The Big Ten appears to be stepping up the timetable for expansion dramatically, where what once looked like a 12-18 month process might now result in announcements prior to the end of June. So, this is a perfect time for a guest post from Slant reader Patrick, who is a long-time veteran of the television industry. (This means that he can actually drop some knowledge, as opposed to being a speculative Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer like myself.) If you’ve been following the comments on last week’s post, Patrick has been providing incredibly insightful analysis based on industry information and has pinpointed some critical items in the Big Ten Network revenue model that definitely has changed some of my prior thoughts on expansion. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that he has provided the most informative viewpoint that I’ve come across since the Big Ten announced that it was exploring expansion back in December and it has changed a number of my views on the candidates. So, everyone should give Patrick some major kudos for investing his time on this critical issue. Here’s what he has to say (and my take on it thereafter):
With all the talk of Big Ten expansion lately I could help but wonder why the richest conference with the highest pay outs would want to expand. Wouldn’t that break up the pie into smaller pieces? Wouldn’t that cut the take from the current conference members? In short, NO, a resounding NO! The Big Ten schools together made roughly $214,000,000 as of the last report. $100,000,000 from ABC / ESPN, $2,000,000 from CBS, and the schools collected $112,000,000 from the newly formed Big Ten Network. That is $19,454,545 per school. The regular network haul of $102,000,000 per year isn’t going to change. Any new members would need to make up that difference, plus carry their own weight of $38,146,166 in new revenues to the Big 10 Network. The conference only controls 51% of the Big 10 Network, FOX News Corp owns the other 49% and takes 49% of the overall profits. So each possible addition would need to earn the conference $19,454,545 per year AND earn FOX News Corp $18,691,621 AND make up the difference in the take from ABC / ESPN / CBS to break even for the current members. Since the conference reported a $112,000,000 payout, the actual profit margin of the Big Ten Network is around $219,607,840. In addition, there are a number of news stories indicating that the universities take this year was just shy of $22,000,000. I haven’t seen anything official on that but if it is true than the BTN made around $272,000,000 in the most recent year. Almost a $50,000,000 climb year to year for a brand new network. So why would anyone mess with that? How could any university earn that much for the BTN?
Advertising!
By the Big Ten’s own admission they are clearing about $0.36 per subscriber per month for the states inside it’s footprint. They also tell us that there are 26,000,000 subscribers and it is AVAILABLE to 75,000,000 people. The BTN wants to increase the available number but even more important is to increase the subscriber numbers, and there is an opportunity to do that within the current footprint. Regardless, at $0.36 per month for 26,000,000 households over 12 months I only came up with $112,320,000 for a cable carry rate. Well short of the $272,000,000 that the network likely made last year. The other $160,000,000 is advertising revenue! Live sporting events get big advertising dollars and the BTN is loaded with them. As Frank pointed out, if the conference were to expand, many more games would be on the BTN. Football, basketball, and maybe down the road a Big Ten hockey conference. Throw in a few conference championship games in different sports and expansion makes money just by added Live programming and increased quality of programming. A few creative tweeks in the scheduling and you could have every Big Ten game make it to air somewhere, which is good for everybody. For the Big Ten to get to 12 schools the addition would need to equal $38,200,000 to break even, for 3 schools they need to reach $114,500,000 combined, and for 5 schools a whopping $190,800,000. If I were to just pull the #2 – #6 schools from my estimate they would bring in roughly $266,000,000. In that scenario, FOX News Corp profit (by adding 5 schools) goes from $107 million up to $201 million. It would not surprise me to see FOX News Corp gently nudging this process along. If advertising is earning the BTN in the ballpark of what I am thinking, then FOX has realized they opened a gold mine and want to see how deep it goes.
But what about the schools being batted around? I did my level best to average numbers, to play it conservatively, to be fair across the board with finding any schools potential. Notre Dame and Pittsburgh are a little tough to gauge because they don’t add any new television markets. But I found that by extrapolating what is already happening with the conference and the Big Ten Network, combining that with my television experiences, and taking into account some of the posters comments and thoughts I came away with what I feel is a pretty fair assessment of the potential of the candidates. As many of you have noted, game attendance and athletic revenue are important. I used attendance to gauge the level of support and fan interest to help me put a dollar value on ratings potential. If the fans won’t even fill their own stadium, how valuable is the team overall? Any team that joins the Big Ten will share in the Big Ten pie, so I subtracted off the current tv pay out for those teams to gauge strength in their home markets. Then extrapolated to find a decent estimation of a new tv markets potential for advertising revenue. I also averaged in the carry rates for the home market or markets with the number of cable subscribers. I did add a category to try to account for additional Live programming on the BTN and gave each school a flat $10,000,000 for the additional sports coverage, that is probably too low but I am leaning to the conservative side. The following is a summary of the totals of my findings.
CANDIDATES TOTAL ADDED REVENUE ESTIMATE Texas $101,369,004 Rutgers WITH NYC $67,798,609 Nebraska $54,487,990 Maryland $50,818,889 Boston College $48,382,692 Notre Dame $47,629,255 Kansas $46,320,092 Missouri $45,901,459 Syracuse $43,504,813 Connecticut $38,080,271 Pittsburgh $34,365,175 Iowa State $31,831,077 Syracuse WITH NYC $65,874,573 For a full chart with my calculations, please see this Word document:
Big Ten Candidates TV Analysis
This table could be read many different ways, I have no clue what the Big Ten will do. I could make a strong argument for Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Maryland, Pittsburgh, and Kansas. If Syracuse can deliver NYC then they might be in but the amount of research they do will hurt their cause. Texas is an absolute no brainer, they lead in almost every category. I don’t think Iowa State is viable, but I was VERY conservative with these numbers. It would be hard to ignore Notre Dame and Nebraska being the #2 and #4 most valuable college sports franchises. Interesting that Kansas is right there behind Nebraska and ND in athletic revenue. If anyone wants to pass along better or more current numbers, I would appreciate it. In addition, with the talk and discussions that were flying around Sunday about the AAU meetings and the accelerated time table, I firmly believe that my estimates are probably too low. The fact that they want to move this quickly with an expansion means that the potential revenue is HUGE and the decision isn’t even a tough or close one. Also in some of the statements coming from the Big Ten brass and Notre Dame, I highly doubt Notre Dame is going to be included in the expansion. I now think that the expansion will happen, and I think that they will go all the way to 16 teams. I believe they will get AAU member schools, and the Big Ten presidents seem to be very interested in graduate research.
