schools.
LikeLike
Ohio State wanted Missouri – interesting that OSU couldn’t get the conference in line with their thinking. I would have thought that OSU, Illinois, Iowa, the Indiana schools and Minnesota at a minimum would support Missouri.
No doubt that Missouri games vs. Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Purdue would generate more interest than any of these teams vs, Maryland or Rutgers. Too bad it didn’t get done.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
It might be a matter of timing. The Big Ten wanted to wait, but Missouri had to leave.
LikeLike
B10 likely was interested in Missouri but not near as much as Nebraska. By the time the B10 added Maryland and Rutgers, Missouri was firmly in the SEC…
I don’t think the B10 is too bummed over it but would things have been different had the B10 knew Missouri to the SEC was a possibility? Would the B10 have added Missouri & Rutgers (or Kansas) shortly after adding Nebraska or would they had passed?
Nobody really knows and like Andy, I feel the B10 made a mistake but nowhere near the degree Andy does. B10 imo had it’s eyes on the East Coast: Rutgers/NYC, Maryland/DC, Virginia, NC & the Atlanta market (GT.)
LikeLike
@wmwilverine – I don’t think anything would have been different. The Big Ten fully knew Missouri to the SEC was a possibility after Texas A&M bolted the Big 12, yet never extended any invitation to Mizzou over the course of month when they had the chance. For various reasons, the Big Ten didn’t want Missouri (and it was absolutely the Big Ten that made the choice here – I know Andy wants to believe differently, but that’s simply the case). That doesn’t mean that Mizzou would have been a bad addition to the Big Ten – I think that they would have been perfectly fine. However, you’re correct that the Big Ten’s long-range goal was to go the East Coast. Brian’s analysis is spot on – Rutgers is either the 2nd best possible post-Nebraska addition after Maryland or it could be looked at as the 5th depending on what criteria you’re using, and it’s apparent that whatever criteria the Big Ten was using pointed to them being #2.
I’ll grant Andy this: it may end up being the case that Rutgers was the wrong choice for the Big Ten compared to adding Missouri. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position at a high level. What I quibble with is the intimation that the Big Ten itself would have chosen Missouri over Rutgers last year if Mizzou wasn’t already in the SEC, which I don’t believe is the case at all. The Big Ten (rightly or wrongly) rated all 3 of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers as higher than Missouri for what they believed was most important in expansion.
LikeLike
Based on all the discussion, its hard to believe the Big 10 would have added 2 schools from slow growing Midwest states. Once Nebraska became available, that foreclosed further expansion except to the east (or Notre Dame). And Nebraska made eastern expansion more feasible. They added a football king who was strong all around in sports allowing them to “settle” athletically on #13 and #14.
LikeLike
In light of this article, I wonder if GG’s comments a few months back about the B1G targeting some schools in the Midwest were more aspirational than factual…
Kansas and Missouri would have been good, solid additions, but that the financial potential of Rutgers and Maryland outweighs the financial potential of Mizzou and Kansas. Obviously, Delany & Co. feel this to be true. As a NY area resident, I can vouch firsthand that while in general, there is very little interest in Rutgers athletics, if they ever became a consistent winner (and hired competent administrators), that could change very quickly. Indeed, when Rutgers beat Louisville in 2006, the Empire State Building was lit up in scarlet, and the back pages of the Post and NYDN featured the victory.
LikeLike
Frank and others, it’s all just opinion at this point. None of us know. We’re all just guessing.
My guess is this was their general wish list ranking:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. Texas A&M
4. Nebraska
5. North Carolina
6. Virginia
7. Maryland
8. Duke
9. Missouri
10. Rutgers
11. Kansas
12. Georgia Tech
13. Pitt
14. Oklahoma
15. Virginia Tech
16. Miami
16. Syracuse
16. UConn
17. NC State
18. Boston College
19. Who knows? Iowa State? Clemson? At this point it doesn’t matter
So yeah, Missouri barely makes the top 10 on the B1G’s wish list. Except most of the school sat the top of that list were never going to join the B1G, as we know now. But by the time they realized that, Missouri was already off the table, and they got stuck with Rutgers.
Now, I fully realize Rutgers could pan out and be great.
Right now I’d rank Rutgers as a 4 out of 10, and Missouri as a 6.5 out of 10.
In 20 years will Rutgers be stronger than Missouri? I guess it’s possible. But I’d consider it highly unlikely.
LikeLike
@Andy – I think that list is fair, although Georgia Tech would definitely be in the UVA/Maryland/Duke range (just below UNC) for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
It is not just the value of Rutgers by itself that brings the potential for huge revenues to the BIG. It is Rutgers plus Penn State, Rutgers plus Michigan. Same for Maryland. PSU has a large alumni base in both NYC and Baltimore/Washington, yet not nearly enough to carry the market themselves. Now combine that with Rutgers and UMD. Same goes with Michigan. That’s where the value lies. It’s not a question of can Rutgers deliver the NYC market, it is can Rutgers combined the PSU, UM, etc,.
LikeLike
Frank, I picked GA Tech lower because they’re so far away. But I agree they’re a good school.
psuhockey, I get that that’s the theory. I just don’t think it’s going to work. Rutgers is going to be the doormat of the league. I just don’t see them ever mattering all that much in the NYC/NJ area, no matter who they’re playing against. But who knows? Maybe in 20 years….
LikeLike
It also is what would the consequences of taking Kansas and Missouri at that time? You probably create the conditions that the P16 occurs at that time, removing future UT possibilities.
Regarding the list. 1 and 2 are at their discression. aTm wasn’t ever coming, wouldn’t go to the PAC with UT and OU. 4: asked and accepted. Probably the next four were asked and one accepted. Barring the other three changing their mind do you instead invite two Midwest modest population states rather than going with Maryland and Rutgers, a the power move into the media hub of the mid Atlantic?
LikeLike
Andy,
“My guess is this was their general wish list ranking:
1. Notre Dame
2. Texas
3. Texas A&M
4. Nebraska
5. North Carolina
6. Virginia
7. Maryland
8. Duke
9. Missouri
10. Rutgers
11. Kansas
12. Georgia Tech
13. Pitt
14. Oklahoma
15. Virginia Tech
16. Miami
16. Syracuse
16. UConn
17. NC State
18. Boston College
19. Who knows? Iowa State? Clemson? At this point it doesn’t matter”
A reasonable guess, but I’d tweak it a little. First, it’s important to define what this list is. Are you talking for #12 or in general? Beyond 12, everyone would need a partner so it’d be better, but too time consuming, to list pairs. Also, desirability is strongly linked to the ability to bridge to any school in a non-contiguous state.
1. Notre Dame
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. UT – great everything except proximity and culture
7. UNC – hoops king, great demographics, proximity and culture issues
8. NE – FB king, weak academics, bad demographics, contiguous
9. UMD – solid sports and academics, strong demographics, contiguous
10. UVA – solid sports and academics, strong demographics, not contiguous
11. RU – solid academics, weak sports, great demographics, contiguous
12. TAMU – great option except a poor cultural fit so I drop it down
13. MO – solid everything
14. KU – similar but less proximity and worse demographics
15. GT – great academics, decent sports, great demographics, poor proximity
16. Duke – great academics, hoops king, iffy demographics, small and private
I don’t think the rest really ever even got considered except maybe in a big package deal.
“So yeah, Missouri barely makes the top 10 on the B1G’s wish list. Except most of the school sat the top of that list were never going to join the B1G, as we know now. But by the time they realized that, Missouri was already off the table, and they got stuck with Rutgers.”
I think they knew all along that many of their top choices were longshots. I personally think they were so infatuated with going east that RU was a higher priority than MO to them. The quick decision not to take MO and KU shows the B10 didn’t have them high on their list. They knew RU was always available, and once TAMU went to the SEC it was clear MO was in play and wanted the B10. If the B10 highly valued adding MO, they would have grabbed them and either KU or RU. I think they were still looking east, though, and waiting to crack the ACC.
“In 20 years will Rutgers be stronger than Missouri? I guess it’s possible. But I’d consider it highly unlikely.”
What constitutes stronger?
LikeLike
Andy,
“psuhockey, I get that that’s the theory. I just don’t think it’s going to work. Rutgers is going to be the doormat of the league.”
I don’t think so. I think they’ll be in the mix with several schools for the tier below the princes in FB. Not great, but not terrible. There record will suffer from being in the East, though.
“I just don’t see them ever mattering all that much in the NYC/NJ area, no matter who they’re playing against”
They won’t matter much, probably, but their opponents might. A big event will draw attention in NYC.
LikeLike
Brian, I think the B1G was stuck in the kind of thinking that ccrider demonstrates a few steps above.
They let Missouri walk to the SEC because they were still dreaming big dreams of raiding getting Notre Dame, maybe Texas, raiding the crown jewels of the ACC, etc. Schools like Missouri and Rutgers were backup plans at that point in time. The B1G decided to let one of those backup plans go because they calculated that they likely wouldn’t need them because surely they could do better.
As it turned out they could not. Notre Dame aligned with the ACC. The ACC didn’t break up as predicted. So of the possiblities on that list I wrote up a few posts up almost none are left.
So if they had known that they wouldn’t get Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, Virginia, Duke, etc, what would they have done?
Say their choices were:
Maryland and Rutgers
Maryland and Missouri
Missouri and Kansas
Which of those three pairings would they choose?
All we can do is guess, because at no time did they think that that was the situation.
I suspect that there’s a high chance that what they ended up with would rank 2nd or 3rd on their list of options.
I at least think there would have been a split vote.
Now, if Rutgers actually delivers NYC then it’s a no brainer. They’re a goldmine By all means take them. But do they? I highly doubt it.
So then we’re just talking about New Jersey (or as much as Rutgers as a B1G member covers it) vs Missouri (as much as Mizzou as a B1G member would cover it). And on that scale I think Missouri wins fairly easily.
But we’ll never know. And all parties ended up in good places.
Well, except for the Jayhawks.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Brian, I think the B1G was stuck in the kind of thinking that ccrider demonstrates a few steps above.”
I think they had spent years talking about going east (ND was a part of that) and so their focus was on that. When the B12 started to crumble, I think they were surprised and happy to get NE. The eastward focus meant MO just wasn’t important enough to most of them to justify going to 14 (RU was always available).
“They let Missouri walk to the SEC because they were still dreaming big dreams of raiding getting Notre Dame, maybe Texas, raiding the crown jewels of the ACC, etc.”
I don’t think they really believed they’d get ND or UT. ND was somewhat receptive before, but not this time. I do think their plans looked eastward towards the ACC, though. UMD was high on their list and they got them.
“So if they had known that they wouldn’t get Notre Dame, Texas, UNC, Virginia, Duke, etc, what would they have done?
Say their choices were:
Maryland and Rutgers
Maryland and Missouri
Missouri and Kansas
Which of those three pairings would they choose?”
1. You left out the choice they did make, which was add nobody.
2. UMD and MO weren’t available at the same time, so we have no proof. I’d guess the list would have been:
1. UMD/RU
1a. UMD/MO
2. MO/KU
The reason UMD/RU is higher is not that RU is more valuable in isolation, but that the pair has synergy with PSU to work on the east coast. Expanding in both directions ruins that, but MO is a better choice in isolation.
“Now, if Rutgers actually delivers NYC then it’s a no brainer. They’re a goldmine By all means take them. But do they? I highly doubt it.”
I doubt it, too.
“So then we’re just talking about New Jersey (or as much as Rutgers as a B1G member covers it) vs Missouri (as much as Mizzou as a B1G member would cover it). And on that scale I think Missouri wins fairly easily.”
NJ = 8.9M (+ NYC next door) > MO = 6.0M
RU academics > MO academics
MO sports >> RU sports
It depends what you value, and I think the presidents value $ and students over sports success.
LikeLike
Thanks FTT for correcting me, I agree and before even made the point myself that the B10 was far more interested in the East Coast and knocking the ACC down a peg as opposed to adding more Midwest schools (Missouri/Kansas.) B10 had their eyes on the NYC->DC corridor, which is very wealthy and has a ton of cable/satellite subscribers…
Andy can point to all the numbers & statistics in the world that make the case that Missouri > Rutgers or Maryland. Yet Delaney saw it more important to cut an arm from the ACC than adding more Midwest schools. Without Delaney sweeping in and grabbing Rutgers, Maryland; I think there was potential for the ACC to ‘own’ the entire Atlantic Coast and Delaney saw it as far more important to stop that than add a couple ‘solid’ programs in the Midwest.
LikeLike
We’re not that far apart on this. I’d just say that Missouri covers their 6.0M quite a bit more strongly than Rutgers covers their 8.7M. So in terms of # of fans and amount of interest, Missouri has Rutgers beat. Rutgers is just very weak in terms of athletics and fans.
Rutgers is a bit stronger than Mizzou academically, sure. But Rutgers is still near the bottom of the B1G academically, and Mizzou is still an AAU school with 35k students, a top 40 or 50 med school, top 50 business school, etc. Missouri would have been good enough.
I think the B1G picked Rutgers for a couple of reasons. They got hung up on the idea of “expanding east”, probably with more than just Rutgers and Maryland in mind, but it didn’t work out. Also, they fell in love with getting NYC, which I think is just not going to happen with Rutgers.
I think if they had decided Rutgers would not deliver NYC and that they were not going to make a major expansion into the east and raid multiple ACC schools then Rutgers would have dropped down their priority list.
In that case they would have gone with Maryland and Missouri or failing that Missouri and Kansas.
Even with all other things the same, Missouri still might have won out over Rutgers had they been available. We’ll never know.
LikeLike
wmwolverine, the ACC was never going to own the east coast. The B1G has Penn State and the SEC has South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Those are 4 out of the top 6 athletic programs on the east coast. Rutgers doesn’t even rank in the top 12. Adding them does very little.
LikeLike
@Brian and Andy
There is no doubt in mind that given the choice between Texas and ND the Big Ten would take Texas and it wouldn’t be especially close.
UT is most valuable athletic department in the country and would have provided stronger FB, more valuable BB and solved the Big Ten’s demographic issues and added a ton of new households for the BTN neither of which Notre Dame would have done.
LikeLike
Andy,
“We’re not that far apart on this. I’d just say that Missouri covers their 6.0M quite a bit more strongly than Rutgers covers their 8.7M. So in terms of # of fans and amount of interest, Missouri has Rutgers beat. Rutgers is just very weak in terms of athletics and fans.”
But many of the non-RU fans in NJ are PSU fans. Plus, RU is next door to NYC where there are over 1M+ B10 fans according to Nate Silver. The B10 also has some fans in the STL market while the B12 has many in the KC market. In terms of money from BTN subscriptions, RU > MO.
“Rutgers is a bit stronger than Mizzou academically, sure.”
More than a bit.
“But Rutgers is still near the bottom of the B1G academically,”
USN&WR:
RU = 68
tied with MN, above 72. MSU, 72, IA, 83. IN, 101. NE
MO = 97
AAU:
All but NE
ARWU (world/US ranking):
RU = 40/61
Above 41/65 OSU, 48/84 IN, 52/96 MSU, 54-67/101-150 IA, 68-85/151-200 NE
MO = 86-109/201-300
CMUP Top Public Research Schools:
RU = 3 measures in top 25, 5 in 26-50th, 39th total research, 40th federal
Above IN (2 top 25, 2 26-50, 70/77), NE (0, 3, 53/74)
MO = 0, 4, 52/52
RU is clearly above about 3 schools (IA, IN, NE) and on par with several in the B10 (OSU, MSU). Being 10th puts them in the top 75% while 8th would be top 65%, so I don’t believe “near the bottom” is an accurate description. They are below average, but closer to the middle than the bottom.
“and Mizzou is still an AAU school with 35k students, a top 40 or 50 med school, top 50 business school, etc. Missouri would have been good enough.”
You denigrate RU’s academics, which are clearly a lot better than MO’s, and then celebrate MO’s. You can’t have it both ways. MO would be next to last in the B10 academically.
“I think if they had decided Rutgers would not deliver NYC”
They won’t decide that until years of data prove it to them. They aren’t sure it will work, but they certainly aren’t sure it ‘ll fail.
“and that they were not going to make a major expansion into the east and raid multiple ACC schools then Rutgers would have dropped down their priority list.”
Yes, if they weren’t planning to move east of course RU would drop down the list. But they always were aiming east, so RU rose and MO fell.
“Even with all other things the same, Missouri still might have won out over Rutgers had they been available. We’ll never know.”
It’s unlikely because it undermines their strategy. UMD, RU and PSU work together in a way that MO and UMD couldn’t provide. That’s not to say their strategy is necessarily optimal, but they they would follow their strategy.
LikeLike
Brian, like usual, you make some fairly solid points and then undermine yourself badly by overreaching.
I neither denegrated Rutgers academics nor did I celebrate Missouri’s. Being only clearly above 3 out of the other 13 B1G schools isn’t “near the bottom”? Okay. Saying Missouri isn’t as strong as Rutgers academically but “would have been good enough” is “celbrating”? hardly. You’re reading what you want to read out of my post and not what I actually said.
There are a lot of different rankings to point to. If I read yours correctly, Rutgers is 39th or 40th in research and Missouri is ranked 52. Ok. That pretty much matches exactly what I was saying. Rutgers is better academically but not hugely so. Ranking B1G schools with Missouri, the rankings would roughly be something like Iowa or Michigan State then Rutgers then Missouri then Indiana then Nebraska. Although I’m sure you can retort with some other rankings that say otherwise. Fine. Point is, Rutgers is better but not worlds better. And Missouri is good enough. 35k students. AAU. Top 40ish med school. Top 50 business school. Other quality programs in journalism, agriculture, vetrinary medicine, etc. Not as good as Rutgers but good enough. That’s all I was saying. Don’t try to spin it like I was trying to say Missouri has better academics than Rutgers. I clearly said the opposite and then I just said it again.
As far as TV ratings, you seem to want to have it both ways. You’re saying Missouri is worth less because there are already B1G fans in St. Louis, but that Rutgers is worth More because there are NYC fans in New Jersey and New York. So which is it?
My general understanding of Nate Silver’s calculations are that it’s about population times enthusiasm. And whether you want to admit it or not, Missouri’s enthusiasm is much higher than Rutger’s enthusiasm. Apparel sales for Missouri ranked 20th nationally, just behind Texas A&M. Rutgers ranked 54th, just behind East Carolina. Rutgers just doesn’t have fans. I don’t care how many people live in New Jersey. That just doesn’t matter if New Jersians don’t care about Rutgers. If population was all that mattered, then why wasn’t the Big East the richest conference? Those were all schools in high population areas.
I get this eastern strategy. I see what they’re trying to do. But it looks like a bad strategy to me. If Rutgers and Maryland were more like Penn State then it would be a no brainer. But they’re both very weak. That’s going to have to change for this plan to work. And in general things like that don’t change in college sports, and if they do, it takes a long time.
LikeLike
frug,
“There is no doubt in mind that given the choice between Texas and ND the Big Ten would take Texas and it wouldn’t be especially close.”
1. Are you talking before or after LHN? That’s a huge factor.
2. I think you’re dead wrong unless you get a package deal. The COP/C makes a big deal out of contiguous states and culture. ND is close for games but still gives east coast access. ND and UT are both different culturally from the B10, but UT is a lot farther away. The B10 has a ton of history with ND but almost none with UT.
3. That isn’t to say the B10 would have said no to UT, but I think they saw ND as a seamless fit with huge value. They’d be thinking national (especially east coast) BTN exposure versus in one huge state.
LikeLike
Damn, should read “You’re saying Missouri is worth less because there are already B1G fans in St. Louis, but that Rutgers is worth More because there are PSU (not NYC) fans in New Jersey and New York. So which is it?”
LikeLike
@Brian
1. I was operating under the assumption that ND and UT would follow the same rules as everyone else if they joined. In other words, no LHN for Texas or FB independence for Notre Dame.
2. Setting aside the fact that I hate when people talk about “cultural fit” (mostly because it doesn’t mean anything) I’ll note that Texas has far more in common with the Big Ten than Notre Dame does. ND is small religiously affiliated Catholic that does very little research. Texas, on the other hand, is a gigantic public flagship and one of the top public research universities in the country (and, unlike ND, the fans their actually care about MBB).
And if history and contiguous states were really that important Missouri (borders 3 Big Ten states long history with Illinois and Nebraska) would have received an invitation over Rutgers and Maryland (each border PSU only and have no history with anyone besides PSU).
I also fail to see how ND gives the Big Ten East Coast access. Yes they have fans on the East Coast but that isn’t going to help the current Big Ten schools recruit there.
3. Texas is every bit the national draw Notre Dame is and (unlike the East Coast) people in Texas are crazy about college football.
LikeLike
Also, if we are talking true wishlist (i.e. plausibility out the window) Florida would also rank above ND.
LikeLike
Andy,
“I neither denegrated Rutgers academics”
Yes, you did. You claimed they were near the bottom of the B10 when they weren’t, and you did it to make MO look better as a candidate.
“nor did I celebrate Missouri’s.”
Mizzou is still an AAU school with 35k students, a top 40 or 50 med school, top 50 business school, etc.
That’s celebrating their academics.
“Being only clearly above 3 out of the other 13 B1G schools isn’t “near the bottom”?”
Not out of 14, especially when they are basically tied for 8th. By all the statistics they are more like the median school than the bottom school. That isn’t near the bottom.
“There are a lot of different rankings to point to.”
Yes. I picked several because no one measure is all that meaningful.
“If I read yours correctly, Rutgers is 39th or 40th in research and Missouri is ranked 52. Ok. That pretty much matches exactly what I was saying. Rutgers is better academically but not hugely so.”
Sure, if you cherry pick the one data point that puts MO in the best light like you always do.
USN&WR:
RU = 68
MO = 97
That’s a big gap.
ARWU (world/US ranking):
RU = 40/61
MO = 86-109/201-300
That’s a big gap.
CMUP Top Public Research Schools:
RU = 3 measures in top 25, 5 in 26-50th, 39th total research, 40th federal
MO = 0, 4, 52/52
That’s a big gap in top 50 rankings (8 versus 4).
Only the research money ranking is close.
RU:
Total = $320M ($75M more = +31%)
Fed = $151M ($32M more = +27%)
MO:
Total = $245M
Fed = $119M
That’s a huge gap in actual money.
“Ranking B1G schools with Missouri, the rankings would roughly be something like Iowa or Michigan State then Rutgers then Missouri then Indiana then Nebraska.”
No, more like this: MSU > RU > IA > IN > MO > NE
“Although I’m sure you can retort with some other rankings that say otherwise.”
I don’t need to because these rankings already show you’re wrong.
“As far as TV ratings, you seem to want to have it both ways. You’re saying Missouri is worth less because there are already B1G fans in St. Louis, but that Rutgers is worth More because there are NYC fans in New Jersey and New York. So which is it?”
It’s both, because they are two different things. STL is part of MO, so any B10 fans there reduce the value of MO in terms of added population of fans. The B10 fans already in NJ are a bonus in terms of boosting the appeal of the BTN, countering the greater loyalty that MO has in it’s home state. That’s why B10 fans in STL don’t help MO. NYC isn’t part of NJ, so any B10 fans there are a bonus as more people in the area likely to drive BTN demand.
“My general understanding of Nate Silver’s calculations are that it’s about population times enthusiasm.”
And? How does that change anything I said? All I used him for was to give the number of B10 fans in NYC.
“I get this eastern strategy. I see what they’re trying to do. But it looks like a bad strategy to me.”
Anything that doesn’t treat MO as the second coming looks bad to you. You’re opinion is worthless on topics like this because you are such a ridiculous homer. And this is from someone who was against this expansion from the start.
LikeLike
Oh for Christ’s sake, frug, you just couldn’t help yourself, could you?
RUTGERS DID NOT GET AN INVITE OVER MISSOURI. It. Did. Not. Happen.
By the time Rutgers got an invite Missouri was already off the market.
It’s hilariously obvious and yet over and over again you guys keep saying the opposite.
LikeLike
frug,
“1. I was operating under the assumption that ND and UT would follow the same rules as everyone else if they joined. In other words, no LHN for Texas or FB independence for Notre Dame.”
OK. I was allowing for the LHN in my list. Even without it I think ND would still be first, though.
“2. Setting aside the fact that I hate when people talk about “cultural fit” (mostly because it doesn’t mean anything) I’ll note that Texas has far more in common with the Big Ten than Notre Dame does. ND is small religiously affiliated Catholic that does very little research. Texas, on the other hand, is a gigantic public flagship and one of the top public research universities in the country (and, unlike ND, the fans their actually care about MBB).”
UT fits better than ND, but IN and the rest of the midwest fits much better than TX. ND’s east coast fans fit better than TX. ND’s west coast fans fit better than TX. And whether you like it or not TPTB kept talking about cultural fit so it is a factor.
“And if history and contiguous states were really that important Missouri (borders 3 Big Ten states long history with Illinois and Nebraska) would have received an invitation over Rutgers and Maryland (each border PSU only and have no history with anyone besides PSU).”
Several people (presidents/ADs) made mention of contiguous states and it being an issue for certain rumored schools (UVA before UMD, UNC, GT, UT). RU and UMD both cleared the bar of being contiguous, it’s not a scale but a binary rating. The the other factors kicked in to put MO behind those others.
“I also fail to see how ND gives the Big Ten East Coast access. Yes they have fans on the East Coast but that isn’t going to help the current Big Ten schools recruit there.”
Fans there potentially means some games there. Plus fans there leads to more coverage which leads to more interest which leads to better recruiting. ND fans also see the other team on the field when they watch.
“3. Texas is every bit the national draw Notre Dame is and (unlike the East Coast) people in Texas are crazy about college football.”
True.
Please realize, I’m not saying ND > UT. I’m saying the COP/C wanted ND more. I never claimed they weren’t biased or acting emotionally or whatever else may cloud judgment. I was trying to predict their decision, not decide what would have been the ideal decision.
LikeLike
frug,
“Also, if we are talking true wishlist (i.e. plausibility out the window) Florida would also rank above ND.”
I again disagree, but I was assuming some level of plausibility anyway.
LikeLike
Andy,
“RUTGERS DID NOT GET AN INVITE OVER MISSOURI. It. Did. Not. Happen.”
YES IT DID. RU got an invite and MO and every other non-B10 school but UMD didn’t.
“By the time Rutgers got an invite Missouri was already off the market.”
There’s no such thing. The B10 could have still made an offer to MO.
LikeLike
Brian, Rutgers is not near the bottom? Oh really. OK. Well, as far as research, the B1G ranks this way:
1. Michigan
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Penn State
5. Ohio State
6. Northwestern
7. Illinois
8. Iowa
9. Maryland
10. Purdue
11. Michigan State
12. Rutgers
***Missouri***
13. Indiana
14. Nebraska
12 out of 14 isn’t “near the bottom”? Okay.
You want to go by USNews or something? Fine, I’m not going to list them all out, but Rutgers is in bottom third by that ranking as well. Maybe bottom 4th, I’m not sure. Feel free to check for me.
I’m sure you can find a ranking with Rutgers in the top half. I’m sure it can be done. Go ahead and find it if you feel like it.
Pointing out that Missouri has a few strong programs to go with it’s AAU ranking isn’t celebrating, it’s just providing evidence for my multiply stated claim that Missouri is “good enough” for the B1G academically and isn’t “that much worse” than Rutgers. If I were celebrating I’d be talking about how Missouri was just as good as Rutgers. I made no such claim.
As far as the USNews ranking, I’m sure there’s something to that, and obviously that’s a place where Missouri isn’t doing so well right now. It’s a ranking that goes up and down all the time. They were 85 a year or two ago, now they’re 97. I’ve seen them as high as 77 and as low as 101. I don’t know why it keeps bouncing around so much. But in general Missouri ranks below pretty much all of the Big Ten by that ranking for whatever reason.
Missouri’s test scores are right there with the bottom half of the B1G. Their average ACT score is only 1 pt below the 7th place school in the B1G, and ahead of a few schools. All of the bottom half of the B1G are in that 25-27 range. Missouri is at 26. So it’s not like Missouri’s students are dumber than the students at most B1G schools. It mostly comes down to money. Missouri’s endowment is only something like $1.2B, I believe, and most B1G endowments are quite a bit larger. Also, Missouri just recently expanded by quite a bit. 10 years ago they had around 20k students. Now they’re at 35k. They will need to adjust and grow into it. That will take years. In the end they’ll be more like most of the B1G schools, bigger, and with more money.
Your explanation for why B1G fans in St Louis are bad for Missouri but PSU fans in New Jersey are good for the Big Ten sounds like double talk to me. Makes no sense whatsoever. Either it’s good to have more fans engaged or it isn’t. And as far as NYC, the B1G already has a bunch of fans there, Rutgers isn’t going to add that much more. They barely have any fans at all.
You cite Nate Silver and then you want to ignore what he had to say about this issue. Nate Silver estimated said that Rugers had around 900k fans (32nd in the country, although apparel sales would seem to disagree with his estimate) and Missouri had around 1.1M fans (23rd in the country, about in line with apparel figures). His general line of thinking is that as far as realignment goes, more fans = more money. Thus Missouri is a more profitable addition than Rutgers.
I don’t think MO is the second coming. I’ve neve said anything of the sort. In fact, just a few posts up I ranked MO as the 9th best choice for the B1G. That’s pretty fair, and people generally agreed with me.
Your opinion in any conversation with me, however, is quite worthless in that you twist everything I say in the most obnoxious way possible, you lie and exagerate just to be a pain in the ass, and you troll me to entertain yourself. You’ve even admitted as much.
LikeLike
Brian, there you go again. Most generously to your claim, one could say that we don’t know what happened one way or another, and possible Missouri angled for that spot even as they were just joining the SEC and were shot down in favor of Rutgers. But you absolutely cannot say, as you just did, that Rutgers got an invite over Missouri because Missouri was absolutely not on the market at the time Rutgers got their invite, so by all appearances, unless something very weird was going on behind the scenes, Rutgers did NOT get an invite over Missouri.
LikeLike
ND over UT. Not close. ND’s fan base, following, support is fanatic and national, and has been that way for near a century. UT’s reputation and achievements are national too, but the base is regional/Texas. They don’t engender either the fanatic support or hatred that ND does nation wide, even in the midst of a decade or more slide. The regional focus turns to OU. If UT had ND’s cache they would have been independent long ago, at least in FB. Bringing that into the fold is the B1G’s white whale, which is not to say they’d turn down a bonafide king in UT.
LikeLike
They don’t engender either the fanatic support or hatred that ND does nation wide, even in the midst of a decade or more slide
You are right about he hatred (ND is second only to the Yankees in that regard) but if you think that Texas doesn’t have every bit the same level of passion and support that the Irish do you are nuts. Texas has every bit as many fans nationwide as ND does even if they are somewhat localized than the Irish’s are.
If UT had ND’s cache they would have been independent long ago, at least in FB.
If ND had UT’s cache then ESPN would be paying $15 million a year for their garbage sports also.
The fact is, Texas could have gotten the exact same deal from the Big East that the Irish got anytime they wanted, but Texas considered the Big East too weak for their non-revs (which is why Texas never even considered the idea of Big East membership back when they were talking to everyone from the PAC to the ACC a couple years ago.)
For that matter, if Texas was willing to give up the LHN they could get the same deal with the ACC that ND has now.
LikeLike
ESPN is paying 15M in an attempt to ward off the super conferences Gee was speaking of (It kept the P16 from happening) and the bargaining power that those concentrations would engender.
People who don’t even know football have strong opinions about ND. Those people don’t know an aggie from a longhorn, and don’t care to learn. ND has a world wide church following. UT has Texas, alums, and a bunch of t-shirt fans (as all kings do). Think BYU vs Utah. Who has the larger school, alumni base, academic ranking, research, etc? Now, who has the national (world) following, willing to support even with no sports awareness, and the more recognized brand?
LikeLike
“Brian, Rutgers is not near the bottom? Oh really. OK. Well, as far as research, the B1G ranks this way:”
There you go trying to change the argument again. You said in academics. At best research
funding is one of several relevant measures. I provided several.
“You want to go by USNews or something? Fine, I’m not going to list them all out, but Rutgers is in bottom third by that ranking as well. Maybe bottom 4th, I’m not sure. Feel free to check for me.”
Nice reading comprehension as usual. I quoted those numbers earlier.
“Pointing out that Missouri has a few strong programs to go with it’s AAU ranking isn’t celebrating,”
Actually, it is pretty much the definition of celebrating it.
“If I were celebrating I’d be talking about how Missouri was just as good as Rutgers. I made no such claim.”
No, that’s called lying. Something with which you are very familiar based on your comments here.
“But in general Missouri ranks below pretty much all of the Big Ten by that ranking for whatever reason.”
Because it’s a worse school than almost all of the B10?
“His general line of thinking is that as far as realignment goes, more fans = more money.”
Not when a network is involved. Then location matters.
“you lie and exagerate just to be a pain in the ass, and you troll me to entertain yourself. You’ve even admitted as much.”
I have never admitted any of that because it isn’t true. I don’t need to lie or exaggerate because the truth sets you off for some inane reason. I don’t consider fact-checking your ridiculous comments to be trolling, either. I don’t go looking for derogatory articles about MO and link them. You, on the other hand, do lie, exaggerate and have readily admitted to attempted trolling.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Most generously to your claim, one could say that we don’t know what happened one way or another, and possible Missouri angled for that spot even as they were just joining the SEC and were shot down in favor of Rutgers. But you absolutely cannot say, as you just did, that Rutgers got an invite over Missouri because Missouri was absolutely not on the market at the time Rutgers got their invite, so by all appearances, unless something very weird was going on behind the scenes, Rutgers did NOT get an invite over Missouri.”
I can and will say it because it’s TRUE.
Facts:
1. NE got invited directly over a MO that campaigned for the spot.
2. RU and UMD then got invited and nobody else did.
By definition, RU and UMD got invited over every other school in the country. That’s why only an idiot like you would argue against frug’s fact that RU got invited over MO. Instead you could argue that it’s a meaningless fact because RU also got invited over UT, UF, and everyone else or you could just ignore it because you know it’s a pointless fact. But no, you just can’t stop yourself from throwing a tantrum over any perceived slight to MO so you come off looking crazy as usual.
LikeLike
ESPN is paying 15M in an attempt to ward off the super conferences Gee was speaking of (It kept the P16 from happening) and the bargaining power that those concentrations would engender.
Exactly, Texas is so valuable that they alone can ward off superconferences. Can’t say that about ND
People who don’t even know football have strong opinions about ND.
Good for them.
Those people don’t know an aggie from a longhorn, and don’t care to learn.
And?
ND has a world wide church following. UT has Texas, alums, and a bunch of t-shirt fans (as all kings do).
So what? If anything the distribution of Texas’ fanbase is more efficient from the perspective of the Big Ten. The fact that ND has some fans in Ireland and other parts of the world does absolutely nothing (NOTHING) to help the Big Ten since even with Notre Dame the Big Ten isn’t going to get BTN carriage there nor would it help their national TV deal. In this manner, they are somewhat of a Nebraska type addition; they help with national deals but don’t really add much to the footprint. Texas does both.
And the fact that so many of ND fans are fans of Notre Dame and not college sports in general is not a benefit to the Big Ten. The fact is, the state of Texas is far more passionate about college sports than ND’s fans on the coasts (Big Ten already has the Midwest covered) meaning UT fans are more likely to tune into games that don’t feature the Longhorns than Notre Dame fans are to watch games not featuring the Irish.
And of course you are also ignoring the fact that Texas adds MBB value while ND reduces it (UT has one of the top dozen most valuable MBB teams in the country while Notre Dame’s program loses money every single season) and Texas adds recruiting territory and ND doesn’t.
Think BYU vs Utah. Who has the larger school, alumni base, academic ranking, research, etc? Now, who has the national (world) following, willing to support even with no sports awareness, and the more recognized brand?
That is a curious choice of metaphor given that the PAC chose Utah (the Texas stand in) over BYU (bizarro ND), which is exactly what I would expect the Big Ten to do if they are given the option between Texas and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
To be sure, Notre Dame is a critical player in warding off superconferences, too. They were a crucial cog in any Big Ten 16-team hypothetical scenario 3 years ago and their partial presence in the ACC is a hedge against either the Big Ten or ACC proactively going to 16. Everyone wants Notre Dame for themselves, but they’d also rather see them stay independent than to join a competitor, so they tread carefully when it comes to seeing how the Irish would react to a move.
As a result, I’d still have to say that Notre Dame is the most valuable and powerful brand in college football. Both its fan base and draw for casual fans is truly unlike anyone else (even among the elite power schools). The Texas fan base is still largely regional and is substantively the same as the fan bases at Ohio State or Florida – it’s just that the Texas population base is so massive. Now, that population characteristic might make Texas more valuable than Notre Dame to the Big Ten specifically because of the way the BTN is structured. However, if you were to sell college football programs like NFL franchises without regard to whether a particular conference or school has its own TV network, I still believe that Notre Dame would fetch the highest price.
Let’s not underestimate their unparalleled pull on the national front – Notre Dame vs. a MAC team still gets on NBC coast-to-coast whereas Michigan, Texas and Alabama versus similar teams wouldn’t get the same coverage. Just look at the news the week – is there any school like Notre Dame where its QB leaving breaks through as major sports news during the NBA Playoffs almost entirely because of the school itself (i.e. we’re not talking about someone with a Heisman like Johnny Football or a future #1 NFL Draft pick leaving school)? I’m far from a Notre Dame fan, but I’m wary of how it’s been de rigeur over the past few years to try to downplay their value or “relevance”. The truth is that they’re more relevant than ever as a brand that drives a wide coast-to-coast audience in a world where such brands are becoming increasingly rare.
LikeLike
The fact that ND has some fans in Ireland and other parts of the world does absolutely nothing (NOTHING) to help the Big Ten since even with Notre Dame the Big Ten isn’t going to get BTN carriage there nor would it help their national TV deal. In this manner, they are somewhat of a Nebraska type addition; they help with national deals but don’t really add much to the footprint. Texas does both.
That didn’t come as clear as I meant it too.
I meant ND’s international following wouldn’t help the Big Ten’s national TV deals.
Obviously, ND’s domestic fanbase would help.
LikeLike
Andy,
Unless UF and UGa suddenly decides that they want to join the B10, the B10 doesn’t, didn’t, and won’t give 2 figs whether the ACC shares or dominates the southeastern coast or not.
What they cared about was the northeastern corridor, where the B10 generally was shown most by ABC in regional coverage, all else being equal, before the ACC expanded. However, after expansion, the ACC had 5 schools in the northeastern corridor as well as frequent games vs. ND while the B10 had only 1 weakened member. The ACC was going to dominate the northeast.
Encroaching on a population-heavy region that the B10 had come to regard as their turf (as they had the only football king in the region) and where they increasingly drew students from and sent alums to without doing anything was not an acceptable option. With ND finally coming off the table, the only move was getting UMD and RU.
The B10 didn’t take Mizzou because the B10 didn’t care about owning the Plains (Nebraska was a football king with acceptable academics who just happened to sit on the Plains; the B10 would much rather have added a UNL situated in Texas or the East Coast, but they weren’t located there). The B12 or even SEC could own the Plains for all they cared. The B10 wanted to protect and increase their hold on the money, media, and population centers in the northeast.
LikeLike
OK, Brian. You systematically ignored every valid point I made and then nitpicked whatever little thing you could find. Par for the course for you. Your favorite little game. You’re not even disagreeing with me about anything, you’re just being a pain in the butt like usual.
We agree that Missouri would rank near the bottom of the B1G in terms of academics. The numbers you posted also show that Rutgers ranks near the bottom in terms of academics. We also agree that Rutgers is stronger academically than Mizzou. The trouble is you think you’re fact checking me when you’re really just arguing with things I never said.
And if you want to play word games with the statement “Rutgers was picked instead of Mizzou for the B1G” go right ahead. Yes, literally that’s true just like Rutgers was picked ahead of Notre Dame and Texas and Florida and Stanford and everyone else. Technically. But that wasn’t at all what Frug was getting at if you read the rest of his sentence. You say you’re not a troll and then you play word games like that. Ha.