I for one can’t wait, Bucky Badger playing against Nebraska would be an awesome sight!
– Patrick
Based on Patrick’s analysis, there are a few important things that I take away from this:
(1) The 60/40 Rule – This might be the most important piece of information regarding Big Ten expansion that I’ve seen to date: the Big Ten Network makes 60% of its revenue from advertising and 40% 0f its revenue from carriage fees. I’ll be honest with you – I thought that it would’ve been the other way around and it has definitely altered the lens through which we need to look at expansion candidates. What this basically means that if push comes to shove, the Big Ten should pick a school that has a great fan base (which translates in viewers for ad revenue) as opposed to market size (which contributes to carriage fees). This actually brings some common sense back to the discussion, where somehow the world has been convinced over the past few months that Rutgers must be the most valuable school on Earth due to the location of its campus. We’ve been very focused on footprint sizes and research funding in our discussions lately, but at the end of the day, ad revenue is the #1 source of dollars for the Big Ten Network and that’s based on finding schools that Joe Blow in Anytown, USA will want to watch. Here’s a chart of some of the expansion candidates with their football TV ratings from last year. (Note how well Nebraska and Pitt performed compared to everyone else.) Now, that doesn’t mean that expanding the footprint is irrelevant (as the New York City market is still an important target for the Big Ten), but it definitely lets people “think like sports fans” a little bit here.
(2) Pitt MIGHT make money for the Big Ten – Most of the readers out there know that I personally love Pitt as an academic institution and athletic program, but just couldn’t find any way how the school could add to the Big Ten’s coffers financially. Well, if Pitt’s ratings for football and basketball are good enough (and judging by the chart I linked to above, they probably are), then the school can end up being financially viable. Patrick has stated that his figures for Pitt and Notre Dame are very conservative, so if Pitt continues to draw high football ratings, it changes the equation significantly. Now, Pitt can’t really be put into the same category as Notre Dame or Nebraska where the national draw clearly overrides a lack of new BTN households, yet it does have the advantage of being one of the few expansion candidates that has strong programs in both football and basketball. Speaking of Nebraska…
(3) If the Big Ten wants to make a ton of TV money, it will invite Nebraska – I’ve been increasingly become more and more supportive of Nebraska joining the Big Ten lately and Patrick’s analysis completely sealed it. Nebraska’s small market be damned – the Husker fan base is as rabid as any other in the country and they will tune in anytime, anywhere. (If you were wondering, the photo at the top of this post is evidence of how Nebraska fans completely took over South Bend a few years ago when they played Notre Dame.) In fact, Patrick’s figures mean that we should remove Nebraska from the realm of “Well, they might be coming instead of Missouri” or “They’re a good back-up if Notre Dame doesn’t want to join” and put the Cornhuskers into the “lock” category instead. I will now officially be shocked if Big Ten expansion occurs without Nebraska involved.
(4) 16 Schools = Huge Inventory – The 60/40 rule that favors advertising revenue also gives a whole lot more credence to making a 16-school conference financially viable. I recalled this piece from Don Ohlmeyer on that examined how ESPN chose to schedule programs:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=4582425
The message that I got from this was that LIVE EVENTS = RATINGS. A live hot rod competition after a college football game actually holds more viewers than a studio show that talks about said game, even though they have nothing to do with each other at face value.
The Big Ten expanding up to 12 schools really doesn’t increase the inventory of conference football games (which are the higher value games) very much at all. Assuming that the Big Ten continues with an 8-game conference schedule, it would have 48 conference games as opposed to 44 conference games in a season. At 14 schools, it would go up to 56 conference games. At 16 schools, though, the Big Ten would almost certainly go to a 9-game conference schedule, which would catapult the inventory up to 72 conference games.
What does 72 conference games allow you to do? Well, let’s assume that the Big Ten provides 4 games to ABC/ESPN every week (2 games on ESPN and ESPN2 at 11 am CT, 1 game on ABC at 2:30 pm CT, and 1 prime time game), which is a package that would likely see a substantial increase in rights fees when it’s now presumably including Notre Dame and/or Nebraska on top of the current Big Ten members plus a conference championship game. This leaves 2 conference games for the BTN for every single week of the season (except for maybe Labor Day weekend, which is reserved for MACrifice games). With non-conference games mixed in, the BTN could have football triple-headers virtually every week. Going up to 16 schools increases the amount of live football on the BTN in a dramatic fashion and if twice as much live football compounds the amount of ad revenue earned, then I’m starting to see how going up to 16 schools makes more financial sense under the BTN model than 12 or 14 schools.