LikeLike
Richard, that may well be but how much good does taking Rutgers even do the B1G? Their all time win % in football is pretty close to the bottom of all BCS programs. They’ve been to two NCAA tournaments in the last 30 years, 6 overall. Their football attendance is right about equal to Indiana’s. Their apparel sales rank 54th in the country, below East Carolina’s. Their TV ratings are crap. It’s not like taking Rutgers is like taking the Eastern Corridor. This isn’t risk where you just take part of the map. They are a very weak addition. So you have to compare that to your other options. Nebraska was on the plains but obviously they were worth taking. For Rutgers, I’d say they’re the anti-Nebraska. Nebraska was good in spite of their location. Rutgers is bad in spite of their location.
But it’s all opinion and guesswork. We don’t know if Rutgers was who the B1G truly wanted or if they were just a backup plan that the B1G was stuck with because they had no better options at the time.
LikeLike
Frug:
“Exactly, Texas is so valuable that they alone can ward off superconferences. Can’t say that about ND”
No, I’d say Tobacco Road has also postponed at least one, perhaps two conferences from reaching 16 or more. UT had no part in that.
If the PAC had been solely concerned about recognizability, national brand/following and its immediate marketability they most certainly would have taken BYU. They also could have had UT by exempting the LHN. Neither were acceptable for reasons that obviously don’t place the greatest immediate financial return at the top of their priorities. Although I don’t think the occasion would ever arise, I have no doubt the PAC would require the same of ND as they do all their members if ND were ever to show an interest in them.
LikeLike
frug,
I’ll let you two debate this, but I just wanted to comment on one point.
“And of course you are also ignoring the fact that Texas adds MBB value while ND reduces it (UT has one of the top dozen most valuable MBB teams in the country while Notre Dame’s program loses money every single season)”
Considering all the games accountants can play, I don’t know why you take that number at face value. ND can make the books say whatever they want in regards to MBB. I’m not saying ND = UT in hoops, but they choose to lose money. How do they allocate their NBC money? What expenses do they make MBB cover? Does UT account for things the same way?
2012 Attendance:
#30 UT – 11,950
#61 ND – 7,999
Revenue:
ND – $3.5M
UT – $18.5M
Expenses:
ND – $4.6M
UT – $8.6M
Plus, ND’s MBB has to travel all over the BE so their travel costs should dwarf those of UT.
LikeLike
@Frank
I don’t think you are disagreeing with my overall point (straight up the Big Ten would prefer Texas to ND if they had to pick one or the other) but I do have to take issue with a couple of your points
The Texas fan base is still largely regional and is substantively the same as the fan bases at Ohio State or Florida – it’s just that the Texas population base is so massive.
I honestly don’t understand why that matters. I mean Notre Dame’s fan base is substantively the same as BYU’s it just happens that there more Catholics than Mormons.
However, if you were to sell college football programs like NFL franchises without regard to whether a particular conference or school has its own TV network, I still believe that Notre Dame would fetch the highest price.
I don’t see why. I mean the closest way we have to value teams is based on revenue and in that respect UT beats the pants off ND (and everyone else).
Let’s not underestimate their unparalleled pull on the national front – Notre Dame vs. a MAC team still gets on NBC coast-to-coast whereas Michigan, Texas and Alabama versus similar teams wouldn’t get the same coverage.
I’ll give you Michigan and Alabama, but are you honestly telling you don’t think Texas could a national TV deal if they went indy? I mean if ESPN is willing to pay $15 million in rights fees and set up and operate a 24 hour TV network dedicated to UT’s leftovers how could their FB home games not get a deal?
Just look at the news the week – is there any school like Notre Dame where its QB leaving breaks through as major sports news during the NBA Playoffs almost entirely because of the school itself (i.e. we’re not talking about someone with a Heisman like Johnny Football or a future #1 NFL Draft pick leaving school)?
I think so. Remember, that was news not just because it was Notre Dame, it was because Notre Dame played for the NCG last year and was expected to be ranked in the top 10 again this year. I’m sure AJ McCarron abruptly left Alabama it would be pretty big news.
The truth is that they’re more relevant than ever as a brand that drives a wide coast-to-coast audience in a world where such brands are becoming increasingly rare.
If anything the exact opposite is true; the fact that college sports has been nationalized over the past decade and a half means the marginal value of a team with a national fan base is diminished. The combination of the BCS and the rise of cable means football fans already pay more attention to what happens in other regions of the conference than they ever have before. This born out by the fact that Notre Dame’s TV ratings are down (though they recovered some last year) even though the popularity of college football is the highest it has ever been.
Now I’m not saying ND is irrelevant, just that they are less relevant now they have been at anytime in modern history (of course in this case “less relevant” simply means being the second most powerful program in the country instead of number 1).
LikeLike
“I honestly don’t understand why that matters. I mean Notre Dame’s fan base is substantively the same as BYU’s it just happens that there more Catholics than Mormons.”
There just happen to be more Texans than North Dakotans. Is that meaningless?
I bet the power and money of the Catholic Church dwarfs UT, or the entire state of Texas. The LDS church, while very affluent, is not in the same league.
UT depends far more upon athletic success for their national relevance. They admit as much in the limited number of sports they offer. If they aren’t likely to be a national contender they don’t even want to try. Even with the richest athletic department in the nation. The delusion that they are the MOST important and desired is why I’d just as soon they stay in their own fiefdom. They can have those willing to be supplicants and we can have less contentious conferences around them.
LikeLike
Andy,
“You systematically ignored every valid point I made”
Your next valid point would be your first one ever.
“and then nitpicked whatever little thing you could find.”
Yes, correcting your lies with the truth is “nitpicking” in your world.
“You’re not even disagreeing with me about anything,”
Except for all the things I’m disagreeing with you about, sure.
“The numbers you posted also show that Rutgers ranks near the bottom in terms of academics.”
No, they don’t. You just want them to.
“And if you want to play word games …. Yes, literally that’s true”
The truth isn’t a word game. Being correct is different from being incorrect. I know you don’t understand that concept, as your many comments have shown over the years. That doesn’t make it any less true.
LikeLike
Brian, you are a humongous tool.
Yeah, I’ve never made a valid point ever. Right. And playing silly word games that have nothing to do with how frug was talking about Rutgers recieving an invitation over Missouri isn’t a trolly word game. Right. And Rutgers didn’t rank near the bottom fo the B1G in pretty much all of the rankings you yourself posted. Right.
You, sir, are full of shit.
Feel free to have the last word on this one if you want it.
LikeLike
I bet the power and money of the Catholic Church dwarfs UT, or the entire state of Texas.
Let’s see. UT-Austin has an endowment of $7.2 billion while ND has an endowment of $6.3 billion so right there I would say that the state of Texas is serving UT better than the Catholic Church is serving Notre Dame to the tune of over well over a billion dollars.
And honestly, the state of Texas is more powerful than the Catholic Church in the United States. It is difficult to put a complete value on the assets of the Church in the US but I doubt it exceeds $1.3 trillion (Texas’ GSP).
UT depends far more upon athletic success for their national relevance.
If you can find any statistical proof of that then I will gladly admit that I have ever posted on this website. (I’ll give you hint; don’t start with this study from Emory that shows UT has the 6th most loyal fan base in college basketball as function of revenue and performance https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/05/29/college-basketball-recruiting-and-the-best-fan-bases/)
If they aren’t likely to be a national contender they don’t even want to try.
I agree. Every school should look to Rutgers as an example of what a successful athletic department is.
The delusion that they are the MOST important and desired is why I’d just as soon they stay in their own fiefdom. They can have those willing to be supplicants and we can have less contentious conferences around them.
Yes, and Notre Dame never demands special treatment.
Also, its not delusional if it is true. Texas is the most important and desired athletic department in the country. If they were to drop the LHN they could join literally any conference they wanted to. ND, if they dropped independence, still wouldn’t acceptable to the SEC or PAC.
LikeLike
@Andy
Damn it. I was all set to ignore you then you had drag me in.
And playing silly word games that have nothing to do with how frug was talking about Rutgers recieving an invitation over Missouri isn’t a trolly word game
I’ll just say from now on you should just not bother trying to understand anything I post because it is clear you don’t. I think it would be better for both of us.
And that will be my only words on the matter.
LikeLike
If you can find any statistical proof of that then I will gladly admit that I have ever posted on this website.
Should read
“If you can find any statistical proof of that then I will gladly admit that everything I have ever posted on this website is wrong.”
LikeLike
One more correction (damn lack of an edit button)
Texas could literally join any FBS conference they wanted to…
LikeLike
frug, apparently you’re full of shit too. Your exact quote:
“And if history and contiguous states were really that important Missouri (borders 3 Big Ten states long history with Illinois and Nebraska) would have received an invitation over Rutgers and Maryland (each border PSU only and have no history with anyone besides PSU).”
My counterargument:
“RUTGERS DID NOT GET AN INVITE OVER MISSOURI. It. Did. Not. Happen. By the time Rutgers got an invite Missouri was already off the market.”
Brian’s retort:
“YES IT DID. RU got an invite and MO and every other non-B10 school but UMD didn’t.”
and
“By definition, RU and UMD got invited over every other school in the country. That’s why only an idiot like you would argue against frug’s fact that RU got invited over MO. Instead you could argue that it’s a meaningless fact because RU also got invited over UT, UF, and everyone else or you could just ignore it because you know it’s a pointless fact.”
So, frug, did you mean it to be a “pointless fact”, a technicality that would also include Notre Dame, Texas, Stanford, Florida, etc? Or were you actually trying to make a point that Rutgers got an invite over Missouri. Because it sure reads like you were trying to make a point. Which means that Brian was being a huge tool and playing word games so he coudl score another pitpick point against me (one of his favorite games).
I think we all know the answer to that. But you’re aligned against me for various reasons so you’ll side with Brian on this. But anybody who cares to lookat what was said (and I would hope that would be very, very few people) will see what Brian did here.
LikeLike
*nitpick points, not pitpick points.
Point is Brian was playing it so that he could say that I was wrong for saying you were wrong while also saying that what you said was true but pointless because it could also include Florida, Texas, etc. He’s basically blaming me for not disagreeing with you in the turbo-nerd wiggly worm way he would have done it.
I was instead taking your statement at face value. It seemed that you were literally saying that the B1G was at a choice point between Missouria and Rutgers and went with Rutgers. When in fact they had no more choice in adding Missouri than they did in adding Stanford or Harvard or Florida. It simply wasn’t an option, thus they did not pick Rutgers “over” Missouri. It did not happen that way.
LikeLike
I listened to Gee’s full 28 minute tape. Worthwhile listening. It confirmed something I speculated somewhere in this thread that adding Nebraska moved Missouri down the list. Gee said the Big 10 HAD to expand. They would have lost their ability to compete if they stayed in 1% growth states. So that meant Maryland and Rutgers moved ahead of Missouri.
He also made the comment that universities did 80% of basic research in this country and the Big 10 schools did 25% of that with the UC (California) system doing 20%.
He also implied that, contrary to popular opinion, expansion was dependent on the SEC and Big 12. FSU and Clemson had to move before the Big 10 targets would be interested. Clearly, in his opinion, Big 10 wasn’t interested in FSU.
His Notre Dame & Catholic comment was really taken out of context. It was really the Big 12 thoughts regarding BYU. They were just too much trouble. It was stated very inarticulately and exaggerated. But it wasn’t as bad as the quotes make it sound.
LikeLike
He also said that he thought it was a mistake that the B1G didn’t take Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
bullet,
“He also implied that, contrary to popular opinion, expansion was dependent on the SEC and Big 12. FSU and Clemson had to move before the Big 10 targets would be interested.”
It may not have been popular opinion, but many on here thought that was the case. If FSU went, then the dominoes might have fallen.
“Clearly, in his opinion, Big 10 wasn’t interested in FSU.”
All the rumors said OSU was championing them. Did he deny that? Clearly the rest of the B10 wasn’t interested.
LikeLike
Mark:
Illinois under Ikenberry was definitely not interested in adding Mizzou. Not sure about recently.
I also don’t see why Minny or the IN schools would be interested in adding Mizzou. I’m pretty certain that none of those schools either send many grads to MO or get many students from MO.
In fact, I’m quite sure that the IN schools get more students from the East Coast (and have far more alums there) than in MO. Probably true for Minny as well.
LikeLike
Richard – I want minor sports cut so the money is spent on academic scholarships. The niche sports are comprised of rich white suburban kids that are taking resources away from everyone else. I think Notre Dame using almost all of the football tv money for scholarships for non athletic students is what our schools should do.
LikeLike
Mark:
I agree with you on the minor sports.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I would have thought that OSU, Illinois, Iowa, the Indiana schools and Minnesota at a minimum would support Missouri.”
I can see IL and IA, but why should the others support MO? They have no real history with them. You can claim proximity for the whole B10 except PSU, I suppose, but you didn’t.
“No doubt that Missouri games vs. Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Purdue would generate more interest than any of these teams vs, Maryland or Rutgers.”
I’ll give you IA and IL as neighbors. I don’t think the others would feel much of a difference except for MO being more midwestern.
LikeLike
Right, and Illinois (at least when under Ikenberry) was not in favor of adding Mizzou despite being a neighbor.
For that matter, Iowa has not played Mizzou in the regular season in over 100 years because Mizzou was racist:
http://gratefulseniorcitizen.blogspot.com/2010/12/iowa-missouri-football-resumes-after.html
LikeLike
I wasn’t saying anything about Missouri and Kansas vs “unknown somebody else”. I said if given a direct choice between Missouri and Kansas vs Rutgers and Maryland, I think most would prefer Missouri and Kansas. Not all, but most.
LikeLike
I just find it hard to believe that Purdue or Indiana or Minnesota or Wisconsin fans will care about Rutgers or Maryland but they could care about Missouri. Missouri would probably travel fans to these games, the culture is similar/same as the states are a mix of rural and 2nd tier cities and Missouri has been decent.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Indiana and I think they look west more than east – much more in common with Chicago and St Louis than New Jersey or DC. Maybe Indiana could develop a rivalry with Maryland basketball, but Indiana essentially serves as a rival for most of the Big 10 so its difficult to see that developing.
LikeLike
Mark:
The IN schools and Wisconsin almost certainly draw more students from and send more alums to the East Coast than to MO. Possibly Minny as well.
Remember that these are not states but schools.
LikeLike
Richard I’m sure you are correct but why is this important? MIssouri is closer to these states, has better athletics and shares the same culture. 500 students out of 20 or 30 thousand make no difference – these are state schools that should be serving the state, not acting like businesses to recruit 50 more kids from New Jersey.
I’d be shocked if more than a small handful of kids would go to a Big 10 school because 4 times in 10 years the school played at Rutgers or Maryland. If this is so important why aren’t these games happening now? They must not be important! There is no way this makes any significant impact. Our leaders are just greedy and have risked killing the goose to get a little more cash in the near future.
LikeLike
Wait, Mark, weren’t you the one advocating that the B10 should cut minor sports? So they should behave like a business in that case and not when it comes to stuff that’s pretty important to them (getting students and getting alums to give).
What gives?
Also, it’s not just playing a school in football (though that does seem to be the only thing you’re concerned about); having the public flagship of a state in your conference improves the marketing of the schools of your conference in that state a good deal, especially with the BTN.
Please remember that B10 schools are major research universities first and foremost, and (unlike some schools) not most concerned about their football teams.
LikeLike
Future SECN programming?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/homepage/news/20130529/sec-network-with-slive-to-follow-espn-model/?xid=nl_siextra
LikeLike
Not surprising. It is an ESPN network.
It is disappointing though. I’m not sure how it will differentiate from all the talking heads gushing/arguing over whether SEC FB is the greatest ever or if they could/should take on NFL that permeates the other ESPN channels and shows.
I really hope to be able to watch multiple sports Beth live and on replay (I might actually choose to watch a conflicting BTN or P12N broadcast live). I don’t need more talking heads at the expense of actual athletic competition.
LikeLike
Let me first say that I love the south. Lived in Savannah and enjoyed every minute of it. With that said, this article (satirical as it was) makes me curious how distinctly ‘southern’ they are going to make the channel/programming. Having Paul Finebaum as the ‘face’ of SECN pretty much answers that question. Very Southern. It’s be interesting to see if a Dixie sports channel has broad appeal from coast to coast (beyond SEC football) or whether ESPN will tone it down to appeal to SEC football/ sports fans who might not find southern culture their cup of gumbo.
LikeLike
GLS – if the ratings for reality TV shows are any indication, people all over the country love to see Southern people acting silly. While I’m not a fan of any of these shows based in my home state ( due to the most generous tax credit in the entertainment industry), people do watch Duck Dynasty and Swamp People.
Regarding Paul Finebaum, while he is from the South, he’s more of a Jerry Springer overseeing the madness of his callers.
LikeLike
That is actually a excellent point. I know people of all stripes who love Duck Dynasty.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Cajun Pawn Stars.
LikeLike
That is a current fad that will end at some point abruptly. See the previous national infatuation with all things New Jersey.
LikeLike
I wish the Big 10 Network would not be so positive on the conference – I hate that everything is always great on the channel – they should be calling for coaches to be fired that underachieve, they should be blowing up Penn State and Ohio State during scandals, they should ask why the Big 10 can’t win national championships in football and basketball. If the SEC Network actually takes on the tough issues I will give them a lot of credit. Kinda like a baseball radio guy that tells you the players messed up instead of sugar coating everything.
LikeLike
Crap! We are still two years from the first FB “playoff” and Dodds is pushing for eight teams.
http://m.cbssports.com/s/36896/24?arenaAbbr=all&arenaName=Home&articleId=22327611&teamId=853&leagueId=56&newsType=arena&platform=webapp
LikeLike
To DeLoss: Increase your fiefdom to 12 members, re-institute a CCG, then we’ll talk.
LikeLike
@vp19
Latest take on Maryland versus the ACC from the Diamondback….
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/daw9g
LikeLike
Have the Big 10 send Nebraska back to the Big 12 and they will go back to 12.
LikeLike
Lets restore the B8 and SWC.
UT gets the hand they dealt.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Lets restore the B8 and SWC.
UT gets the hand they dealt.”
If we’re doing that, let’s just go back to 1978 when I-A was formed and work from there.
ACC = 7 = Clemson, Duke, UMD, UNC, NCSU, UVA, WF
B8 = 8 = CO, ISU, KU, KSU, MO, NE, OU, OkSU
B10 = 10 = IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MSU, NW, OSU, PU, WI
P10 = 10 = AZ, ASU, Cal, OR, OrSU, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UW, WSU
SEC = 10 = AL, AU, UF, UGA, UK, LSU, MS, MSU, UT, Vandy
SWC = 9 = AR, BU, UH, R, SMU, UT, TAMU, TCU, TT
Major Indies/Other = Miami, FSU, GT, SC, VT, RU, SU, BC, PITT, PSU, WV, ND
Let the ACC have SC, GT and FSU to reach 10.
Form a BE of Miami, BC, SU, RU, Pitt, PSU, WV, VT to get to 8.
Or use that as a start and go ultra-modern:
New superconferences:
B10 + BE
ACC + SEC
B8 + SWC
P10 + MWC + the indies
The OOC is 1 cupcake then only peers. You play a full round robin in your conference (up to 8 games) to reach a full schedule of 11 games (6 at home). Then your champ meets your partner’s champ in the SCCG. For the west, in the final week the top indie plays the MWC champ to determine who plays the P12 champ in the SCCG. The 4 SCCG winners make the playoffs. North versus West in the Rose Bowl, SE versus Central in the Sugar Bowl. NCG rotates through all 4 regions equally (always indoors when in the north). The lack of a 7th home game is made up for by the playoff money.
LikeLike
Brian,
Form a BE of Miami, BC, SU, RU, Pitt, PSU, WV, VT to get to 8.
Well, can’t ignore what UConn has done since joining the old Big East. But, still, nice alternate theory.
LikeLike
Transic,
“Well, can’t ignore what UConn has done since joining the old Big East.”
Sure we can. I also ignored UC and UL among others.
LikeLike
No thanks.
LikeLike
What in the world is wrong with Iowa? Last in Big Ten athletics for ’12-’13.
LikeLike
The Shoe is getting bigger (ESPN) Tipping in at over 104,000.
That would make Ohio Stadium the third-largest stadium in the country, as it would jump ahead of Tennessee’s Neyland Stadium (102,455). It would also give the Big Ten the nation’s three largest college football venues, as Michigan Stadium (109,901) is No. 1, and Penn State’s Beaver Stadium (106,572) is No. 2
…Hopefully the B1G, with their uptick in recruiting, will give them something to cheer about in the next few years. Seems odd to keep making more and more money, building bigger and bigger stadiums and not back it up with great teams.