Then, we get to basketball, where a 16-school conference can get at least one basketball game onto the BTN onto every day of the week except for Friday, whereas now the BTN usually only has games on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. That’s a dramatic jump in the number of high quality basketball games on more nights of the week. This also still leaves enough for the Big Ten to add 1 or 2 more basketball games on ESPN per week for widespread exposure (and likely garner a rights increase there, too, if schools like Syracuse or Pitt added to the mix). Of course, Friday night can be reserved for the new Big Ten Hockey Conference game(s) of the week if Notre Dame joins. There’s even some side benefits in the spring with baseball (as Nebraska and Notre Dame lift up the quality of that league substantially) and lacrosse (where a new Big Ten league could be formed with Syracuse as the national headliner if that school is invited). Other sports such as women’s basketball and volleyball can end up with new national (and TV-friendly) brand names, too.
So, maybe that’s why the chatter about a 16-school conference has taken center stage: if you have that many more high value football and basketball games plus a ton of other sports of interest where you’ve got live programming every night of the week that’s comparable to the college games on the ESPN networks, that can increase ad revenue dramatically (and in turn, carry rates could increase as the BTN becomes more “essential” to viewers’ lives).
(5) My Latest Prediction That Will Change in a Week – Looking at Pat’s figures, it’s clear to me that the Big Ten pretty much has to at least try for the New York market unless Texas and Texas A&M come walking through that door. The question will be whether the Big Ten believes that it’s worth it to take both Rutgers and Syracuse. I get the feeling that the Big Ten’s university presidents have a fondness for Rutgers as fellow public flagship (and I’ve stated before that they make sense in a multi-school expansion), even though my personal choice would be Syracuse if we had to take one or the other. The academically-minded people in the Big Ten love Pitt and I think that if there’s any financial case for the conference to to be able to take them, they’ll likely do it. Missouri, although it doesn’t have gangbuster financial numbers, would probably be seen as a “safe” option because it can at least be counted on with reasonable certainty to deliver any households in its home state that don’t already carry the Big Ten Network on basic cable at the Tier 1 rate.
The one item that I disagree with Patrick on is Notre Dame – if his figures are close to correct, then I have a hard time believe that the Irish will turn down such a huge windfall for playing a lot of the same teams that it already plays annually in football (especially if its home for basketball and Olympic sports is destroyed). I feel pretty good that Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers would all be involved in a 16-school Big Ten. This essentially leaves Pitt and Syracuse for the last spot (unless the Big Ten wants to cut further into the Big XII by taking a school like Kansas). If the Big Ten wants the better institutional fit, it will choose Pitt. If the Big Ten really thinks that locking down New York is possible for college sports, then it will choose Syracuse. With such a large-scale expansion, the Big Ten may put more emphasis on institutional fit to ensure maximum cohesion (especially since renegade Notre Dame is very likely to be involved), which would give the edge to Pitt (as much as it pains me as an avowed Syracuse supporter). I know that this an about-face from what I’ve been saying for quite awhile.
So, here’s my current bet on who will join a 16-school Big Ten: Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt and Rutgers. If Notre Dame continues to balk, I believe that we’ll see Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers added for a 14-school conference. This will probably change by the end of the week (and I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if Pitt is replaced by Syracuse in the 16-school scenario), but that’s my line of thinking right now.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Ning)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Excellent analysis! I am another one anxious to see that Wisconsin/Nebraska matchup! June can’t come soon enough!
LikeLike
.
LikeLike
Not sure where this is going to go in the comments but whatever
re sec expansion by taking acc schools
as a UVA (grad) student I like to think I have some insight but it is mostly my speculation.
If Clemson is invited they are gone yesterday. If there is one school in the wrong conference anywhere it is Clemson.
Fsu actually declined an sec invite before they joined the acc in 91. However they are the next most likely to join if asked.
Gt was actually part of the sec and left under nonamicable terms. I highly doubt that they would be invited back.
Miami sees itself as a northeast school that happens to be in the south. I doubt they would want to self identify as a southern school.
All of these previous have some chance of joining the sec. However I simply cannot envision any scenario where the nc, va, or md schools would entertain bids. These schools are just too strongly connected in so many ways (culturally, academically, atheletic sport preferences, history). This is also why the Maryland to the big ten idea is such a stretch, even with some of the academic reasons removed. I realize many of the same arguments apply to old big eight schools, but there does not seem to be any of the animosity that exists in the big xii.
My guess is that if the sec takes Clemson or fsu, the acc just takes whatever of Pitt, syr, or uconn are left to fill back out to 12. It will relatively content to remain a top notch bball conference and a just below top tier football conference.
LikeLike
M, could not agree more. Miami to the SEC has been blithely mentioned by many posters in the SEC 16 scenario. Miami attracts its out-of-state students from the greater NYC and Boston areas. They will not want to be viewed as a “southern school.” As I mentioned earlier, if the Big Ten, PAC and SEC expand to 16, ND, UConn and one other school will join the ACC. By 2020, the 12th school could be… Richmond? Just a wild speculation.
LikeLike
@Rich2 about ND joining the ACC
I am always befuddled by suggestions that ND should join the ACC. On some level, I understand the argument for staying independent, but I do not know why if a conference is necessary why the ACC is preferable to the Big Ten (or honestly the Big East, Pac-10, or Big XII) for ND. I will lay out why I think the ACC is a bad idea as well as my guesses as to why you (and a sizable number of other ND fans) would prefer and I would like your response.
First, 8 of the current schools are located in states in the lower half of the US in terms of Catholic percentage. 6 are in states in the bottom 12 in this statistic. While I realize that not every fan of Notre Dame is Catholic, I doubt they receive much support in these areas.
By the same statistics, if ND’s Catholic identity is threatened by playing in a conference whose schools have sizable Catholic student populations (Big Ten, Pac-10, really anything but ACC or SEC), I would think it would be even more threatened in one where they do not. Assuming state-proportional representation, there are more Catholics at Penn State than UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Clemson combined. Do you think the leaders there would be conducive to a Catholic viewpoint?