LikeLike
The linked article has more context into the statements initially attributed to Ohio State President Gordon Gee. See http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/31/ohio-state-gordon-gee-controversial-comments/?sct=hp_t11_a6&eref=sihp
Setting aside the glib insults, it has some interesting takes in it about realignment and the future of the NCAA. Some excerpts:
• 1:28: “My view, very candidly — and I’ve said this to you before and I’m not certain if [athletic director] Gene [Smith] shares this, we haven’t really talked about this — but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely.”
4:56: “[The addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten] gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers, makes the BTN worth more money than God. I did say that. It’s a very powerful instrument for us.”
• 6:05: “The blocking strategy is that we simply have now put the ACC in an almost no-win position. So who do they immediately go to? Louisville. They may think about Cincinnati. They may think about Connecticut. But they’ve lost their foothold in that middle part of the area, in that middle part of the Atlantic coast.”
• 9:42: “I also think this. This is a high possibility. If the ACC continues to struggle, and Florida State goes off to the SEC or something like that, and Clemson moves in a different direction, all of a sudden Virginia and Duke, which are very similar institutions to — and North Carolina — which are very similar institutions to the Big Ten, there is a real possibility that we may end up having that kind of T which goes south. And I could see them joining us. And I could see them having a real interest in joining us.”\
• 18:44: “The smaller schools in the Divisions II and III, which have substantial power but no power in terms of television draw or anything else, they have increasingly become rigid about the way that we change some of the rules in support of the revenue-generating institutions. And eventually that’s gonna drive us all into a new kind of a configuration. And that’s where I think we’re going.”
• 23:44: “The NCAA is a cacophony and it’s not a chorus. Until we can get a chorus, we’re not going to be able to deal with this arms race in the right way I think.”
LikeLike
“but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences…”
This is very close to what the UC Berkley AD let slip a couple years ago.
I think you highlited the actual important information while the mainstream blindly jumps on inconsequential gaffs.
LikeLike
@Cutter–you left out the quote in which Andy is revealed to be GG:
• 9:14: “I think the Big Ten needs to be predatory and positive rather than waiting for other people to take away from them. Very candidly, I think we made a mistake. Because thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time. So we would have had Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and then moved into that other area. I think, by the way, that that can still happen.”
LikeLike
It sounds like Gee was enganging in some of the same silly braggadocio we’ve frequently seen on here.
So the B1G is going to add Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Caroina, AND Duke and go to 19? And then of course add Notre Dame too because why not?
That was always a fantasy. I don’t buy it at all. I don’t think superconferences are going to happen. I think we’re stuck basically as we are for at least another 20 or 30 years.
LikeLike
Interesting stuff. Don’t understand 18:44. They changed the structure a few years back so that each Division mostly sets its own rules.
LikeLike
I think the quote below is critical to the recent expansion, B10 cut off the north half of the ACC with the Rutgers, Maryland additions and they’ll never ‘own’ the Atlantic Coast like they wanted. The nearly 40 million in population in NYC, Jersey, Maryland/Delaware & DC help the BTN too.
• 6:05: “The blocking strategy is that we simply have now put the ACC in an almost no-win position. So who do they immediately go to? Louisville. They may think about Cincinnati. They may think about Connecticut. But they’ve lost their foothold in that middle part of the area, in that middle part of the Atlantic coast.”
LikeLike
““[The addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten] gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers”
Erm?
LikeLike
He’s full of crap. It barely adds a third that many at best.
LikeLike
What are the populations of NYC, Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and DC? About 40 million.
LikeLike
HA! You think Rutgers adds New York City?
You think Maryland adds all of Maryland, Delaware, and DC?
Riiiight.
LikeLike
To the broadcast footprint, sure. But some of those areas may have already belonged to the B10 for that.
LikeLike
Maybe he’s talking total viewers over the year (# of viewers/game * # of games), not subscribers?
LikeLike
See, I don’t think you’ll see a split from the NCAA. Maybe a complete overhaul.
These smaller institutions do have power: political power. College athletics is a Congressional scandal away from being regulated by the Congress vis a vis the Department of Education. This arms race of budgets is being borne by the public and eventually the politicians will reassert their control.
LikeLike
These smaller institutions do have power: political power. College athletics is a Congressional scandal away from being regulated by the Congress vis a vis the Department of Education. This arms race of budgets is being borne by the public and eventually the politicians will reassert their control.
That’s part of the reason why 4 year scholarships and the $2000 stipend are so important; they ensure that in a PR battle with the smaller schools the big boys always have the upper hand. They can simply say they are trying to make money in order to benefit their athletes and the smaller schools are trying to stop them.
LikeLike
• 19:52: “I think the presidents of the institutions are very clear that their number one criteria is to make sure that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity. So you won’t see us adding Louisville … or the University of Kentucky.”
And yet he would add North Carolina, with their fraudulent classes targeted at student-athletes, and considers them like minded? And he thinks that him thinking Coach Tressel could fire him makes Ohio State different from SEC schools? There’s a serious disconnect there.
LikeLike
“And he thinks that him thinking Coach Tressel could fire him…”
Are you saying you thought he was serious? The disconnect may reside elsewhere.
LikeLike
Its a sad comment on a university even if its a joke. Gee does seem to have a disconnect between his brain and his mouth. He wouldn’t have lasted this long at Stanford or Cal.
LikeLike
He did get in trouble with the BoT this time.
LikeLike
I don’t think an individuals attempt at humor is a reflection on anything but the speaker. Frankly, it must have been humorous. Everybody is laughing at him. He should limit his humor to private occasions.
Whether crass or not, he revealed quite a bit. Intentions, possibilities, dramatic future structural changes (at least as seen by the leader of one of the kings with oversized influence), and yet everyone focuses on inappropriate humor. I almost wonder how much inhibition lubricant he had to drink, but he is LDS.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine Bill Powers at UT saying anything like that (even in 2006 when people weren’t trying to fire Mack Brown!). You would never hear Cal or Stanford presidents saying something like that, so it does reflect on Ohio St. that the president would even let a thought like that cross his mind. Would President Obama make a crack about the head of the IRS firing him?
LikeLike
No, cause it wouldn’t necessarily be a joke. Wouldn’t want to invite him. Obama already knows the IRS targets whoever they want.
Why doesn’t Gee’s comments/bad humor reflect just as much on the previous schools he moved up from?
If Powers had said something similar (or a Stanford or Cal pres) it would have been an individual making a poor choice. It would not alter my opinion of the school. Now repeadly hiring those with foot in mouth disease might begin to.
LikeLike
“Academic integrity” mostly means “research prowess” to B10 presidents.
LikeLike
Bingo
LikeLike
So much for the SEC upping the quality of its OOC schedule
http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/A-M-s-soft-non-league-schedule-just-what-SEC-4563905.php
TAMU drops upcoming HaH with USC (which was admittedly planned but no finalized)
LikeLike
An important note in there is that the SEC wants teams to not schedule OOC games until they have the SEC schedule for that season. So unless the SEC plans to crank out 10 years of schedules really soon, it’ll be hard for the teams to schedule a major home and home series.
LikeLike
Especially since the SEC schedules conference games in September. So the schools don’t know what weeks they have open. But you would think they would make accomodations if A&M really wanted to play USC and Oregon.
LikeLike
That’s why I found it interesting. Did they just mean don’t fill your whole OOC slate, or do they really want no games at all? Maybe they want to push teams to play more neutral site games which require less notice. Or maybe more schools aren’t locking in all their games so early any more.
LikeLike
Lots of speculation they will go to 9 conference games even if the coaches don’t like it. That may be a part of it.
LikeLike
The Oregon series is still a go according to both sides.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/05/south-carolina-georgia-tech-cancel-2021-22-home-and-home-football-series/
Now USCe has cancelled its upcoming series with G-Tech by mutual agreement.
USCe now has a clear schedule after 2016 (the final year of their contract with Clemson)
LikeLike
ESPN will now commence to arranging the SEC’s schedule…
LikeLike
Sounds good. Maybe we’ll get better games that way.
LikeLike
You endorse abdicating power and control to Bristol? I thought you joined the SEC, not ESPN.
LikeLike
I’d be happy to see more entertaining scheduling. Maybe ESPN can get some of those former Big 8 schools to play us in the non-conference. Or maybe Iowa or Illinois. Let’s get some entertaining matchups. I don’t care who’s calling the shots as long as they make the right calls.
LikeLike
SEC announces distributions of $20.6 per school. Article also has a history back to 1980. Big 12 also, per Kirk Bohls, announces distributions of $22.0 million per continuing school (average of $19.8).
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/245512/2012-13-sec-revenue-distribution.aspx
LikeLike
Yeah, and it’ll go up by 50-70% next year so enjoy it while you can.
LikeLike
Calm the F down. Facts aren’t an attack on you.
B10 – 25.7
SEC – 20.7
B12 – 19.8 (22 to non-newbies, 11 to newbies)
ACC – 16.9
P12 – 12.5
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/31/big-12-sec-announce-record-revenue-numbers/
“We will have some pretty significant increases the next couple of years,” Bowlsby said, adding that the conference’s back loaded deal with ESPN/FOX could result in upwards of $40 million for each member by the end of the 13-year agreement. That number, Bowlsby said, does not include revenue from the Champions Bowl between the Big 12 and SEC, which is said to be worth $80 million for the two sides.
LikeLike
And you believe that? $40M/school for the Big 12? Yeah right. You’re dumber than I thought you were.
LikeLike
…80M for the bowl…40M to each conference…
LikeLike
What will it be in 13 years? And the other bowls? Media escalator clauses? Perhaps they do get to 40M. But that’s a 13 year projection not a 3 or 4 year that the B1G has hinted. Is a 10 year lag acceptable, or for that matter actually likely?
LikeLike
“And you believe that? $40M/school for the Big 12?”
I quoted their commissioner claiming it. It’s not that far-fetched, though. A 6% annual escalation would result in doubling the value in 13 years. Add in the CFP money, NCAA tourney money and regular bowl money and $40M might be plausible.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 is making $40Mschool in 2026 then the SEC and SECN will probably be making $50-60M or more.
LikeLike
If they negotiated good deals, then sure they’ll be making more than the B12. Probably not 50% more, but a sizable edge.
LikeLike
Hard to tell. In a “fair” world, the SEC should get a fair bit more per school than the B12. Unlike numerous SEC acolytes, however, I actually don’t have oversized faith in Slive’s negotiating abilities.
LikeLike
Every estimate I’ve seen has the SEC making at least $30M in 2014, which would be 50% more than the Big 12. As for 13 years from now, who the hell knows?
LikeLike
The Big 12 estimates are that they will be distributing over $30 million in 2014. Like those SEC estimates, that would include playoff and bowl money. Playoff money averages $90+ million over 12 years for the Big 5. If you assume it starts around $75 million and the Big 12 adds $40 million for the Sugar Bowl, that is an additional $11.5 million on top of the $19.8 million they distributed this year.
Unless and until the SEC network takes off (and unless there is some unlikely huge ESPN fees bump for Tier II no one is talking about), the Big 12 will be right with or slightly ahead of the SEC for this contract term. Hard to compare those two to the Big 10 right now because the BTN is included in conference distributions and we don’t know what all the schools are currently getting on their Tier III media deals.
LikeLike
This sounds very strange. Everything I’m reading and hearing has said that the SEC would be making much more than the Big 12 starting in 2014. This is the first I’ve heard otherwise. I’m skeptical.
LikeLike
If you think the SEC will go up 50-70% next year, you’re dumber than Clay Travis. CBS isn’t increasing payments at all, so that’s a decrease for Tier I. The Big 12 will likely be the best paying conference (when you factor in the Big 10’s distributions include Tier 3) in 2014 when the playoffs start as the Big 12 is distributing that money only 10 ways, not 14. Even Mike Slive said that was possible. SECN is going to take a while to generate much money. They’ve been quiet on the money, but it doesn’t appear the SEC is getting any Tier II windfall. ESPN is compensating them mostly by moving Tier II to the network. And like the BTN, its not going to instantly print money.
LikeLike
Yes, yes it will. 50% more than $20M is $30M. That’s pretty much the most conservative estimate I’ve seen for the SEC for 2014. It might be as high as $35M or $40M by 2016, according to some.
Clay Travis is predicting hugely ridiculous numbers like $50-60M. I don’t buy that. But $30M is probably going to happen. Sorry. But hey, at least you have the LHN so you’ll mostly keep up, unlike the rest of your league.
LikeLike
FWIW, I’ve heard Mizzouri’s AD’s “conservative” estimate for their budget in 2016 is around $22M higher than it is now. A good chunk of that is supposed to come from increased TV money. I doubt they’d do that without having a good idea of what they’re likely to get.
LikeLike
Next year is 2013. The SEC should be in the vicinity of $30 million for 2014 because of the playoff.
LikeLike
But how much of that is projected increased ticket sales? I know they expect that (whether it will happen remains to be seen-depends on how successful Pinkel is).
LikeLike
To clarify, next year is 2013 football season (2013-14 fiscal year). Everyone talking about 2014 is talking about 2014 football season (2014-15 fiscal year) when everybody gets a good increase because of the playoff.
LikeLike
Yes, but the SEC is also expected to get a higher deal from ESPN then as well, which is why they’ll be higher than the Big 12.
LikeLike
Nashville regional:
Illinois 6
Georgia Tech 4
Box Score FINAL
Nashville Regional, Game 1
LikeLike
I-L-L!
LikeLike
Frank – congrats on a solid win. GA Tech took two of three against UNC a couple of weeks ago.
LikeLike
Good job Frank on the win but that will be a brutal regional to survive. I have seen a few Vandy games this season and I can not find a hole in their game yet.
Alan, is there a hole in the Tigers game?
LikeLike
duff – LSU had a very frustrating win today against Jackson State. Ryan Eades, who should be a 1st or 2nd round draft pick next week, had a terrible outing. While pitching in the first inning, a slight drizzle tuned into a downpour. The umps were slow to call a rain delay as their was no lighting, but Eades couldn’t grip the ball. After the rain delay he gave up two runs and never could get in together, but Kurt McCune came in and pitched LSU to a 10-2 lead. After McCune was pulled to begin the 7th, our normally reliable stable in the bullpen just couldn’t throw strikes. I was sitting right behind home plate and the home plate ump was VERY inconsistent on his balls and strikes, but he was inconsistent for both sides.
The worst thing to happen today was that All-American LF Raph Rhymes and All-American Freshman SS Alex Bregman collided in left field on a pop fly. Both came out of the game. Rhymes needed stiches, but Bregman is being tested for a concussion.
Weekend starter Cody Glenn has been suspended from the team this weekend for missing curfew. RF Mark Laird is not playing this weekend because he rolled his ankle during practice at the SEC Tournament last week.
Not of that should matter this weekend. Rhymes will play tomorrow. Laird and Glenn should be back next weekend for the Super Regional. If Bregman’s injury is serious, though, that could hurt. He’s the best player on the team, and may end up being the best player in LSU history, if his Sophomore and Juniors years are anything like this season.
But LSU has a great bench. The Tigers beat Vandy last week without their starting RF and 2B.
LikeLike
I-N-I!
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/sec-will-keep-8-game-football-schedules-through-15/nX77N/
The SEC will stick with 6-1-1 through 2015 at least.
LikeLike
Remaining SEC OOC games in 2016+ according to fbschedules.com:
AL – MSU 16-17, GT 19-20, maybe CSU 17
AR – LT 16, TCU 16-17, MI 18-19, UT 21
AU – none
UF – FSU 16, UNT 16, UMass 16
UGA – GT 16, GSU 16
UK – UL 16
LSU – ASU 16, S Miss 16, WKU 16, S AL 16, NCSU 17&20, GSU 17, OU 18-19
MO – Memphis 16, PU 17-18, WY 17-18
MS – Memphis 16-17, Wofford 16, GT 17-18, Tulane 17&21, S AL 17
MSU – LT 16-17, S AL 16, Tulane 16
SC – Clemson 16, SCSU 16, ECU 16
TN – NE 16-17, UConn 16, S Miss 17, Memphis 17, USC 21-22
TAMU – LT 16, UNM 17, OR 18-19
Vandy – MTSU 16-18, GT 16, UMass 18
Right now I’d say 20176looks like a good year to go to 9 games for them.
LikeLike
Only LSU has 4 ooc in 2016. And USA or WKU would have no problems moving a game 3 years down the road to keep the game with LSU.
LikeLike
Yeah, I meant to say “2016 looks like” but you can’t edit these comments.
LikeLike
Brian,
What are the odds Gee is there a year from now? I listened to that whole audio clip and the stuff in the media is the tip of the iceberg. Forget about the Irish, SEC and assorted jabs as the other stuff discussed was probably too candid to have been so open about. ACC and B12 would have some major issues based on what was said in that recording. Things like saying he still wants Missouri and Kansas, coupled with the ACC land grad to stop the ACC is not going to endear him to the remaining power conferences.
He may raise money for the Buckeyes but he is starting to look like he is on borrowed time.
LikeLike
He’s a University President, not an Athletic Director. What makes you think the displeasure of the ACC or Big12 can put his position into jeopardy?
Notre Dame may be another matter ~ they may try to misrepresent a pointed description of the behavior of “The Fathers” into an attack on Catholics in general. If it is understood to be directed at priests in position of influence in Notre Dame, its much less explosive, due to the glass houses effect.
LikeLike
Bruce,
It was that he was so open. If you or I are chatting on FtT we are suspect as a source the way that guy from WV is but here you have a college president on the record with the B1G game plan for the past and future. Just seems like to much risk and exposure in a landscape where folks are getting left behind and that seems like when lawsuits start. The Maryland exit fee has not been settled yet and here is Gee saying it was a done deal with Loh and Kirwin. If the ACC is full of legal eagle types certainly they could raise the issue that the move was not fully vetted and there was undue influence based on where Loh and Kirwin came from.
LikeLike
You must missed this news on the exit fee. It is an interesting read…
Maryland Exit Fee News from the UMD Diamondback
LikeLike
duffman,
“What are the odds Gee is there a year from now?”
Higher than they should be. OSU is in the middle of a $2.5B fundraising campaign and that’s his strong suit. As long as he raises cash and improves the school’s academic reputation, he’ll probably be there until he chooses to leave. He’s 69, so he may choose to retire in the near future. I’ve never been a big fan of his, but tons of alumni are.
“He may raise money for the Buckeyes but he is starting to look like he is on borrowed time.”
Only if he keeps talking about sports. He does fine with everything else. He should just be given a gag order on all athletic topics.
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks for your views. Does Ohio State have an age limit and when is the fund drive due to wind up? You may be right in that they say no more sports discussions.
LikeLike
I don’t know of a set age limit. The fund drive started last fall and was at $1.5B, or 60% done, at the end of April. I don’t know that it has a set end date, but rather I think it runs until the goal is met.
They did tell him he needs to get advice about what to say and where to say it.
LikeLike
I wasn’t aware that the ACC or Big XII had a voting stake in a public university in the state of Ohio.
LikeLike
metatron,
This is more based on the court of public opinion. I said on here early on B1G expansion could happen but it was best for the conference if the B1G was not seen as the overall villain in the process. Picking off Nebraska might be seen as nibbling at a lone school but Gee saying they were still interested in Kansas, Missouri, and Texas means you are going for the throat in an academic based fight where patience and diplomacy goes over better with peers.
The White Knight role is a better position than the greenmailer after the dust has settled and Gee’s public voice has now made the SEC the white knight by default. While Larry Scott had a bold move it only affected 1 other conference. The B1G got Nebraska form the B12, Maryland from the ACC, and Rutgers from the Big East and destabilized 3 conferences. If I am TCU, UC, Wake, or other schools that may be left behind I now have a common bad guy I can use in the press and public opinion.
LikeLike
Mike Aresco on the defection of RU:
I remember talking to (ACC commissioner) John Swofford at one of the BCS meetings in September. He said, “We have no interest in expanding.” And I’ve known John for 30 years and he’s never lied to me. He called me after the Maryland defection and said, “We’re only going to take one school.” A lot of people were speculating they might take three from us. He thought things were going to settle down and we might have a three-to-five-year down period. But even with all that, the Big Ten takes Rutgers and destabilizes the situation again.