From a national draw standpoint, an ACC schedule simply does not match with ND’s usual independent schedule or even the current 7-4-1 schedule. The two most “needle-moving” teams are Miami and FSU, which are not even the most popular in their (admittedly populous) state. This lack of national or even regional attention can be seen from their bowl tie-ins, to their lack of at-large BCS bids (0 in 12 years), to their dismal television contract.
I’ll now try to guess why ND fans seem to prefer the ACC. First, the perceived similarity of institutions due to size and focus. ND fans like that many of the ACC schools are (at least closer to) the size of ND. They also have a history of high quality undergraduate education. This argument is correct. The only point I would like to bring up is that these are still massive research universities as well (except BC and Wake Forest). If ND wants to be with institutions like itself, it should disband 1-a football and continue on in the Big East.
The second reason why ND fans might prefer the ACC is a belief that they might receive preferential treatment both in joining and while in that conference. It is difficult to dispute a hypothetical, but currently the ACC is an equal (television money) sharing conference. If they did not make those sorts of concession for Miami, I don’t believe they would do so for ND. An even more apt comparison might be FSU entering in ’91 which basically took ACC football from nothing to having a major power.
The third possibility is the “Michigan and OSU would run the world, we would just live in it” argument. If there is a part of the overall discussion which confuses me more than ND-to-ACC, its this perception. I have never heard any fan of any team in the conference espouse this view. I think this represents a lack of understanding of the relationship between these two schools. Quite simply there is no way OSU would do anything to improve UM’s position and vice versa. It’s like saying if ND joined the conference, UM and ND would work together to screw over everyone else. If anything these two schools help to balance each other out, preventing a single school from controlling everything (e.g. Texas in the Big XII).
Overall, I would just appreciate hearing why ND’s fans seem to prefer the ACC to the Big Ten.
(PS I realize that my last point will be met with “You just have the wool pulled so far over your eyes that you can’t see anything”, so responding to that is probably unnecessary.)
LikeLike
I strongly disagree that Nebraska is going to be invited.
Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune has been at the forefront of this story since the beginning. He has consistently listed Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt as prime candidates in every single story that he was written on the subject. I doubt he is speculating.
Now, today he has also thrown Connecticut — a school that has funds research $$ then AAU Kansas and will probably make the AAU in no time — into the mix. I think the expansion is based on two factors.
1. Capture NYC
2. Get Notre Dame
#2 gives the Big 10 the best opportunity long term, in conjunction with UM, PSU and OSU, to have a syndicated TV channel on basic cable everywhere.
I’ve thought the five schools leaked in initial report — Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, ND and Missouri — were the five schools likely to join the conference. I believe four of those schools are at the top of the list, and the 16th spot is between Connecticut and Missouri.
If the Big Ten can land Notre Dame by inviting Uconn over Missouri, I believe the Huskies — with their powerful basketball programs — will get the call.
So put me on record, the schools invited will be Notre Dame, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers and Pitt.
LikeLike
In the Greenstein interview (4/19) cited by “KingOttoIII” below, he said:
http://www.cnycentral.com/sports/video.aspx?id=445814
Five team expansion more likely than 3; looking west, mentioned Missouri and Nebraska; looking East mentioned RU, SU, UConn and Pitt, where UConn with RU and SU could put “stranglehold” on NY metro region.
RU has best potential and “more and more” thinks SU is invited in a 5 school expansion.
He covered the Northwestern vs Syracuse game last year (SU won) and said “obviously (SU) football facilities are very good”. (Obviously he hasn’t spoken to Mushroom.)
LikeLike
If you listen very carefully you’ll hear Teddy say the facilities “aren’t” very good. Needless to say he likes them as a candidate.
LikeLike
@Rick – No, he said “obviously the facilities are very good.”
Not everyone is anti-dome.
LikeLike
Re Rick: Listen again
“Obviously the football facilities are very good”
LikeLike
Believe me, I am pro SU as an expansion candidate and I personally don’t have a problem with the Dome. The place rocks when times are good for football. It does have expansion issues but all in all fine for now. I just didn’t hear it that way on my computer but will check again.
LikeLike
Re Greenstein on SU facilities (Rick)
Let me know if I misheard what was said. The link is provided.
There is a BIG difference between someone like Greenstein saying the football facilities are very good and saying they are not very good.
I felt Greenstein’s opinion of SU football facilities was worth noting first since he was recently there at the Northwestern game, second because a lot of improvements have occurred in the last few years and most importantly a poster named “Mushroom” has made some truly questionable comments about the facilities.
The Dome just broke a NCAA record attracting over 30,000 fans to a BB game against Villanova.
LikeLike
He said very good on third listen.
LikeLike
c..
on the “record” the top game is..
MSU vs UK = 78,000
IU vs UK = many games of 42 – 48 thousand folks in the old hoosier dome
all well above 30,000 (and the game this year was a in conference game).
the MSU/IU vs UK games were regular season non conference games..
that said, JB is an excellent coach and the orange have a strong basketball following.
LikeLike
@duffman – the record c is referring to is for “on-campus” games. The games you cited were all off-campus.
LikeLike
Re top BB attendance (duffman and omnicarrier)
Thanks for corrections.
LikeLike
The longer this goes, the more I think ND *will* go to the Big Ten. Alumni revolt be damned. For an extra $12mil/yr, it might not be worth it. For an extra $25mil/yr I can’t see them saying no.
People will howl. Notre Dame may well lose what made it special in the first place. But that’s a Sh!tload of money, and I doubt TPTB have the stones to turn it down. Damn it.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, though I’m guessing it would require a multi-phase solution like Frank has detailed. If the revenues continue to rise with 14 schools, the administration may use that as cover for the jump.
LikeLike
….and the Big10 Presidents might just be traditionalist enough to pursue ND. As you can tell from the postings here, most Big10 fans are rather ambivalent about adding ND; if ND actually brings in no more money than Kansas or Syracuse, I’d personally rather add KU and/or SU, but I think the Big10 presidents would prefer ND over KU & SU even if the money’s the same.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
Adding.
LikeLike
All I can say is that I think the SEC regrets going the ESPN route now…
LikeLike
An interesting thoughts.
Is it any coincidence that immediately after the SEC locked its rights fees for the next fifteen (15) years the Big 10 aggressively pursued expansion?
The Big 10 is potentially poised to now dwarf the SEC in total revenue for the next 10-12 years, and unless the SEC contract has an escape provision — doubtful given the amount of money ESPN handed it — the SEC really cannot do much about it until 2025.
LikeLike
I believe there is an escape clause somewhere that allows them to start their own cable network. Besides the Big10, they’re really the only other conference that’s well poised to start their own network (with their collection of name brands, rabid support, and population base that’s just a little smaller than the Big10’s). However, they’d have to go through 2-3 years of hard work, fighting with the cable companies, and years of little/no profit (like the Big10 went through). We’ll see if they have the stomach for that.
BTW, no, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I noted several months ago that this is the ideal time for the Big10 to expand.
LikeLike
And lets not forget the financial situation the economy finds itself in. When the Big10 network was set-up, investors were throwing cash at investment opportunities, no matter the risk. Now a days how easy is it going to be to get together enough money to start a new television channel…even one for a conference as well watched as the SEC?
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
2008 and the first half of 2009 were very tough. Maybe the toughest ad sales (down sales, percentage wise) in the history of television. It has been getting substatially better this year. We are planning like 2011 will still be difficult but 2012 should be fully back to normal.
LikeLike
Perhaps for ad sales yes, but I’m speaking more of venture capital. Its going to take billions(?) and years of work to start up a new television station to work through the contracts with the cable companies. Advertising will probably return to normal quickly as people in economic downturns tend to stay home and enjoy “low cost” entertainment (aka television), but I have to believe the cost/work/risk associated with a new television station is going to daunt folks at this time (why take the risk on a new station when if you think tv will make you money in the coming years you can easily, and more safely, invest in those stations already turning a profit?)
LikeLike
Ad sales are picking up YTD. My daughter is an Account Exec for COX TV stations based in Atlanta and she says her ad sales business, and the company’s as well, is beating targets for the year so far and those targets are for increases this year over last. She is encouraged although her stations are Network (only Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS) not cable. Needless to say things are not as bleak as last year.
LikeLike
@ Richard Don’t forget, that unlike the Big Ten, the SEC has a competing brand inside their own footprint in the ACC. Which in turn means that they might not be able to get the same rights fees in the states of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina as they would elsewhere in the footprint.
LikeLike
Maybe not SC and parts of Florida (South Florida and the panhandle), but everywhere else, the SEC is the dominant brand. It’s the ACC that’s going to have the most trouble starting it’s own network because it’s footprint is so small and most of the terrtory is shares with the SEC is dominated by the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t know… I see Nebraska getting the nod before Missouri. Something about Missouri just doesn’t excite me. Perhaps it’s the argument that the Big Ten already penetrates the markets we attribute to Missouri.
What are the odds of Nebraska, ND, Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse/UConn? I can’t help but think that, if we’re expanding by five, we’re not going to leave Pitt by the wayside. It’s a good brand. Not sure how thrilled I am at the prospect of leaving UConn or Syracuse to the ACC either. I’ll go crazy and call… Nebraska, ND, Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse — unless ND walks officially, then sub in UConn. Big Ten will roll the dice that Nebraska and Pitt add enough umph for football, and the others can continue their upward swing and help elevate advertising up for basketball season.
LikeLike
just adding
LikeLike
I retired to central Florida many years ago. Spent five years in the U.S. Submarine Service, totally on the east coast from Nova Scotia to the Florida Keys. There was one University very popular with sports fans wherever I went into town which was everywhere. It was followed well during basketball, lacrosse and football seasons. Everyone knew of Jim Brown, Floyd Little, Larry Czsonka and Ernie Davis! The best tight end today receives The John Mackay Award! Syracuse has well over 100 years of great football history!
I was also stationed at The Brooklyn Receiving Station for about a year. New York City is Syracuse territory! Rutgers, was always a last place team in those days, if anyone did recognize the name! As for name popularity, Jim Brown, played in several movies and a movie was made about Davis who played in The Cotton Bowl with a pulled hamstring!
Before TV, Notre Dame was the only college football game you could get on the radio. That made them popular. Today’s TV has Notre Dame fading in popularity every year! Urban Meyer, will also have less success as folks begin to realize Dan Mullen was the brains behind Meyer everywhere he had a winning program! OK, I rest my case!
LikeLike
I hope the Big 10 doesn’t make the mistake of taking all schools from the same conference as that will severely increase the likelyhood of an us vs. them mentality.
LikeLike
Absolutely–looks more like a merger than an expansion….
I really believe Missouri will be added in either the 3 or 5 team scenerio…although I really like Neb., no columnist covering the Big 10 has reported any buzz about them…
LikeLike
Cleveland big 10 columnist covering expansion dropped Nebraska as a front-runner early on in December, and then has been hush about it ever since.
Stewart Mandel put out back in December 2009 that the primary target of Big 10 expansion would be Notre Dame, then Nebraska. He has an article today that reiterates that stance, and the data Frank, et al has amassed here supports that thought.