1. He may trust Swofford but I don’t.
2. Considering that RU was allegedly on the B1G’s pre-approved list of schools it was always a possibility, regardless of the odds. And a #14 was needed, anyway.
Still, I can’t envy his position right now.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22333120/our-q-a-with-mike-aresco-commissioner-of-the-american-athletic-conference
LikeLike
@Transic – I’m curious as to whether that “we have no interest in expanding” comment from Swofford to Aresco in September was before or after the ACC, you know, expanded by taking Notre Dame from Aresco’s then-Big East.
LikeLike
The ACC made its announcement about ND on September 12. So it could well be before the BCS meeting, but I’m not sure of that.
LikeLike
Transic,
I remember talking to (ACC commissioner) John Swofford at one of the BCS meetings in September. He said, “We have no interest in expanding.” And I’ve known John for 30 years and he’s never lied to me. He called me after the Maryland defection and said, “We’re only going to take one school.” A lot of people were speculating they might take three from us. He thought things were going to settle down and we might have a three-to-five-year down period. But even with all that, the Big Ten takes Rutgers and destabilizes the situation again.
“1. He may trust Swofford but I don’t.
2. Considering that RU was allegedly on the B1G’s pre-approved list of schools it was always a possibility, regardless of the odds. And a #14 was needed, anyway.”
How many days were there between UMD saying yes and RU? 1? 2? I fail to see how the B10 stirred anything up with that sort of time gap.
LikeLike
Press conference for Maryland was on November 19. Rutgers’ was on November 20. You can check it on BTN2Go. (http://www.btn2go.com/btn2go/video/big-ten-expansion-show-rutgers/3181) That’s the power of doing things low-key. Then again, I don’t think the B1G was that concerned about how the Big East would react. The ACC was always going to be the bigger obstacle to doing things cleanly, thus giving UMD more leverage in the negotiations.
LikeLike
That damn B1G went and totally destablized the situation again, by taking Rutgers. My gawd, does Aresco have any memory or knowledge of Big East history. Here is some for him to consider:
June 2003; The ACC invites Miami and Virginia Tech of the Big East to join the ACC
October 2003; The ACC invites Boston College of the Big East to join the ACC
September 2011; The ACC invites Pittsburgh and Syracuse of the Big East to join the ACC
September 2012; The ACC invites Notre Dame of the Big East to join the ACC
and post Swofford conversation-
November 2012; The ACC invites Louisville of the Big East to join the ACC
I am so tired of listening to the whining of the ACC over the Maryland defection, while they maimed, then killed and gutted the Big East. And, then Aresco points his finger at the B1G. GMAFB!!!
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter. What goes around comes around. The GOR gave the league a 12 year window to try and catch up to the growing revenue disparity of the BIG and SEC. But it also gave the BIG and SEC 12 years to pull farther away. I see latter as the more likely scenario. There will be no way the ACC stays together if its schools are making 20 million a year less than either the SEC or BIG schools.
LikeLike
The COR more-or-less guarantees that Chad Swofford can get 20+ years at Raycom Sports.
LikeLike
I am so tired of listening to the whining of the ACC over the Maryland defection, while they maimed, then killed and gutted the Big East.
The Big East “maimed, killed, and gutted” itself. Conferences are voluntary associations of member schools. No conference has a Constitutional right to retain schools that no longer want to be there. When a conference is no longer fulfilling its members needs, and a better home is available, then they should leave.
LikeLike
‘I am so tired of listening to the whining of the ACC over the Maryland defection, while they maimed, then killed and gutted the Big East.’
My hyperbole was intended to highlight the incongruity of the ACC’s position on Maryland. The ACC was only too happy to accept nearly the entire original Big East into their conference, but can’t believe or accept that one of the ACC’s members could possibly find a better home. I am happy that the ACC has survived almost totally intact. But, as others have noted, they, the ACC, continues to flog Maryland at every opportunity, be it schedules, the exit penalty, or just plain distain and hatred for Maryland leaving. As you noted, Maryland found a better home, just as Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Louisville did in joining the ACC.
LikeLike
I actually believe Swofford – I don’t think the ACC wanted to add any more Big East (now AAC) football schools and no school was going to leave the SEC or Big 10 or Big 12 for the ACC. As great as Louisville sports are, the ACC clearly would prefer to have Maryland as they could have added Louisville anytime but chose not to. The ACC also had plenty of time to take Rutgers, but they picked Pittsburgh and Syracuse instead. Once Maryland left the ACC had no choice but to take Louisville or UConn or Cincinnati or a combination of these to have a balanced league.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9330454/sec-meetings-end-scheduling-resolution
This is where the SEC bugs me a little.
“We feel like we’ll be able to support our 5,000 student-athletes well into the future,” Slive said.
Why does the second richest conference have such a small number of athletes? Especially when they defend oversigning by saying it provides more opportunities for student-athletes.
From the DOE site (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/):
B10 – 8218 athletes (no double counting) = 685/school
SEC – 5598 = 467/school
OSU – 783 (1/7 of SEC total, less than 1/10 of B10 total)
UF – 518 (less than 1/10 of SEC total, 1/16 of B10 total)
TX – 549
This is one big reason why the B10 schools don’t compete as well in CFB. All that money the SEC dumps into coaches the B10 puts into other sports.
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 has too many sports – instead of spending so much on minor sports that are typically the domain of rich white suburban kids, put the money into academics and focus on the primary sports that have an actual following. Too much money is going to fund elite sports – put the money back into the actual universities and limit tuition increases or offer more academic scholarships.
LikeLike
Well, the presidents clearly believe that more sports is good for the overall college experience, offering more talented athletes the chance to compete at a varsity level. How exactly do you expect schools to comply with Title IX and the NCAA’s minimum sports requirements if they only keep the major sports?
As for the rich, white suburban kids comment, I have a few questions:
1. Do you have any actual evidence that’s who getting the opportunities?
2. What’s wrong with RWS kids getting opportunities to play sports?
3. Don’t RWS kids make up a sizable portion of the student body? Much larger than, say, poor minorities from inner cities with bad test scores?
LikeLike
I tend to agree with you. Texas only has 20 sports: M&W swimming, M&W golf, M&W tennis, M&W basketball, M&W X-Country, M&W track & indoor track, baseball, softball, football, W volleyball, W rowing, W soccer. And rowing is just a Title IX thing. They have to recruit women to the sport instead of recruiting to the school.
Of the sports with large participation in Texas, only wrestling, M soccer and gymnastics aren’t supported. The universities doing 28-30 sports would IMO do better with club and intramurals.
LikeLike
“Of the sports with large participation in Texas, only wrestling, M soccer and gymnastics aren’t supported. The universities doing 28-30 sports would IMO do better with club and intramurals.”
Don’t you think those large participation sports athletes, families, and friends are being under served by their state schools?
Those schools offering more varsity options do have club and intramural also. It’s apples and oranges, like saying club would serve for FB at Duke or ISU or any school that has under performed over extended time. Bad D1 in any sport still far above a club offering.
If everyone drops the sports in which they are not likely to contend, who will they play?
LikeLike
We don’t need intercollegiate competition with all the associated expenses in sports that very few students are interested in. Preparing students for Olympic fencing is not the mission of universities.
LikeLike
There are groups other than the NCAA. There was (and probably still is) a group called something like AIAU that had regional competitions in a number of sports. Bowling and chess come to mind. There were a number of others. There weren’t the formal teams and associated costs.
LikeLike
For example, OSU claims to also have the largest intramural and club program with over 56,000 participants per year.
LikeLike
BTW, I tend to agree with Bullet (and the SEC to an extent).
To the question “if everyone drops the sports in which they are not likely to contend, who will they play?”, I’m not sure why that question matters. It’s not the mission of most universities to serve as pansies in sports that most people don’t care about.
To be sure, there are a decent number of sports in the B10 that are revenue-neutral (or close to it). Wrestling and women’s volleyball come to mind.
There are others where the cost shouldn’t be that high (like cross-country).
However, I fail to understand why all 12 B10 schools should sponsor sports like golf or tennis.
Those sports don’t draw revenue, and it’s not even as if sponsoring those sports is something noble, altruistic, or patriotic. For example, you can argue that sponsoring swimming and men’s gymnastics is a noble enterprise because our national programs depend a decent amount on our collegiate programs. Golf and tennis would do perfectly fine even if every NCAA school stopped sponsoring those sports.
LikeLike
“Don’t you think those large participation sports athletes, families, and friends are being under served by their state schools?”
My response is an emphatic “no”. I want my state schools to turn out a productive workforce, educated citizenry, and research that benefits all mankind (or at least this country). I certainly don’t want my tax dollars used to subsidize some sport that I don’t care about (or even those that I do care about).
“Handing out wrestling scholarships” should not be anywhere on the list of missions of a public school.
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, I fail to understand why all 12 B10 schools should sponsor sports like golf or tennis”
Because rich alumni like them and you can get them to donate by having events where they can come back and play golf at the old alma mater? Because the rules require you to have a certain number of sports and those two don’t require large numbers of men?
LikeLike
“Because rich alumni like them and you can get them to donate by having events where they can come back and play golf at the old alma mater?”
That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Does it really work that way, though? That is, does golf actually get extra donations? I guess I’ll have to become a rich old alum first.
“Because the rules require you to have a certain number of sports and those two don’t require large numbers of men?”
The rules only require a proportionate number for each gender, right? Unless there are significantly more women than men playing golf and tennis at B10 schools, I don’t see that as a valid reason.
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Does it really work that way, though? That is, does golf actually get extra donations? I guess I’ll have to become a rich old alum first.”
Considering how much business gets done on golf courses, it would be natural to think donating would also happen. I know the development people at OSU invite rich alumni to come back and play golf and get schmoozed. Besides, courses also generate money through memberships and greens fees. It’s a golf club owned by the school, so the team might not make money but the sport probably doesn’t cost the school all that much overall.
“The rules only require a proportionate number for each gender, right? Unless there are significantly more women than men playing golf and tennis at B10 schools, I don’t see that as a valid reason.”
I-A requirements:
200 scholarships or at least $4M worth
16 sports
8 women’s teams
6 men’s or co-ed teams
As for scholarship numbers:
Men’s tennis = 4.5 (equivalency)
Women’s tennis = 8 (head count)
Men’s golf = 4.5
Women’s golf = 6
Baseball = 11.7
Softball = 12
Soccer – 9.9/14
T&F – 12.6/18
Volleyball – 4.5/12
LikeLike
So? I like football as much as the next redblooded American, but athletics isn’t about sacrificing kids to the almighty foodball gods, it’s about the students.
LikeLike
College sports stopped being about the students around 1960, probably earlier! DII and below schools or intramurals are where you go if you care about the students or if you are a student that also wants to play sports. Athletes in the Big 10 (or any major conference) are there to win, not to be students in all sports. They spend more time “playing” than they do in class!
LikeLike
Then go comment on a D2 intermural board. 😉
The revenue sports have become something a bit out of control. But the non revenues are still mostly about the student athlete, and those advocating fewer of them are simply moving us toward truly having college owned minor league professional sports franchises.
LikeLike
That don’t play their players either.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree, I just think it’s a problem.
LikeLike
The Big 10’s lack of success in football has very little to do with their funding other sports and everything to do with the focus on football in the South starting at a very young age. When I was younger it was fairly common in Texas for parents to enroll their children in elementary school a year late (6 instead of 5) so that they would be a year older and therefore year bigger when they started high school football. Entire families start training five and six year olds to play tackle football. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen up North, but I’m sure it’s a lot less common. Until Big Ten states start putting football on the pedestal that the South does from a young age, ( and I’m not saying they should) the Big 10’s recruiting base will always be more limited.
LikeLike
So true.
When you look at the large populations of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania (and their major urban areas) they should be producing far more top tier prospects than they are. Weather and culture account for most of it.
LikeLike
Football culture more specifically.
LikeLike
I suspect that the biggest reason that the SEC sponsors fewer sports than the Big 10 is a combination of weather and football focus as well. There are essentially no athletes that play winter sports in the SEC footprint because there’s almost no winter. I had only seen snow on the ground twice in my life before I visited my wife’s family in Massachusetts when I was 24. So that basically eliminates the chances of any SEC school starting up a winter sport like hockey. Sports like lacrosse have essentially zero following in the South because everyone cares so much about football. Baseball and basketball are thought of across much of the South in the same way that sports like lacrosse and soccer are elsewhere, alternative niche sports. The only high schools that I know of in the South outside of North Carolina and Virginia that even field lacrosse teams are a few private schools in South Florida where almost every student comes from a wealthy Northeastern family who moved to Florida. So many kids (and their families) want to play football exclusively that there are just not any athletes who play other sports to recruit.
LikeLike
At some B10 schools, being a step behind the SEC is entirely due to the athletic department deciding that assistant coaches aren’t worth the investment. Wisconsin and PSU (who had run big profits) have been the most guilty. With PSU, you could cut some slack as they had had a really sweet deal when JoePa was around, so you couldn’t blame them for riding the gravy train even if the football program was run in to the ground.
There’s no excuse for Wisconsin losing assistant coaches left and right, though. They definitely had enough money left over to pay their assistants more.
LikeLike
That’s a minor reason for enrolling the kids late. Its more a maturity thing.
LikeLike
I’m confused. You’re saying maturity isn’t a major factor in FB effectiveness? Or that only the “small for their age” are delaying enrollment?
You’re not suggesting the practice doesn’t go on everywhere, and to a greater extent where FB is more important than where it is not?
LikeLike
A lot of people hold kids back, particularly boys, because they aren’t ready to sit in a class with 25-30 kids and learn. People will repeat pre-K or Kindergarten. Its for academic reasons generally, although I’m not saying some don’t do it for sports.
LikeLike
No, I mean that in Texas they use to hold kids back with the intention that they would be bigger when they started playing high school football.
That was the primary/only real reason on the parents behalf. They just found administrators willing to go along with whatever BS reason that they gave. I’m sure that there was never any documentation that that happened, but if you asked the parents that’s what they said, at least privately.
I don’t know if that still goes on, I haven’t lived in Texas for a long time.
Obviously kids are held back for a whole number of reasons that can be quite legitimate (of which I don’t think future football potential is one).
LikeLike
Didn’t Lloyd Bentson get a huge raft of s#!t when he tried to introduce legislation that would have reduced the practice by age limiting HS elligibility?
LikeLike
I know lots of people in Texas who held kids back and that was never the reason. There are likely a handful who do it for sports reasons as I’ve heard those stories, but that’s rare.
LikeLike
The Big 10′s lack of success in football has very little to do with their funding other sports and everything to do with the focus on football in the South starting at a very young age. When I was younger it was fairly common in Texas for parents to enroll their children in elementary school a year late (6 instead of 5) so that they would be a year older and therefore year bigger when they started high school football. Entire families start training five and six year olds to play tackle football. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen up North, but I’m sure it’s a lot less common. Until Big Ten states start putting football on the pedestal that the South does from a young age, ( and I’m not saying they should) the Big 10′s recruiting base will always be more limited.
One of the many reasons I wish spring high school football practice was banned.
LikeLike
Vincent – I don’t know why you think spring practice is such a big deal. In Louisiana, spring practice is limited to 10 practices after baseball and track seasons are over.
LikeLike
Alan, have any idea how Louisiana compares to other states in that regard?
LikeLike
Vincent – I think most states that have spring football are about the same. I can say this as the father of the three sport athlete (football, wrestling and T&F), that spring football in Louisiana ain’t no big deal. Keep in mind that Louisiana churns out the most NFL player per capita of any state.
LikeLike
vp19,
Alan’s right. That’s about the norm for spring practice. And remember, players can still start playing 7 on 7 once the summer begins (6/1 in OH). The difference is that spring football can be coached by the varsity FB coach while summer FB can’t be coached by any of the school’s coaches. So missing spring practice in HSFB is much like missing bowl practice for a CFB team.
LikeLike
Kindergarten “redshirting” is actually more common in the West and Midwest than in the South.
Click to access bassok%20reardon%20redshirting%20march%202012.pdf
(see page 36)
That paper assumes that redshirting is done primarily for academic reasons, but I don’t think that it makes much of a difference. The end result is that more students in the midwest are “overaged” than in the south. Anecdotally, it’s even more common in the northeast, but the authors leave out that region because most northeastern states do not have state-mandated age cutoffs.
Also, the age difference is much more likely to make a difference in high school (and in recruiting rankings) than in college. 21 vs 20 might give a slight edge, but 17 vs 16 can be completely different people.
I’m not saying your overall thesis isn’t correct (“Greater focus on high school and peewee football in the south leads to more and better prepared recruits”), but I don’t think kindergarten redshirting plays a significant role in that phenomenon.
Does anyone have any sources saying that a significant number of college recruits are older than their classmates?
LikeLike
I don’t really think that kindergarten redshirting is that big of a deal on its own either. I was just using it as an example of the extreme focus on football across much of the South from a young age. I think that is the single biggest difference between the football success of the SEC and Big 12 South vs. the Big 10 the past decade or so. Southern states have access to recruits who have been focused on football almost exclusively (at least athletically) from a very early age. That focus and preparedness follows through to the middle and high school levels, and then to college. Until the Big 10 finds a way to either convince Southern recruits to come to them (Very, very challenging unless you’re OSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, or a similar brand) or finds a way to improve the football focus of youth athletics programs in Big 10 states (which is frankly not going to happen) they will remain at a disadvantage.
For example, let’s compare Minnesota and Louisiana, two similarly populated states. Louisiana, where hockey is very rarely played for obvious reasons but where football is at a high priority, produces enough FBS recruits to support 5 FBS football programs, four of which are at schools without tremendous (or even average) financial resources. Minnesota, with a million-ish more people barely doesn’t even produce enough football recruits to adequately supply a single program with resources which dwarf many other FBS schools. On the other hand, hockey is huge in Minnesota, and youth and high school programs in the state are fantastic. There are 5 D1 hockey teams in Minnesota, which is more than 1/12th of all D1 hockey programs. If youth and high school football in Minnesota was at the level of its hockey, Minnesota could probably produce enough in-state football players to sustain at least a decent program. I specifically chose hockey vs. football because I felt that the type of player who would want to play and could physically excel at hockey is more similar to the type of athlete who would want to play and could physically excel at football than would be the case with other sports.
I don’t believe any of that nonsense that you’re inherently better at a certain sport just because you were born in one state or another, or that your fans are or aren’t more passionate. It simply comes down to focus and preparation.
LikeLike
Good point. The B10 has a bunch of areas where football clearly isn’t the number #1 sport of glory for young kids. Hockey in MN, basketball in IN, and basketball in most big urban areas (which the B10 has far more of than the SEC).
However, few programs are going to catch up with the top tier of the SEC. Those programs have all three of the money/fan support, brand, and fertile local recruiting grounds that few other schools can match. Only Texas, OSU, & USC (and FSU if they ever get a jolt of money) can be considered to be in the same superking/supersuperking level as UF, ‘Bama, LSU, and UGa. In other words, the SEC has as many teams that should consistently contend for national titles every year as the rest of college football combined.
The B10 should be able to contend well with the other conferences, though. This is part of the reason why I support the B10’s push in to Cali (with the numerous new bowl tie-ins there). CA (specifically, SoCal) is as rich a recruiting ground as FL or TX. Unlike FL or TX, however, there’s barely an SEC presence there. Plus, there’s only 1 king/near-king anywhere near SoCal to contend with (compared to TX, where Texas, OU, LSU, & TAMU are all in the state or adjacent or FL where UF, FSU, Miami, UGa, and ‘Bama are all in the state or adjacent).
True, SoCal is far away, but SoCal is far away from almost everyone; even many other Pac12 schools. Oregon isn’t within driving distance, and UNL & Iowa are only slightly farther away than UDub.
Plus, if Oregon can successfully recruit TX, there’s no legitimate reason why Iowa can not successfully recruit SoCal.
LikeLike
A year late for kindergarten is something I think is pretty good for a lot of boys for reasons nothing to do with sports. A lot of kids aren’t ready and more and more is being asked at the younger levels (at the upper levels its more grey). I know an extra year did wonders for me (everything finally seemed to click about 2nd grade).