Plus, remember that AD Tom Osborne (who is as exciting as dry toast and as verbal as a monk) went from saying ‘we’ll stand with our Big 8 friends’ to ‘if the Big 10 wants to talk, we’ll listen’ in less than a month. That’s a huge 180 on the subject, considering the source.
Nebraska is a front runner in this race (since ND bowed out). But of all the football schools listed, and since expansion is being driven by football, which candidate excites you the most when added? Nebraska vs. Michigan/Wisconsin/Iowa/Penn State is a hell of a lot more interesting than anyone else mentioned.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel is not a good source for expansion news (or anything really, but especially expansion news).
LikeLike
NDRox,
Those numbers are the added value to the Big Ten Network, not to the individual school. With those numbers it would increase ND from collecting around $15 mil to around $25 mil.
@Justin,
I would bet that Mr. Greenstien is speculating. The people involved with this kind of deal understand the legalities and do not want to cause any issues with any potential deal. Interviewing businessmen at this level is like interviewing a lawyer, they are very calculated with what they say.
@Frank,
That 3.57 NATIONAL rating for Nebraska football averaged over 9 games is huge. The 3.31 number for Pitt is also impressive. I hadn’t seen that before, and that would further convince me that Pitt & Nebraska will be included. Those ratings for SU & RU are not very good, that’s only a slight bump up from regular BTN programing.
LikeLike
A 3.57 national rating over 9 games equates to a reach of around 50,000,000 households.
Around $50,000 per 30 second commercial. That’s VERY attractive to the Big Ten Network!
LikeLike
Great stuff, Patrick. With those numbers, I don’t know how they Nebraska and Pitt could be ignored. There’s just too much money to be made. A move including like you and Frank are indicating would solidify the Big Ten as the financial powerhouse of college football.
LikeLike
Thanks Scott, This should secure the Big Ten for a long, long time. DOn’t be suprised to see this shake-up realign many conferences and the PAC 10 to expand to 14 or 16 and add it’s own network as fast as they can.
LikeLike
Concerning the Pitt and RU TV ratings, I would like to see an examination of the ratings that covered more than one year, especially when that one year had Pitt in the title hunt until the end and RU had the air taking out of its season in game 1.
LikeLike
Those are great ratings for Pitt. They had a great year and people watched. It also matters for any team if you are in the conference title race and ranked late in the year, and play significant late season games that have implications. The last 4 games Pitt played in 2009 were Notre Dame, West Virginia, Cincy, and their Bowl game v. UNC. The Notre Dame game they were ranked #8 and covered by 83% of the TV homes. It got very good ratings. I am sure those 4 games all got good ratings and hence their average was great overall for the season. It was a perfect storm for great ratings and Pitt capitalized. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the past few years they may have been around 1.5 to 2.5 avg like the rest of the Big East teams but last year they were fantastic.
LikeLike
@ Patrick
I was assuming your numbers were very conservative and a full 5 team expansion. I was also thinking best case scenario in approx 5yrs.
Am I wrong? Will the addition of say ND, Texas, Neb., Rutgers, and Pitt not potentially double the per team take in a decade?
LikeLike
Even though A&M wasn´t included in these numbers, I think they´d have to be included with Texas. And if you can pull off A&M and Texas, you can probably only doing by an aggressive Big 12 raid. Furthermore, with A&M and Texas, you don´t need NYC or have the space to try.
I would imagine a scenario that includes Notre Dame, Texas and A&M would probably also include Nebraska and Mizzou/Kansas – and then you call it a day.
LikeLike
@NDRox,
Potentially YES, but I was just trying to get an idea of how the BTN and current Big Ten members would do once any expansion was completed. I was honestly trying to look at worst case senarios for the next 2 or 3 years. Best case senario money is too big for my calculator. Maybe for a 16 team league around 1.25 Billion per year. Say around $46,000,000 per school per year from all the contracts.
Interesting to note that the BTN deal with FOX is for 20 years. What happens in 2027 when that ends, does the BTN and the conference keep ALL the loot? Cause even without interest in today’s dollars you’d be talking around $80,000,000 per school per year.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58254
If I’m reading this article accurately,
I don’t think that Fox loses it’s ownership share of the BTN after 25 years (it’s 20y + option for 5 more).
The B10 makes their cash from the BTN in 2 ways, first a broadcast rights contract between the B10 and the BTN. Second is their 51% share of the profit from the network operations (advertising & carriage fees). After 25 years the rights fee would be up for renewal.
The Sports Business Journal article above indicated that the rights fee in 2008 was paying 66m, after starting at 50m. The estimate for total value to the B10 over the life of the contract was $2.8b but I think that figure includes estimated advertising revenue. Since the average was indicated to be $112m/yr over the life of the 25y contract and the 2009 payout to the B10 seems to be $140m, it would appear that the estimate of $2.8b is going to be on the low side.
I don’t think that you’ve accounted for the guaranteed rights fee in your calculations. I think it makes a difference that the B10 share of revenue is likely north of 60% as opposed to 51%. As far as the BTN is concerned, the rights contract is an expense. But clearly the B10 is collecting more than 51% of the revenue of the BTN. They’re collecting $66m+ for broadcast rights and then 51% of the remaining profit.
If their total take was $140m and Outside the Lines clearly indicated that the B10 revenue from broadcasting was $242m with $20m for 10y from CBS for Basketball and $1b for 10y from ABC/ESPN (which coincidentally isn’t flat either as it started at 88m and graduates over the life of the 10y contract), that leaves $140m from the BTN. If 70m of the payout is from rights fees that leaves 70m for 51% of profit sharing. Assuming that the expenses beyond the rights contract are relatively minimal (I have no idea but lets estimate $10m/yr for salaries & whatever physical plant expenses there are), that would put the total revenue of the network somewhere north of $220m which is a bit less than your estimate of ~$270m.