LikeLike
You can remember back that far?
In hindsight, virtually nothing is learned in American schools (besides reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic) before junior high or so.
I didn’t have to memorize multiplication tables until 5th grade.
Compared to other first-world countries, American schools in general don’t ask enough of (or at least don’t teach enough to) their kids.
That’s how you end up with such a high percentage of high schoolers who are functionally illiterate and college kids who are innumerate and can’t structure a coherent essay.
LikeLike
They don’t memorize multiplication tables anymore. I think I did that in 3rd grade. But in math in general they are asking a LOT more in elementary than when I went to school. Kindergarten is like 1st grade used to be. IMO in certain areas they push too much on them too early. They just aren’t developmentally ready for algebra in the 4th grade. They are doing a lot of geometry as well.
LikeLike
“They just aren’t developmentally ready for algebra in the 4th grade.”
Yet they seem developmentally ready in Europe and Asia. Are American brains fundamentally different from European and Asian brains? That would seem strange, considering that most Americans share the same genetic heritage.
LikeLike
But are they really doing that in those countries? And if so, is it just a select few doing it?
LikeLike
OK, middle school, not 4th grade (but where are they teaching algebra in 4th grade in the US? In my knowledge, if they get to algebra by junior high, that’s already ahead of the curve)
Good thread here:
http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/271590-when-do-other-countries-teach-algebra-1/
Other countries don’t separate algebra from other parts of math. It’s all math (or maths, as the Brits and former British colonies call it).
I do know that most American high schools don’t get to quadratics by 9th grade or calculus by the end of high school.
BTW, outside the US, education tends to be quite centralized, so pretty much all students on the same track (university track, for instance) in the same country tend to learn the same thing by 9th grade, 10th grade, etc.
LikeLike
Richard,
“BTW, outside the US, education tends to be quite centralized, so pretty much all students on the same track (university track, for instance) in the same country tend to learn the same thing by 9th grade, 10th grade, etc.”
If you’re doing comparisons, then you have to keep those tracks in mind. The US isn’t allowed to split kids the same way. Comparing a typical US school to the university track schools in other countries isn’t fair.
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong in the bigger discussion, just pointing out that these splits make fair comparisons difficult.
LikeLike
If this has been posted here already then I apologize…
http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/jeremy-fowler/22333375/big-12-no-longer-looking-over-its-shoulder
“Bowlsby confirmed to CBSSports.com the league’s complete bowl lineup for 2014-19 –Sugar, Alamo, Russell Athletic, Liberty, Buffalo Wild Wings, Heart of Dallas and Meineke Car Care of Texas.
There’s one potential wrinkle: A rotation from the Liberty to the Sun Bowl on certain years, though Bowlsby said that concept has lost steam in recent weeks.”
Because they are already going to have three bowls in the state of Texas (not including the Cotton, which is in the CFP), I could see why they would slow play the Sun Bowl. I just can’t see any attractiveness of the Sun Bowl to anyone outside the B12/P12, unless it’s a national name like Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Um, the B12 schools _like_ visiting TX. Everybody besides WVU recruits heavily there. The Sun Bowl’s problem is that it’s really not a Texas bowl. El Paso is closer to Phoenix than it is to any major city in TX. El Paso is closer to San Diego than it is to Houston.
As for the Sun Bowl’s attractiveness, pretty much every conference besides the B10 and SEC will go there for the payout, and the Sun Bowl relies mostly on local interest, so that works out well.
My first reaction, though, is “WOW!”
If this is the selection order, that means that the Houston bowl is _not_ increasing its payout. That would mean a pretty big drop in bowl payout for the SEC, replacing the Cotton with the Houston bowl (unless the SEC beats out the Pac #2 for the spot opposite the B12 #2 in the Alamo bowl).
LikeLike
There was also this:
For all leagues, one of the significant upcoming challenges will be college football playoff positioning. Will having 10 teams and no conference championship game hurt the Big 12 in the eyes of the selection committee?
Schulz said he doesn’t believe so.
“I think it will help,” Schulz said. “And the fact we’re not playing a championship game means our champion is going to have that time to practice, to rest, to do some of those kinds of things.”
He does know that his conference plays games the same weekend that others play CCGs, right?
LikeLike
Yes, that’s a great big ‘Duh’, for Kansas State Prez Kirk Schulz. I believe they play a complete 10 team schedule that weekend, so in actuality, all Big 12 schools are practicing and playing, not resting. He should have said; “Not having a CCG allows all our football teams to play and practice one week closer to their bowl games, giving us an advantage. Plus we get an extra bye week mid-season to help our players recover.” But hell, he’s just the president, what does he know? At least he didn’t go ‘Gordon Gee’ on anything.
LikeLike
I believe they play a complete 10 team schedule that weekend, so in actuality, all Big 12 schools are practicing and playing, not resting.
Not anymore (or at least this season).
This year only Bedlam and UT-Baylor are being played the final week. The other 6 teams are off.
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/11/2013-big-12-football-schedules-announced/
LikeLike
I’m kind of surprised the conference is doing it like that. With so many CCGs (and thus conferences with only one game that week), I figured ESPN/FOX would appreciate the extra content to fill in a lot gaps.
LikeLike
Wow! It’s after midnight and it took you all of 10 minutes to fact check my mis-representation! At that hour, it usually takes my wife 15 minutes. Good job!
As Eric, below added, why doesn’t the Big 12 play more games on that weekend? The advantages I noted above would seem to apply.
LikeLike
He should have said, “Get back to me after I consult with Texas.”
LikeLike
Wetzel’s very interesting article about Gee
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/e–gordon-gee-s-comments-aren-t-the-most-offensive-thing-about-him-and-his-kind-214340039.html
LikeLike
http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/Another-NCAA-subdivision-for-large-schools-4563685.php
Mark Emmert supports a 4th division in the NCAA, or at least looking into it.
LikeLike
Ha Ha – I suggested the very same on here in the past few years in splitting FBS into roughly (2) 64 team divisions. It makes the best sense if the NCAA is trying to not get the top 64 teams to split off and form their own association.
LikeLike
I’m trying to figure out where the issues are. They keep talking about football, but if they simply enforced the existing rules that separated I-A and I-AA they wouldn’t have as many problems. It would seem to me that basketball is where they would be concerned, but I don’t hear as much discussion of that.
LikeLike
Well, for one, the power conferences want to provide athletes with stipends and the lower-level FBS schools are against that. Even if the rules on I-A are enforced, I don’t think the MWC and AAC schools (who generally meet I-A requirements easily) are for that. Plus, it’s easier to split off than to kick schools/conferences down.
LikeLike
I was unaware rules weren’t being enforced.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-football/story/_/id/9334537/big-ten-team-play-new-era-pinstripe-bowl-report-says
It’s been officially leaked. The B10 will replace the ACC in the Pinstripe. Official announcement tomorrow.
LikeLike
That link says that the Pinstripe will be a B1G-ACC matchup. Unless you meant “playing the ACC” and not “replacing the ACC”.
LikeLike
I meant playing the ACC and replacing the B12, and I accidentally blended them together. Sorry about the confusion.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/06/22515/womens-rowing-scuttles-the-competition-takes-ncaa-title
OSU just won the Women’s Rowing national title. I know someone commented a while ago about the odds of the B10 winning a spring NC.
LikeLike
That was me, though I placed decent odds on OSU winning a NC in both Rowing and M. Tennis. They were damn close in tennis. I also thought Purdue’s W’s Golf team had a shot – they finished third, nearly 40 strokes behind USC. The Trojans just annihilated the field.
The future is bright for BIG spring sports: Ill and Minny (M. Golf), Purdue (W. Golf), OSU (M. Tennis), Mich, OSU & Wisky (W. Rowing), Neb & Mich (W. Softball), OSU and PSU (M. Volleyball), Northwestern, PSU & Md (W. Lax) & Md and even OSU (M. Lax). All of these schools, specific programs have NC potential.
I think BIG baseball could improve if the conference builds a warm-climate based facility with 2 game-time fields & essential practice spaces – then they can host tournaments early in the season & attract warm weather schools to the respective schedules.
BIG looks like it will secure at least 7 NCAA titles for the school year. According to the BIG website, it is one less than the 8 in 2005-2006. The BIG has won at least 6 NCAA titles the past 5 academic years.
I don’t know what the record is for NCAA team titles by a conference in a given year. My guess is the BIG got really close in 2005-2006. I imagine the Pac12 owning this record.
On top of this academic year, the BIG has at least 3 NCAA runner’s up: Women’s Soccer (PSU), Men’s Basketball (Mich) and Men’s Golf (Illinois).
Michigan is still alive in W. Softball. As someone else has noted, Neb lost a heartbreaker to Florida, the overall 2 seed. I can’t see Ok losing now. Neb, at least, proved they could beat them earlier in the year. The Neb squad has a phenomenal upside, 7 freshmen who play key roles. They may be the favorites next year.
PS Get past any bad grammar : (. Btw, is there an edit function on here?
LikeLike
Throw in Illinois in M. Tennis as well. They recently won a title.
LikeLike
@gfunk – I like that idea for baseball. It may not even be necessary for the Big Ten to build its own facility. Maybe the Big Ten programs can partner with the MLB teams in the Cactus League to use their stadiums in the spring on the days that their primary pro tenants are traveling. (I picked Arizona instead of Florida because all of the Cactus League teams are in the Phoenix metro area and short distances from each other, while the Grapefruit League teams are spread across the state.) The players get access to pro facilities and can draw in the top teams from the Southwest and West Coast for games.
LikeLike
Nice follow up. One thing is for certain: the idea of Minnesota using the Dome over the years was helpful since the Gophers are generally one of the strongest BIG teams. But, the Dome is just too big and ugly for a college baseball atmosphere.
Interesting, I suspect those Cactus-Grapefruit venues are underused. The partnership needs to be rock solid and long-term. The western BIG teams could use AZ fields, eastern BIG teams – Florida. I’m wondering how the student athletes would ensure their academic standing stays the course. It could be a great tradition in time & the BTN could bolster the process by attracting non-BIG teams who will likely seek to market their programs through secondary tiers.
LikeLike
Frank – I think the old Dodgertown in Vero Beach is available. The B1G ought to buy it, build some more dorms, and send all their teams down there until April. The players could take courses online. All the B1G snowbird alums would love it. It could be a great recruiting tool.
LikeLike
The B10 did hold an early-season challenge series with the BE in FL. Minny had also been hosting early-season tournaments in the Metrodome.
I suppose a challenge series held in AZ as well as FL could make sense as well. However, I fail to see what a dedicated warm-weather facility for B10 baseball (which would be used, what, a few weekends a year?) would do for B10 baseball. It would do little to build up fan interest & I’m not even sure what problem it would solve. Plus, these _are_ student athletes; you’re simply not going to be able to ship them to FL or AZ and have them stay there for a month or more during the baseball season school year.
LikeLike
I don’t know. How many classrooms did Manzel set foot in recently?
LikeLike
Richard, we’ve been hosting those games for years at the Metrodome, but as I said in my reply to Frank – bad venue for college baseball. There are too many good reasons why this facility is marked for the wrecking ball – I hope they use more than one & plenty of dynamite : ).
LikeLike
BTW, if B10 schools are serious about being competitive in baseball, they’d splurge to get MLB-quality coaches and good facilities. They can’t do anything about the weather and little about fan interest, but they have a money advantage & enough local talent to be able to field competitive teams (especially since there aren’t Midwestern equivalents of Fullerton or Coastal Carolina to compete for talent with; Louisville’s really the only program that’s close and competitive). The top baseball talent care most about making it to MLB. That’s coaching, competition, and facilities, and competition can be improved with OOC scheduling (even late-season OOC games vs. good warm-weather schools). Furthermore, for pitching prospects, not being overused would be a plus to the smart kids.
Speaking of Louisville, if the Cardinals can make the NCAA tournament 5 of the past 6 years as well as the CWS, there is absolutely no excuse for Illinois and OSU not being able to do the same.
LikeLike
Richard, I agree. IU, OSU, Ill, Neb & incoming Md have similar, perhaps slightly warmer weather than Lville. I think PSU is in the same category.
But as Frank & I are arguing: why not work out long term deals with MLB and the many AZ-Fl facilities during Feb-Mar?
Moreover, BIG softball seems to be doing fine – a lot of strong programs. But, it’s a much shorter field – facility upgrades aren’t as expensive & training is less rigorous.
PS Illinois is having a respectable run right now. IU should advance to the final 16.
LikeLike
For instance, let’s compare MS with OH. Over the past 5 MLB drafts, there have been 20 4-year college kids from MS taken in the first 10 rounds of the MLB draft. 17 of those 20 had gone to SEC schools (all to Ole Miss or MSSU).
During that same time frame, 24 4-year college kids from OH have been taken in the first 10 rounds of the MLB draft. 3 of those 24 had gone to B10 schools (OSU). 8 of those 24 OH college kids went to Kent State. It is simply inexcusable for a school like OSU to let a school like Kent St. consistently beat it out for baseball talent in the state of OH.
My only conclusion is that the B10 just doesn’t care enough about baseball.
LikeLike
Pretty sure its Pac 12 for the record. Alabama won 4 by themselves last year (fb, w-golf, gymnastics, softball) and came in 2nd in men’s golf (and won this year in addition to repeating in football).
LikeLike
That was Bama’s best year ever. They still only have 8 NCAA titles, which would be almost dead last in the BIG.
I think the SEC won 8 NCAA titles last year. In addition to Bama’s 4: LSU (W. Outdoor T&F), Fla (W. Tennis & M. Indoor T&F) & Ky (M. Basketball). I could be off. But they also won the BCS title.
It’s possible the SEC has reached double digit NCAA titles in a school year, but I’d be very surprised. Last year would have to be their best case. But now they have aTm, who is a consistent contender in a handful of Spring sports (M&W T&F, Softball, M. Golf) as well as a recent title in W. Basketball.
I’m sure the Pac12 has hit 10+ NCAA titles in a given year. I’m not going to dig it up. Too much work at NCAA.com, history links : ).
LikeLike
The record is 14, set in 1996-7. The P12 has hit double digits 6 times and nobody else has ever done it.
http://pac-12.com/AboutPac-12Conference/AboutPac-12Conference.aspx
On the field, the Pac-12 rises above the rest, upholding its tradition as the “Conference of Champions” ®, claiming an incredible 121 NCAA team titles since 1999-2000, including nine in 2011-12. That is an average of over nine championships per academic year. Even more impressive has been the breadth of the Pac-12’s success, with championships coming in 28 different men’s and women’s sports. The Pac-12 has led or tied the nation in NCAA Championships in 46 of the last 52 years. The only exceptions being in 1980-81, 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1995-96 when the Conference finished second, and only twice finished third (1998-99 and 2004-05).
For the seventh consecutive year, the Pac-12 had the most NCAA titles or tied for the most of any conference in the country, winning at least six every year since 2000-01. No other conference has won double-digit NCAA crowns in a single year, the Pac-12 doing so six times, including a record 14 in 1996-97.
LikeLike
Also, the school record is 6 set by Stanford in 1992-3.
LikeLike
And Stanford has an ongoing streak of 36 years with at least one.
http://champions.stanford.edu/history/by-the-numbers/
LikeLike
No edit function, unfortunately.
And OSU did win the men’s singles title in tennis at least. It’s not a team title, but it’s a nice reward for a program that has been knocking on the door.
LikeLike
Ouch, Mich softball ousted. Their chances of catching Stanford for the Director’s Cup was slim – no chance at this point.
In all, nice year for BIG Softball. Nebraska & Mich will be back strong next year. I suspect my Minnesota squad will as well.
LikeLike
@ Brian, nice research dig. The f’ing Pac12 – J.H.Christ – 6x they’ve reached double digit NCAA titles is impressive! But, it’s nice seeing sports they’ve dominated for so long shift, esp W. Volleyball. I’m starting to see a momentum shift with softball as well.
I think the BIG will reach double digits soon enough. SEC might get there first. But both conferences are on the cusp.
LikeLike
The diversity of B10 athletic programs gives them a chance, and growing to 14 always helps. The SEC plays fewer sports but tends to be better at them. Since conferences are being eliminated by realignment, you have to think other conferences will hit 10 eventually.
LikeLike
In some ways its harder. Not all schools took women’s sports seriously until the last decade or so. Texas won 5 NCAA championships in 1986, all of them women’s. That 5 matches the total UT women’s championships from 1999 to now.
LikeLike
AFAIU, the odds always reasonable in women’s rowing ~ its normally close to a 3-conference event, Ivy, BigTen & Pac-12.
LikeLike
SEC writer out of Atlanta pushing SEC to adopt 9 game conference schedule:
http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/sec-coaches-are-looking-like-cowards/nX7Dp/
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/05/post_31.html
Julie Hermann’s hopes of getting an early start on her new job as Rutgers athletic director have been put on hold without explanation. The Star-Ledger has learned that Rutgers officials postponed a series of meetings Hermann was scheduled to be part of late next week on campus.
The sudden change was detailed late Friday night by two people who have direct knowledge of the scheduling.
…
Those meetings were to coincide with a visit by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany as part of Rutgers’ welcome to their soon-to-be conference home, the people said.
Delany is still expected to visit Rutgers.
LikeLike
http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/2013/05/31/the-ncaa-is-implementing-the-student-athlete-stipend-by-stealth.htm
NCAA on the verge of creating a loophole that would allow for stipends?
LikeLike
NCAA trying to avert a split?
LikeLike
Breaking on Inside Lacrosse: Johns Hopkins will announce that it’s joining the Big Ten for both men’s and women’s lacrosse on Monday.
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/31/sources-johns-hopkins-announce-joining-big-ten-monday
LikeLike
Well that’s a shame (if true)
LikeLike
frug,
Which part of it is a shame?
1. JHU’s men joining any conference.
2. Them joining the B10 over another conference.
3. JHU’s women joining the B10.
4. The B10 allowing associate membership.
5. Other (please explain).
LikeLike
Mostly 4.
LikeLike
While it breaks a long history of not allowing it, I don’t think this is that big of a deal. It doesn’t set a precedent that would lead to ND or anyone else getting an ACC-type deal.
LikeLike
@Brian
I’ve always said I didn’t believe that this move would lead to the Big Ten turning into a Big East style hybrid, but if you are willing to narrow your definition of “all in” or “full membership” (as some have done on this board in defense of this move) you could argue this could set a precedent for ND as a non-FB member since given an ACC type deal Notre Dame wouldn’t have any sports in a competing conference.
LikeLike
frug,
I’ve always said I didn’t believe that this move would lead to the Big Ten turning into a Big East style hybrid, but if you are willing to narrow your definition of “all in” or “full membership” (as some have done on this board in defense of this move) you could argue this could set a precedent for ND as a non-FB member since given an ACC type deal Notre Dame wouldn’t have any sports in a competing conference.
1. I didn’t mean to downplay your concern. I just don’t happen to share it in this case.
2. The B10 isn’t bound by precedent anyway. The COP/C can do whatever they want.
3. In that case, ND would be a direct competitor in football (especially in the postseason).
LikeLike
I’m glad Delany was insistent JHU join for both men’s and women’s lacrosse (it reportedly will join the Big Ten women’s conference next spring, with the men joining in 2015).
LikeLike
vp19,
It makes me wonder if the ACC also made that a condition or if the B10 was seen as such a desirable home that they’d agree to it anyway.
LikeLike
If Hopkins joins the CIC too, this is huge news for that organization.
LikeLike
It’s possible that the CIC was an important factor in their decision.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
Baltimore Sun is reporting the story now also…
I think Hopkins expects this to be for LAX only; they’re a D-III school in all others sports, but they would raise Big Ten LAX to the nation’s best. They missed the tourney this year for the first time in 40 years…
Nemo
LikeLike
Nemo,
The university’s affiliation with a conference included several criteria. They include an initial membership term of five years, an option to extend membership after the first three years, a guarantee that the university’s affiliation would remain unchanged despite movement within the conference, and a guarantee that the school’s contractual agreement with ESPNU would not be impacted.
But the Big Ten has its own television network. It is unclear how the Blue Jays’ contract – which was recently extended through 2017 – will be impacted by the move to the league.
Joining the Big Ten will allow Johns Hopkins to retain its annual rivalry with the Terps and begin new series with the other four members.
Other leagues that were considered to be attractive options were the ACC with Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Virginia and the Big East with Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John’s and Villanova. But Friday’s announcement that Denver was leaving the Eastern College Athletic Conference to join the Big East may have changed that route for the Blue Jays.
The move would appear to involve only the men’s team. The women’s team announced last June that the 2013 campaign would be its last in the American Lacrosse Conference, and the plan during that May 17 conference call was for the team to continue to compete as an independent on the Division I level, and the rest of the athletic squads will remain in Division III.
Clearly the details haven’t leaked out yet.
Things I want to see in writing:
1. What the TV/financial deal?
2. Are the women joining for sure?
3. Are they joining the CIC?
LikeLike
If the Sun report is correct and JHU announces only its men’s lacrosse team is joining the Big Ten, the conference should immediately announce, “no deal.”
LikeLike
But the announcement scheduled implied COP/C ‘Yes’ vote. Big Ten OK w/JHU women’s team independent, as I suggested they probably would be.
LikeLike
http://laxmagazine.com/college_men/DI/2012-13/news/060213_johns_hopkins_mens_and_womens_lacrosse_to_join_big_ten
Lacrosse Magazine is also reporting the story from “sources.”
Details on the press conference:
JHU has one scheduled for 11am at their lax center.
LikeLike
That’s what happens when you have dumb rules and a lot of red tape – people find workarounds.
LikeLike
Wow…that was a rather quick deliberation.
LikeLike
Count me as a fan for JHU eventually going D1 in around 14 sports. They have the money, but the interest – hmmmmm. If they go D1 in both men’s and women’s hoops via a credible plan, all facets, they would never need to go FBS in football & the BIG would be fine. Baltimore & DC equals some of the best preps hoops – definitely room for both Md and JHU in the BIG in most sports..
An odd number membership for basketball, other sports, would be quite workable. BIG teams would have even numbered game scheduling options (<— probably a hyphenated phrase there).
But hey now, I'm just saying along fantasy lines : ).
What a fantastic school to bring in. Welcome JHU!
LikeLike
Hopkins going D1 in other sports would be the worst thing that could happen to the Big Ten.
The Big Ten isn’t going to want to subsidize JHU basketball.
LikeLike
Frug,
You can’t say such for sure & do notice my use of “fantasy”. JHU gets plenty of financial donation & some of these donors are exceptionally powerful & capable of outside the box thinning – see Bloomberg.
Bmore-DC’s prep basketball is on par with all of NC. Yet, Tobacco Road has 3 high quality teams with WF just on the outside.
Moreover, Baltimore has no NBA team, a fact that will likely remain forever.
Everyone,
I wonder if JHU Fencing goes D1 soon. I know there is no BIG for fencing, but OSU and PSU are giants. Apparently, JHU, albeit D3, has beaten other D1 fencing programs.
LikeLike
Yes, I know the Bullets once played in Bmore.
LikeLike
Count me as definitely not a fan of JHU going D1 in all sports (but I definitely welcome them in lacrosse).
Instead, count me as a fan of adding BU in hockey only & Rice in baseball/softball only if they drop all their other sports down to DivIII (which would require either a change in the rules or a real or threatened break from the NCAA, granted). Also adding NYU in hockey as well.
Then again, Rice wouldn’t have to drop down is Texas would be willing to come along (and somehow shed their “Tech” problem).
LikeLike
Rice couldn’t drop down in some sports and remain up in another. The grandfather clause allowing JHU and others to applies to those who were already in a split division arrangement before rules were formed that required you to decide what level your whole athletic department would compete in, and be governed by those rules.
I suppose if they were willing to try to compete in a D1 baseball while being governed by D3 rules (scholarships, coaches, number of dates, etc)…
LikeLike
Note:
“(which would require either a change in the rules or a real or threatened break from the NCAA, granted)”
LikeLike
Richard:
Sorry. Eye/brain coordination seems to be lacking…
LikeLike
@David Brown, thanks for your follow up.
I just pulled up some articles on the Flushing proposals before this post. It’s quite complex, NYC style. Sure, the Bronx facility is much needed & that old armory looks really cool with the tiered hockey rinks. In the end, it doesn’t add up to the amount of hockey facilities we have here in Mn, much smaller population. In fact it isn’t even close. But it’s a great start. NY prep hockey is increasingly competitive and filled with D1 talent once you go west and north of NYC.
As for anyone on here smirking at my JHU fantasy – no problem. I know I’m being a little wacky & wishful.
Conceptually, I like the prospect of a stellar institution (JHU) becoming a player in D1 sports. It’s great for the spirit of amateur athletics. I do have a the tendency to root more for schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice or GTech because they are truly academic first institutions. I’m not consistent, Duke could lose big, in any sport, I wouldn’t care.
It would be great if Northwestern had a similar institution in the BIG, say 15 years from now.
Would JHU really consider upgrading to say 14 D1 teams as I’ve proposed? Likely not. But they certainly have the potential. The DC-NoVa area is growing at a very fast rate & clearly JHU has money. Baltimore could use an innovative economic boost as well. Would a JHU boost in enrollment & athletics (minus football) comparable to Duke or Northwestern, help the City? I think so. But it must be a passionate, long term commitment -obviously & no turning back
LikeLike
“It would be great if Northwestern had a similar institution in the BIG, say 15 years from now.”
Adding Duke is a distinct possibility.
LikeLike
They could drop to Div2 & play up in sports with no separate Div2 championship ~ but that’s ice hockey, not baseball.
LikeLike
NYU! Are they even D1 in hockey? But interestingly, NYC is building the largest indoor hockey facility in the country. Bottom line, NY prep hockey is very good, but not in NYC metro. Btw, Bloomberg seems to be a big proponent of amateur sports (JHU alum). NYC is also building a rather larger multi-sports facility in Queens, I forget the details.
BU would never leave HEast. Why? Moreover, BIG hockey will be more than fine, it’s quite crowded actually. Minn, Wisky, Mich are legit blue bloods and MSU isn’t far behind.
My wish for JHU going D1 also underscores the fact that they would already be in the footprint, unlike Rice and BU. But at least Rice and BU are AAU. Your suggesting that RIce be used to bait UT is interesting : ).
There would be no need for JHU to go all out in football.
I have no idea which would be harder: Rice dropping down to D2 or 3 or JHU going D1 in at most: 14 sports.
In fact, if JHU were to go D1 in numerous sports, I’d suggest the following:
Lax (x2) – already done
Fencing (x2) – quite doable
M. Swimming (1) – not as difficult as some may believe
** The rest would require significant measures and commitment **
Basketball (x2)
Softball (1)
Baseball (1)
Soccer (x2)
W. Volleyball (1)
Tennis (x2)
14 varsity teams, & I think gender equal.
JHU hoops and lacrosse would of course need to profit comfortably to help make it work. Again, just an idea circulating from my wild imagination.
As I said earlier, JHU already has a powerful fencing school capable of beating D1 talent & clearly they are really strong in M. Swimming (3 NCs and 7 runner’s up)
LikeLike
Being from New York I am very familiar with the Bronx Ice Skating Facility. It will be the practice home for the New York Islanders, and it will consist of 9 regulation NHL rinks. There is a major shortage of ice space in the City, so it is very much needed. The sports facility in Queens that you mentioned is probably not going to happen because of a lot of opposition to the soccer facility planned for Flushing Meadow Park, and the fact the Yankees are involved with Manchester City, makes the Mets even more opposed to it. (They would need the use of the Citi Field Parking Area for cars to get to and from games).
As far as Johns Hopkinks is concerned, this is not about increasing the amount of sports it plays, but making sure the Lacrosse program remains relevant going forward. For the Big10 it is about creating a Lacrosse Conference, and changing the subject from Rutgers. In both cases, it is about research dollars. I know JHU gets a huge amount of Research $$$$, in 2013, but who knows that the future holds? They also know that the University of Chicago was not kicked out despite ending their sports program.
Finally, what is interesting is how Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State ( I ranked them alphabetically to be fair), are the Schools that are participating in more sports than the others ( the roles of UM (Lacrosse), and PSU ( Hockey) are particularly huge). It will be interesting to see once the Big 10 Football and Hoops contracts are signed, how many more Schools start to add more sports programs ( Title IX and all), so that they can catch up with those Schools?
LikeLike
Sorry, reposted. I’m still a newbie on here.
@David Brown, thanks for your follow up.
I just pulled up some articles on the Flushing proposals before this post. It’s quite complex, NYC style. Sure, the Bronx facility is much needed & that old armory looks really cool with the tiered hockey rinks. In the end, it doesn’t add up to the amount of hockey facilities we have here in Mn, much smaller population. In fact it isn’t even close. But it’s a great start. NY prep hockey is increasingly competitive and filled with D1 talent once you go west and north of NYC.
As for anyone on here smirking at my JHU fantasy – no problem. I know I’m being a little wacky & wishful.
Conceptually, I like the prospect of a stellar institution (JHU) becoming a player in D1 sports. It’s great for the spirit of amateur athletics. I do have a the tendency to root more for schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice or GTech because they are truly academic first institutions. I’m not consistent, Duke could lose big, in any sport, I wouldn’t care.
It would be great if Northwestern had a similar institution in the BIG, say 15 years from now.
Would JHU really consider upgrading to say 14 D1 teams as I’ve proposed? Likely not. But they certainly have the potential. The DC-NoVa area is growing at a very fast rate & clearly JHU has money. Baltimore could use an innovative economic boost as well. Would a JHU boost in enrollment & athletics (minus football) comparable to Duke or Northwestern, help the City? I think so. But it must be a passionate, long term commitment -obviously & no turning back
LikeLike
I’m still holding out for a University of Toronto (hockey) add.
LikeLike
Toronto’s got a pretty good Lacrosse team too. NCAA might not like it, but they’ve become much more flexible of late.
LikeLike
Greatlakestate,
Man, I got a sweeping email from a Toronto friend after I sent him the joke by the MSU AD on adding Toronto.
As many hockey nuts know, Canadian college hockey is awful. For prep talent, tt’s either CHL, WHL or NCAA D1.
No athletic scholarships either.
Simon Fraser is the lone exception of a Canadian university in the NCAA & that’s at either the D2 or D3 level.
I know you were just talking about hockey, but the U of Toronto could never upgrade to BIG style athletics. The culture change and financial commitment is simply not there, nor will it be in the near or distant future. Furthermore, the campus is dense-small and land is ultra expensive in Toronto now – massive building boom
As my friend also stated, the vast majority of Toronto’s CIS programs stink and attendance is generally terrible.
Sadly, Toronto to the BIG too often pops up in message threads. But it truly needs to cease. It’s just nonsense. Btw, I love Toronto, as a city, it’s a massive tv market & well within driving distance of many BIG schools.
LikeLike
@gfunk – Oh yes, the University if Toronto’s sports teams are horrendous (including the hockey team). I love the City of Toronto, though (probably because it’s essentially Chicago with substantially more Asians).
LikeLike
For those of you that don’t know, I’m half-Chinese (hence the observation of Toronto’s very large Asian population). Chicago does beat everyone except for Warsaw for my Polish half.
LikeLike
Detroit would do well for your Polish side, too.
LikeLike
@gfunk
I your scenario is a fantasy, but I don’t think you are accounting for the massive difference in quality between D-III and the Big Ten.
I mean Phil Knight had to pump hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and use the full weight of the Nike brand name just to bring Oregon from middle of the road PAC AD to upper PAC AD.
Sure, JHU would not have a FB program in your scenario but they would still have lift up a dozen sports much higher than Oregon has.
I don’t care how generous the benefactors, there is just no Hopkins could go straight from D-III to Big Ten.
LikeLike
“I know you were just talking about hockey, but the U of Toronto could never upgrade to BIG style athletics”
It’s interesting that you indulge in the JHU full-sport fantasy then.
In mindset (if not course offerings), JHU is the U of C with lacrosse, and nobody thinks that the Maroons will become competitive in B10 football again, well, ever.
LikeLike
“I love the City of Toronto, though (probably because it’s essentially Chicago with substantially more Asians).”
I got a kick out of that because I love Toronto (at least in the summer) as well. Pretty good description, I’d say.
LikeLike
Gluck: YVW: I agree 100% with you that Minnesota has superior Hockey facilities ( and might always have). New York is perhaps the worst Amateur Sports City in America (even worse than Atlanta for Pro Sports). Think about it. When does anyone see St. John’s competing for National Championships? Seton Hall and Rutgers ( New Jersey), and Hofstra ( Long Island) are in the same boat. So much for the great NYC High School Hoops Program. It’s basically that interest stops after HS, and the best kids end up in places like Lawrence, Kansas. I do think you will see a new facility for the Manchester United owned team, but it will be somewhere in the Bronx ( perhaps in between the Kingsbridge Armory ( the Hockey Facility) and Yankee Stadium (they are several miles apart.)). Why there? Two reasons. 1:The involvement of the Yankees. 2: it is easier than Queens ( Flushing Meadow Park), because every interest group under the sun does not want it there, and although the Soccer Stadium will be expensive ( as will the cost of local community goodies ( see Yankee Stadium)), it can be done. Besides, notonly are they building the hockey facility up there, but the most expensive golf course in America (Ferry Point) as well.
As far as NYU is concerned, it is more likely I will be dating Milla Kunis then they re joining the CIC. Why? Because they do not have to. NYU ( along with Columbia and Cornell) is doing a massive expansion in New York, and the odds are they will succeed. What is interesting about NYU and it is something the JHU is very aware of, is how they were essentially given an Engineering School ( New York Poly-Technical University) by New York State when NYU announced they wanted to create such a School. NYPU also owned a lot of new buildings in Brooklyn, that were badly needed for NYU Dorm expansion. Essentially, Two of NYU’s biggest problems were solved in one shot. By the way,they are still trying to expand in their home area of Greenwich Village ( that would take care of the dorm issue for the next 50 years). i would bet anything that part of JHU’s reasoning to join the B10, is to make sure that they will not one day suffer the same fate as NYPU, and get swallowed up.
LikeLike
@gfunk,
No, D1 in all sports, that’s nonsense. Toronto is a perfect academic (AAU) fit and as for their weak hockey team, a B1G associate membership would transform their program over night.
The US exposure the BTN would offer their players would be like a magnet to Canada’s second tier talent. No, it probably won’t happen, but UofT would be a wise add based on academics & BTN considerations alone.
LikeLike
Greatlakestate,
I clearly state my wishes for JHU going D1, over time n with many carefully planned & executed processes, is in fact wishful & filled with fantasy : ).
But at least JHU is culturally American & steeped with the familiarity of the NCAA process.
Toronto hockey would not transform overnight. The stud talent, again prefers the CHL foremost, throw in alternate minor leagues in the U.S. as well.
CIS, as already stated via a legit, local source, is quite different than the NCAA, esp D1. JHU vs Toronto, the former would be more realistic over a period of time – but just my opinionated nonsese.
Frank,
I’m not sure if you’re serious, but I’m a halfie as well – mama is a bona fide Sino-Vietnamese. In some ways I’m more Asian, general sense, than German American. Parents met during the Vietnam War. Toronto has an incredible Asian population, full scale, the South Asian population might just exceed the East & Southeast Asian population. My wife and I have visited a handful of times, she’s South Asian. We love the compact multiculturalism, safety, arts scene, various sports teams & public transportation, esp the streetcars. I’ve walked much of the UofT campus, esp during the Toronto film fest. It’s like Chicago in size & geography, but more similar to Minneapolis-St Paul’s cleanliness and friendliness. It’s got NYC diversity. But damn, it’s just as cold as Mpls-StP.
Frug,
I’m more than aware of how challenging it would be for JHU to go D1 in say 14 sports & the time and effort would require permanent resolve, big-time dollars, and commitment. I’ve said as much in just about every post on this matter. I’ve also been very clear on the “fantasy” end.
At the end of the day, I’m quite satisfied with the current & future BIG. JHU will be a fine associate member.
LikeLike
Uh, David, no one’s swallowing up Johns Hopkins regardless of what conference they may or may not join in lacrosse.
That’s about as ludicrous an idea as a suggestion that Rice or MIT will be swallowed up by anyone.
LikeLike
So, in toto, we’re up to. . . 2.0 Chinese-Americans on this board now?
LikeLike
Where do you keep getting this fear of being swallowed up from? JHU is the big fish in Baltimore, and sports are completely irrelevant to that. Hopkins is not only the largest employeer in the city but also the state. They also swallowed up Peabody one of the top conservatories in the country. If there is any more merging between colleges in Baltimore it will be because Hopkins decides it wants to be artsy and go after MICA.
LikeLike
B10 hockey doesn’t need BU or NYU. Staying small is better for now, letting the members play their old WCHA and ECHA rivals.
LikeLike
I said as much in my response. Richard, a great poster, doesn’t seem to follow-know hockey like us.
I dreaded the break up of the WCHA, clearly the best conference over the past 50 years. But you’re right, a smaller BIG gives Minny, for example, room to continue essential in-state rivalries & of course Denver, CC and UND.
LikeLike
Is the NYU hockey reference some sort of joke? They don’t even have a team.
LikeLike
I think people are missing a few things about the Hopkins add that makes it very very likely not to be repeated for any other situation.
1- Hopkins is joining the B1G for all of its D1 sports (men’s and women’s lax). That means it will not be competing against the B1G in any sport. Boston U, Rice and pretty much every other possibility would not be able to say that.
2- With a very small number of grandfathered exceptions, a school cannot play D1 in one sport and D3 in another. Hopkins lax is grandfathered, but as an example, U. of Chicago would not be able to play D1 ice hockey if it wanted to continue in D3 in other sports. Same for NYU.
3- Hopkins is far and away No. 1 in the country in research expenditures, and is clearly one of the lax bluebloods, if not THE lax blueblood. No other potential “associate” add would be anything close to the combined research/sports powerhouse that Hopkins is.
Having said all of that, it would certainly seem possible that Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western, NYU and maybe one or two others could be CIC-only adds.
LikeLike
Right, with current rules, it’s impossible.
That doesn’t mean it won’t be several decades from now, however. Single-sport associate membership for other top research universities in geographic regions where the B10 wants to expand (or even in its own footprint) is beneficial in many ways to the B10 and I think B10 leadership is aware of that.
LikeLike
Syracuse is the alpha dog, most NCAA titles, and of course Jim Brown, aka “Fireball” – enough said : ). But JHU is right behind them.
LikeLike
@bikemore – I totally agree with that. Johns Hopkins is really a perfect storm of an elite academic institution in the Mid-Atlantic having a powerhouse program in the only D1 sport that it sponsors and the Big Ten happened to need 1 more program in order to get an auto-bid for that sport. This is simply very different than schools like BU or Notre Dame that sponsor a full slate of Division I sports.
LikeLike
@Frank-
Yes, as you poiint out, I should have added reasons 4 and 5 why the Hopkins situation is unique (needing a 6th to form a lax conference and trying to secure the Mid-Atlantic).
Add in Hopkins’ simultaneous desire to join a conference after decades of independence, and it’s amazing how the factors supporting this move seemed to pile on top of one another.
LikeLike
I actually am intrigued by the possibility of CIC-only adds. U. of Chicago and Johns Hopkins once were both in UAA. Hopkins left but Chicago remains there. I think forming an academic research-only alliance with UAA schools could be beneficial to Big Ten schools by opening the research of the prestigious private schools to Big Ten students. Whether the UAA schools would reciprocate interest or whether the Big Ten schools become rigid on requiring an athletics association, when there may still be potential partners 10-20 years down the road and they’re already at *a lot* of schools, is another matter.
LikeLike
@Transic-
I have a question that I’m not sure anyone here can answer, but I’ll give it a shot.
What are the main considerations for CIC membership (beyond the obvious AAU membership and geographic fit)?
I saw another site theorize that adding schools from nearby but contiguous states would be a priority because it would add to the number of Senators and Congressmen advocating for the CIC. That would make Wash U a no-brainer but CMU and CW much less likely. I have no idea if that theory is accurate though.
Conversely, what considerations might make schools like Wash U, CMU and CW not want to join the CIC? There may well be some, but I don’t know what they would be.
Finally, I wonder whether the B1G feels that CIC-only membership would help with the athletics end. For example, would adding NYU help the conference in New York City? I’m guessing that there’s not much there, but again, I don’t really know.