Does the BTN or the B10 own the studio building (the old Montgomery Ward warehouse in River North)? Who owns the equipment at each school? There would be debt service on those physical equipment if owned by the network, rental costs if owned by the conference or the schools. I wouldn’t be surprised if the conference owns the building and all of the cameras/equipment and they rent them back to the network.
LikeLike
You are 100% correct. I didn’t account for rights fees, I had thought that they were part of the 49% / 51% deal. You also hit on another important point, it is profitable…. we are just not sure exactly how profitable. I had read something in one of the trades about FOX and their financial backing making sure that the conference is guaranteed its cut during the first few years of launching the network…. then when the network becomes profitable they will recoup their investment with interest until it is paid off. Then, and only then, would the conference payouts increase. While my stuff was an estimate, and ignorantly I left the rights fees out. I still feel that the network is doing way better than anticipated and that’s why we have all this expansion talk.
LikeLike
Good points by Rick. A few follow ups:
Rights Fees. This dominates advertising revenue. It’s not even close for the BTN. I’ve seen figures that indicate 85-90% of revenue comes from rights fees. The remainder is ads and new media (online games,etc). Estimated BTN revenue going forward is probably something like $210 mln [(~42 mln subscribers x .36 cents ave rate x 12 months) + (advertising + new media sales)] Programming costs (including rights fees) are at least 100 mln annually. Plus you have other normal operating costs. So maybe 50 mln in profits in a year.
This $50 mln in profits (assuming it is all distributed, a big if) will translate into a per school payout number that is smaller than some expect. Yes, the Big Ten is entitled to 51% of the profits but I believe that number is divided by 12 (11 schools + conference itself). So that’s 4.25% of distributions per school. $50 mln of profits (if fully distributed) is $2.125 mln in additional revenue per school.
Rights fees are a cost to the BTN. They started low ($50 mln in year 1) and have an escalation clause (just like the the ESPN/ABC and CBS deals). That’s why we saw $66 mln the following year and reportedly more than $70 mln this year. That number will keep going up.
As far as Big Ten distributions go, I believe you have to include the BCS and Capitol One Bowl payouts (less budgeted amounts for the teams playing). This is another $20 mln+ that gets distributed to the schools every year. The only variable is whether there are 1 or 2 teams playing in BCS bowls. Most times its been two teams. The additional team is worth $4.25 mln in revenue.
I, too, have my doubts about the $242 mln figure being used for conference distributions. Last year it was $207 mln. It will be higher this year but my guess is somewhere between $207 and $242, thanks mainly to a higher contractual BTN rights fees and some small profit payout.
Also, though it’s not clear to me without actually seeing the contract, the BTN – Fox deal may be capped at $2.8 bln. The articles referred to things like ‘if all sales milestones are met, the deal could be worth as much as $2.8 bln over the life of the contract.’
So I believe we’re back to looking at subscribers, not ads, a new school could bring. One thing to remember here is that the BTN has some long term contracts with DIRECTV, etc. Those won’t necessarily change just because a new school is brought in.
Look at the NYC DMA as an example. DIRECTV, FIOS and U-Verse all carry the BTN on standard programming. These 3 have over 20% of the market. Add in DISH and others and you probably have 25% of the market already. The revenue for these subscribers won’t change immediately if say Rutgers joins. The revenue numbers will still be higher if Cablevision gets on board but not as high as looking simply at the number of subscribers. Something many analysts do.
In some ways the ideal state is one with a high number of tvs and where there is low penetration by DIRECTV, FIOS and U-Verse and the entire state rallies around the school. This would put strong pressure on the dominant cable providers to pay a Big Ten footprint rate.
So it’s the quantity and quality of the subscribers that are important.
LikeLike
One other thing, I wouldn’t be surprised if the true figures were different from the Outside the Lines program that we’ve all come to treat as gospel. Do you find it coincidental that the $242m/yr figure happens to match up with $102m from ABC/CBS and $2.8b/20 year contract? Other articles have referenced $212m/yr for the B10 which is $100m/yr from ABC/ESPN and $112m/yr from BTN which is $2.8b/25y.
I’m not sure that we’ve seen the true BTN figures.
LikeLike
Congratulatons, this is one of most astute comments posted on this blog. With the cross-subsidies that occurs within any university, a college president has enormous discretion to make any project far better or worse depending on the politics. The politics of the BTN is to make it look as profitable as possible — and this while this effort cannot be sustained indefinitely, it takes years for the truth to emerge.
LikeLike
Yeah, but I assume the Big10 presidents are rational people, so if they are window-dressing, they are not going to make the decision to expand based on the window-dressing. Considering how conservative that lot is, expansion will have to bring a lot of real value that they expect _will_ be sustained indefinitely for them to be so gung-ho about it.
BTW, what do you teach? I ask because you seem very inclined to believe what you want to believe rather than the reality that other people’s actions suggest. It can’t be a science or social science; at least, you wouldn’t be able to get away with such reasoning in those fields.
LikeLike
IIRC the Nebraska ratings for the past year include the second highest rated non-bowl, the Big 12 Championship (10 point something) and the lowest rated broadcast national game, vs Colorado for a day game the Friday after Thanksgiving (2.7 I think).
LikeLike
I can’t open the Word file but the breakdown between the advertising revenue and subscription revenue may be off as I believe the BTN has over 35 million subscribers, not 26 million. If true, this could change the revenue mix more heavily towards new subscribers (e.g. Rutgers) and away from advertising (e.g. Nebraska). Any corrections (or a way to open the file or an Excel file) would be appreciated.