LikeLike
@bikemore
I don’t think the question is whether schools like NYU and Wash U help the B1G but whether adding them to the CIC help the B1G indirectly by helping to attract more intellectually-attractive out-of-state students to institutions, including B1G schools, aligned in a given large region. Think of it this way: what if we could help attract people who would, otherwise, go to Duke, UNC, GT, USC, etc., by associating more closely with research and academic heavyweights, while not giving up the college sports experience. Of course, if one’s set on going to Duke, UNC, etc, then this would not matter. However, if it could be proven that a great potential student is undecided between a B1G school and a school like Duke and the ability to access research from a collection of B1G and private institutions may be the deciding factor in choosing a B1G school, then I think such a CIC-only association is worth exploring. A few of those good students could be on scholarship (if they’re good enough to compete in a sport) or walk on a team and help raise the profile in non-revenue or even revenue sports. Even a marginal gain would help the B1G separate itself from the other P5 conferences.
As to what would cause various UAA schools to not choose the CIC? Perhaps they wouldn’t need it since they’re already renowned research institutions without it. Simple as.
Hopefully, at some point in the future, the CIC wouldn’t be so rigidly tied to the Big Ten
LikeLike
bikemore,
“What are the main considerations for CIC membership (beyond the obvious AAU membership and geographic fit)?”
1. B10 membership. Nobody has ever been invited to the CIC that wasn’t first a B10 member. Chicago was a former B10 member, but still had that close relationship with the other schools.
2. Whether the school adds enough to be a productive member or is more of a leech. That was a concern some schools expressed when the CIC recently decided to shrink.
“I saw another site theorize that adding schools from nearby but contiguous states would be a priority because it would add to the number of Senators and Congressmen advocating for the CIC. That would make Wash U a no-brainer but CMU and CW much less likely. I have no idea if that theory is accurate though.”
They could do that whenever they want and they have yet to even hint at doing it.
“Conversely, what considerations might make schools like Wash U, CMU and CW not want to join the CIC? There may well be some, but I don’t know what they would be.”
That the B10 schools are too dissimilar from them.
“Finally, I wonder whether the B1G feels that CIC-only membership would help with the athletics end.”
I doubt it. Nobody televises research and the CIC doesn’t pay to run ads.
LikeLike
@Transic-
You might be right, in that if the B1G/CIC are able to create the notion that the power schools of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic are virtually all affiliated with the conference, that could provide some real benefits, though they would be hard to measure. It would be interesting to know whether that is being considered.
@Brian-
Of course you’re right that Big 10 and CIC membership have gone together, but my post was assuming that they would be looking beyond that to schools that have no D1 sports, like U. of Chicago. I’m not saying they’re considering that, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Regarding whether a school is or is not a leech, how is that measured? Pretty hard to know what that would mean. I’m also not sure that we would necessarily get any hints about new additions being considered.
LikeLike
bikemore,
“Regarding whether a school is or is not a leech, how is that measured?”
There are a lot of measures. How many distance learning classes the school offers to the rest of the CIC schools. How many new items their library adds to the CIC collective. How many unique facilities the school brings for research. How many elite faculty members (National Academy members, award winners, etc) the school provides to help acquire grants and to develop new areas of CIC research. Basically, it’s checking to see if they are providing their fair share to the group or if they would mostly take from the group.
“I’m also not sure that we would necessarily get any hints about new additions being considered.”
Not of specific schools, no, but the B10 announced when they were considering expanding. The CIC could do the same, especially since they don’t really have much competition as most schools aren’t part of any sort of academic consortium. It’s not like breaking up a conference to take a member. This is especially true for the UAA schools, since Chicago is already a CIC member.
UAA (schools and cities, for those that don’t know):
Brandeis (Boston)
Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh)
Case Western Reserve (Cleveland)
Chicago
Emory (ATL)
NYU
Rochester
Washington U (STL)
JHU (Baltimore) is a former member.
These are smallish (except NYU), private schools that are all AAU members, and they don’t lack for resources.
Total Enrollments:
BU 5300
RU 9700
CWRU 9800
CMU 10,900
EU 12,800
WU 13,500
UC 14,800
NYU 42,200
NW is over 19,000 and OSU just under 57,000 for comparison.
Endowments:
BU $700M
CMU $1B
RU $1.6B
CWRU $1.7B
NYU $2.8B
WU $5.3B
EU $5.4B
UC $6.5B
RU is at $700M and UMD at $800M, but the current members are all over $1B with IA at $1.0B and MN at $2.5B and the rest in between except for NW at $7.2B and MI at $7.8B. In other words, the UAA schools would be a good match in this measure.
Total research ranking (National/Private):
19/6. WU
34/13. EU
38/16. CWRU
42/17. RU
45/19. UC
63/22. NYU
82/26. CMU
172/46. BU
1/1. JHU
B10:
2. MI
3. WI
9. MN
12. OSU
15. PSU
25. IL
28/9. NW
33. PU
39. UMD
47. MSU
57. IA
59. RU
78. NE
104. IN
The UAA schools would fit in terms of research money except for Brandeis, and being a top 50 private school isn’t bad. Brandeis is the smallest of the schools, so it should have the lowest total.
LikeLike
@Frank ~ not just needing 6 for LAX but also reportedly promising UMD to look at LAX as part of realignment talks. That likely overcame some institutional inertia.
LikeLike
Only men’s LAX … Big Ten accepted that JHU women’s team are independent. So they are not members of a competing conference, but aren’t ‘all in’ either.
LikeLike
I don’t think JHU has any interest in going D-I. They are happy as is, especially now that their 1 major program has a home.
LikeLike
Beyond the lack of interest — which I agree they do not have — what’s the practicality? Is there any modern precedent for a school jumping from Division III to Division I, without the intermediate step of Division II? Is there any current FBS school that was in Division III at any time since the division system was set up?
The costs of upgrading to Division I would be stratospheric.Just consider the facilities. Hopkins plays its home football games at Homewood Field, which seats 8,500. The home basketball games are played at Goldfarb Gymnasium, with a capacity of 1,100. I think there are some high schools that have larger gyms than that. That’s before you consider the various non-revenue sports, and other facilities that Division I competition requires.
By the way, Hopkins has played football since 1882, so they’re not going to give up the sport. In Division I, they’d get slaughtered for many, many years, before they’d be competitive in the Big Ten. People are complaining that Rutgers wasn’t good enough. Rutgers is Alabama compared to Hopkins.
LikeLike
They don’t have football, but Utah Valley I believe is making an even bigger jump.
From a CBS article on UVU and CSUB joining the WAC: “In 2009, Utah Valley, with an enrollment of 33,000, became the first institution to leap to Division I directly from junior college status.”
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Is there any modern precedent for a school jumping from Division III to Division I, without the intermediate step of Division II?”
Not that I know of off the top of my head.
“Is there any current FBS school that was in Division III at any time since the division system was set up?”
Boise was NAIA in 1968-9. Then they were in the NCAA College Division when it was split into D-II and D-III in 1973. They went D-II, then worked their way up. Texas State also followed that path.
LikeLike
Count me a fan of the fact that JHU is staying Div3 in all other sports.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Wow…that was a rather quick deliberation.”
I think they’d already done their homework before they announced they would join a conference. To get the committee to recommend it, I think they basically vetted proposals from the various target conferences. They found out about travel, academics, costs, etc. All they really had left was dotting i’s and crossing t’s.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the kind words about Rice as a potential single-sport add like JHU. I think all the things that make it an infinitesimal possibility have been touched on, but to summarize:
1. Current NCAA rules won’t allow Rice to drop all sports except baseball to D3. That loophole has been closed. And the B1G does not want nor need Rice football and basketball. But could we drop football and basketball, still remain in D1, and join with all our other sports? That’s ok by NCAA rules, but I doubt the B1G would even consider such a plan. And there are probably a lot of Rice people who would say without football we can’t afford to stay in D1.
2. As good as Rice baseball has been the last twenty years, they aren’t on a par with JHU lacrosse. Our success started in the 1990s, not the 1890s.
3. Rice is not the research powerhouse that Hopkins is. Yes, we’re impressive for a tiny school, but without a medical research school we can never compete with the sheer numbers for research in the B1G. Hopkins does.
4. The B1G already has enough baseball. They don’t need another team to make the conference. And in fact, Indiana is already through their regional while Rice fights on uphill in Oregon.
5. The geography doesn’t fit. I think either Illinois or Nebraska would be the closest B1G member to Houston.
That last point is the only one that might work both ways. Having Rice join in baseball would give the B1G a southern city to play pre-conference tournaments without threat of snow.
LikeLike
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2013/06/in_defense_of_hermann_serving.html
In defense of Julie Hermann.
LikeLike
Jaw dropping Game of Thrones
Rock solid Mad Men
& JHU LAX joining
….Good day in the B1G Realm of Winterfell
LikeLike
GLS,
Have you read the books? I thought they did a great job of enacting the Red Wedding… And to have “Filch” from Harry Potter as Walder Frey was icing on the top…
R
LikeLike
I’ve read the first three. About to embark on the fourth, despite the (seeming) consensus that it’s not up to snuff. Red Wedding scene was masterful. Best of the series. Battle of Blackwater (last year) was excellent as well but lost points for not depicting the Chain (Ha!). My only complaint this year, blue hair aside, is how they’ve short-shifted the Ramsay Bolton/Reek storyline. Can’t have it all in a twelve hour season I guess. Great series though, with great casting throughout.
LikeLike
On a side note: I saw an interview with GRR Martin where he admitted to being a little frustrated with some of their choices. I’d love to know what those are, but he was too polite to divulge.
LikeLike
That Ramsay Bolton/Reek storyline bothered me in the book, so I’m glad to see it downplayed in the series. I’m sure GRR Martin is bothered somewhat, but his books go on and on (this will become clearer to you as you read books four and five, which I enjoyed). I’m not sure you can manage tv series in the same fashion.
I agree with you about the Blackwater episode, the chain would have been a great add…
A
LikeLike
I certainly was not expecting the whole repugnant affair (Ramsay/Reek), I just don’t see how the torturing of Theon (in the series) without the backstory is ever going to make sense to non-book readers. They could have at least shown ‘reek’s’ release by Theon from Winterfell and ‘Ramsay’s’ return to sack it….and capture Theon.
……Alright! Alright! no more GOT, I promise. Back to Big ten theorizing.
LikeLike
Boston College, Louisville and Virginia Tech already offer women’s lacrosse. If the ACC needed a sixth men’s team for AQ, I think either one of those schools should look into starting a men’s team, especially Virginia Tech. It’s not like the ACC needs another hard team to play against. Therefore, adding a punching bag (at least at the beginning) would be great for them. VT would be a natural fit with UVa, UNC and Duke in the region.
LikeLike
I’m guessing they all would have Title IX issues with adding it. A more realistic option is a school that can add both men’s and women’s to keep their balance.
LikeLike
Frug posted this above, but it got lost in the JHU news. Even with the extraneous history lesson, worth the time (very short) and worth some discussion.
http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/2013/05/31/the-ncaa-is-implementing-the-student-athlete-stipend-by-stealth.htm
Some of this amounts to pay-for-play and certainly will change some of the arguments. Wonder if this is the sort of thing that Spurrier was thinking about (or whether he just wants cash to be paid to the players).
This is the sort of deregulation that I think is good for the NCAA and schools. Now they need to work on eliminating the “butter-is-okay-but-cream-cheese-is-not” rules.
LikeLike
Meant to add: $1000 bucks a month in disposable income. Not to shabby and that is the kind of money that might eliminate the “need” for football players to commit armed robbery, trade their jerseys for tats and cash, etc.
LikeLike
… not too shabby… (damn lack-of-edit function)
LikeLike
Meant to add: $1000 bucks a month in disposable income. Not too shabby and that is the kind of money that might eliminate the “need” for football players to commit armed robbery, trade their jerseys for tats and cash, etc.
I’m not sure how much more of a difference that would make. People cheat, because they think they can. Did Terrelle Pryor and his teammates trade memorabilia for tats because they were suffering financially? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
It’ll make a difference at the margin ~ more people cheat when they feel the system is unfair than when they feel the system is fair. There will still be cheaters, but the incidence is likely to change.
LikeLike
Doesn’t really deal with the issues. Nice meals with the team and school logo polo shirts doesn’t really meet the needs. Don’t think there is any stealth here, just de-regulation.
LikeLike
Think outside the box a bit.
Any food. Any clothes.
If I had money & was a booster, I’d donate to hire a Michelin-starred chef and a top designer to make the snazziest custom-fitted designer outfits. Just need to slap a logo or several on there somewhere.
LikeLike
apropos of nothing, bring on the wooly mammoth clones !!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/29/wooly-mammoth-blood-recovered-from-frozen-carcass-russian-scientists-say/
personally, I want my very own dodo as a pet.
LikeLike
I’ve gotten hooked on Orphan Black on BBC, the human clones. Dramatic, but with a lot of funny situations when there are multiple copies of yourself running around. Although they did kind of jump the shark with the tail.
LikeLike
Jurassic Park!
LikeLike
B1G 2015 football schedules released: http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/06/2015-big-ten-football-schedules-announced/
LikeLike
The Altoona Bowling League Trophy is making a triumphant return!
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/psu/penn-state-opponents-named-in-2015-big-ten-conference-football-schedule-690186/
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/psu/big-ten-releases-football-schedule-687866/
LikeLike
Official release
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/060313aah.html
At least this puts an end to the garbage that this was some sort of “all in” or modified full membership since JHU will not be joining for WLAX.
LikeLike
http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/06/03/sources-johns-hopkins-mens-lacrosse-join-big-ten-monday
Hopkins’ announcement.
LikeLike
Further good news; Hopkins gets to keep its ESPNU deal
LikeLike
This Is not a great deal for the B10, unless JHU remains in the Conference long-term. to be honest, JHU was in a stronger bargaining position than the B10, and they got the three year opt-out, the Women’s program to remain Independent, and to keep the ESPNU deal. Why did this happen? They knew the B10 needed them badly (particularly after the Rutgers fiasco and because of the possibility of the ACC taking JHU instead). I give it a grade of “C” with the possibility of an “A” or an “F” depending on what JHU does in the future.
LikeLike
This was happening before the Rutgers fiasco and rumors of ACC interest. The ESPN deal solves how to handle revenue distribution for at least as long as that contract. Where is the harm in allowing a test period? Is it likely they are going to have regrets, find a better suitor?
LikeLike
Actually, I’m hoping Hopkins opt out, but I’ve made position about partial membership clear from the beginning (which is what this would have been even if the women’s team had been included and Hopkins dropped the ESPNU contract)
Anyways, the Big Ten didn’t need JHU LAX. There’s no reason the current schools couldn’t have just kept their LAX teams where they are (Maryland and Rutgers could have joined them).
But yes, this was a bad deal for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
By all accounts, the ACC never showed any interest in JHU. As for th e3 year thing, I don’t see it as a big deal. They’ve been indie for over 100 years, they need time to see what a conference is like. As for the ESPNU deal, that’s great for the B10. It’s more exposure for the B10.
LikeLike
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m surprised women’s lacrosse was excluded and CIC membership not mentioned. Having said that, I do not see any real downside.
LikeLike
From: http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/060313aac.html
Johns Hopkins will join the Big Ten as an associate sport-affiliate member in men’s lacrosse only as approved by the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C). Hopkins plans to contact the Committee of Institutional Cooperation (CIC), which features all Big Ten members and the University of Chicago, about joining the prestigious academic consortium. Rutgers and Maryland will join the CIC next month.
LikeLike
Sorry…missed that.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Big 10 for landing JHU. I argued for the ACC, but the ACC simply cannot compete with the Big 10’s resources. Props.
LikeLike
By all accounts the ACC never even showed any interest. JHU says the ACC never talked to them.
LikeLike
Interesting. But much like coaches “not speaking with anyone about a job,” I am not sure that the official press releases tell the whole story. That being said, not sure that the ACC is concerned about a 6th team/automatic bid or adding firepower. Boston College upgrading would be plenty. Or Louisville.
LikeLike
Big Ten announces 2015 football schedule:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060313aaa.html
At first, I was disappointed to see so few marquee cross-over matchups. Both Wisconsin and Nebraska miss Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Then I realized how brilliant Mr. Delany really is. He has Wisconsin and Nebraska going to the new East Coast markets while also virtually guaranteeing that Wisconsin and Nebraska (one of which is the likely West division winner) will have nice, shiny win-loss records.
By getting Wisconsin and Nebraska on the road in Maryland and New Jersey, his new markets get to boast the following 2014 and 2015 home schedules:
Rutgers 2014 – Penn St., Michigan, Wisconsin
Rutgers 2015 – Michigan St., Ohio St., Nebraska
Maryland 2014 – Ohio St., Michigan St., (Iowa)
Maryland 2015 – Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin
Brilliant! D.C. and New Jersey get the best of the Big Ten right at the onset. Meanwhile, Nebraska and Wisconsin basically get to cruise through the West, with the head-to-head winner all but certain to earn a ticket to Indianapolis with a sparkling 7-1 or 8-0 conference record.
Thus, the winner of the Big 12 championship game will likely have a strong enough resume to have some success with the playoff selection committee (barring unsavory sanctions and such).
LikeLike
It’s just the flip of the 2014 schedule in terms of locations. No opponents changed.
LikeLike
Big Ten announces 2015 football schedule:
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060313aaa.html
I gotta admit, I was at first disappointed to see so few marquee cross over matchups. Both Nebraska and Wisconsin miss out on Ohio St., Michigan, and Penn St. in 2014 and 2015. But then, I got to thinking, and realized that Mr. Delany really knows what he is doing. Check out the Maryland and Rutgers 2014 and 2015 home schedules:
Rutgers 2014: Penn St., Michigan, Wisconsin
Rutgers 2015: Michigan St., Ohio St., Nebraska
Maryland 2014: Ohio St., [Iowa], Michigan St.
Maryland 2015: Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin
Brilliant! You get all the heavy weights into the new markets from the onset. Stake your claim for the Big Ten in D.C. and New Jersey. Meanwhile, you virtually guarantee that either Wisconsin or Nebraska will have a shiny win-loss record when they represent the West division in Indianapolis. Seriously, a 7-1 or 8-0 conference record is there for the taking.
Then, who ever wins the Big Ten championship will have a sparkling record and will have just beaten a team with a great record (barring suspensions, sanctions, and the like). This will equal success with the playoff selection committee.
Add the Pinstripe bowl to the equation and the Big Ten’s expansion move looks like solid gold!
LikeLike
They probably figured that neither Rutgers nor Maryland will be competitive for the first couple of years anyway, may as well pile it on.
LikeLike
“They probably figured that neither Rutgers nor Maryland will be competitive for the first couple of years anyway, may as well pile it on.”
I’d edit that to say they’ll rarely if ever be competitive, so they might as well get used to it. This expansion “end game” didn’t exactly work out very well.
LikeLike
You’re using #13-14 with the same criteria you used for #12; they were wholly different situations. If the Big Ten had made Maryland #12, then followed by Rutgers and Nebraska, that wouldn’t have made sense. You can’t expand with only football “kings”; other schools provide value, too.
LikeLike
Food for thought.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college-football/ugas-houston-reinstated-by-ncaa/nY4Qi/
Another example of NCAA run amok? 3 1/2 year ban because he had surgery in HS and had steroids used medically?
“Houston has been sidelined since arriving at Georgia as an early enrollee in January 2010 and failing an NCAA drug test for banned substances. UGA determined that the presence of steroids in Houston’s system was caused when they were medically administered following shoulder surgery in high school, and Houston was given the standard one-year suspension.
But when the steroids appeared in subsequent NCAA tests, Houston was handed a lifetime ban. In a vigorous round of appeals to the NCAA, Ron Courson, Georgia’s director of sports medicine, claimed that the illegal substance has remained trapped in Houston’s fatty tissue and said he could prove there had been no re-use, as Georgia had continued to test Houston at regular intervals.”
LikeLike
From the Charlotte Observer, we get a fascinating look at some inner communications within a well-known athletic department upon news of Maryland deciding to change conferences up until Louisville was voted in to replace them. Interesting info and sheds some light on how those crazy rumors started going. Welcome to November 2012 again.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10/10/4379100/emails-unc-worried-about-acc-when.html#.UlfrQSqF8bZ
LikeLike