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
First, I wonder if the announcement the Michigan will play Notre Dame at night next year is a foreshadowing that Big Ten tripleheaders will be a certainty.
Second, since advertising and ratings, rather than market size appear to be the money makers, I have become convinced that Kansas, rather than Missouri would be the more likely choice. The Jayhawks are a wonderful basketball draw, and while a step below the Tigers in football, the distance is not huge. Furthermore, it has been proven that the BigTen network is already in much of STL because of the Illinois alumni who are in the area, and Kansas, not Missouri is the top team in the Kansas City area.
It is hard for me to believe that Texas and Texas A&M would not bolt if Nebraska or Kansas were to be leaving the Big Twelve. I would bet that the two Texas schools, Nebraska or Kansas, Rutgers and Pittsburgh will be invited.
LikeLike
The issue is if the Big 10 adds five schools, including Nebraska and Missouri from the Big 12, they will have effectively ceded Texas to the PAC 10.
Now, this could arise from Texas informing the Big 10 that it prefers to cut a deal with the PAC 10 for whatever reason (can bring more travel partners, easier to convince alumni and politicians, etc.), and in fact, if the Big 10 adds five schools and none are Texas, I’d be pretty convinced that Texas already made its decision to join the PAC 10 or form some Western Alliance as has been rumored.
BTW, the SEC commissioner is going to have some explaining to do if two 16 team superconferences are launched with TV networks that greatly surpass the deal that the SEC cut with ESPN.
LikeLike
I think that this will probably happen, that way Texas can take A&M, Oklahoma, Ok State, and Colorado with them. Texas could also set up the direction and planning of the new tv network and be “in control” of the process to an extent.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine any scenario in which Oklahoma and OSU head get accepted by the Pac 10. The Pac 10 requires a unanimous vote for expansion – and neither of those schools can hold its own academically.
I would think it´s much more likely that Texas, A&M, Colorado and maybe Kansas head west.
LikeLike
Justin’s post + Michael’s post = OU moves to the SEC and takes OSU along for the ride.
LikeLike
Yeah, if Texas, Texas A&M, and Nebraska left, Oklahoma would be a victim. I think their only shot would be joining a 16-team SEC. I could see Oklahoma, Ok-State, and TTech joining the SEC, but that won’t happen for many years unless the SEC can convince ESPN to renegotiate their contract.
LikeLike
@Scott C: I could foresee, in a scenario in which the Big XII completely implodes, that A&M, and not Tech, would be the school to join OU and OSU in a move to the SEC. Texas and A&M aren’t so tied to the hip that they can’t be broken up, so long as both schools are taken care of.
LikeLike
The Pac10 will do what USC wants, because if Texas wants a network & USC wants a network, they’ll get to gether in a brand new conference and start a network (inviting those Pac10 and Big12 schools they want to join them). Stanford’s not stupid enough to sacrifice self-preservation for the sake of “purity”. BTW, that’s how USC got Arizona & ASU in to the Pac10 last time (by threatening to leave if the Arizona schools didn’t join). Evidently, USC didn’t care enough about Texas when the SWC collapsed. This time, however, the Pac10 presidents are desperate to increase their TV money (even Stanford had to lay off athletic staff and cut programs recently), so if taking in Texas and its extended family means more money, they’ll take in the Clampetts.
LikeLike
On the other hand, OU & OSU may very well head to the SEC, in which case I reckon Texas would just go independent and start their own network.
LikeLike
I really don’t know much about the politics of the Big XII south, but Oklahoma is too much of a name and makes to much $$$ to be left on the sidelines. Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State are going to be in trouble if this goes down like I think it will.
LikeLike
michael,
two things put OU and OSU in the Pac 16
a) football = $$
b) energy = $$
now a) is easy, but remember california, texas, colorado, and oklahoma share energy money (and have for almost 100 years). so it would not “shock” me at all to see the OK twins in the Pac 16….
oil, nat gas, and coal = energy $$
LikeLike
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Colorado and Kansas to the PAC 10.
If the Big 10 just ran its models and found that a sixteen team model generates the most revenue for a TV network, the PAC 10 will do the same thing.
The PAC 10 and Big 10 have always moved in tandem.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC?
LikeLike
The SEC would also probably either raid the ACC for two more teams, or if they had no other options, the could go after USF & West Virginia.
LikeLike
WVU, VTech, FSU, and Miami is my guess, though they could steal OU&OSU from the Western Alliance and/or take NCSU if the AAU members in the ACC decide to join up with the Big10/16 to form the Big20.
LikeLike
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Utah, Colorado and Kansas to the PAC 10.
If the Big 10 just ran its models and found that a sixteen team model generates the most revenue for a TV network, the PAC 10 will do the same thing.
The PAC 10 and Big 10 have always moved in tandem.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC?
I agree with those being realistic options, but not so fast on the revenue. Different markets, total pops, and levels of fan interest. Look at how the more populous P10 trails the B12 in revenue and average attendance. The B10+ schools on average have a more loyal and rabid fan base than that on the west coast, the kind of thing that translates into more $’s and higher viewership. I don’t think it is a given that the BTN can be duplicated in the P10/16/20, or at least not at the same level of success. Might, but for now is a big question mark.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC would take two schools from Oklahoma. If they needed a 2nd school from the west to go with Oklahoma and UT and A&M were unavailable, I think they’d try Missouri, Houston, Texas Tech, or maybe even a private school like TCU rather than a 2nd school in a relatively small state.
Yes, the SEC has 2 schools in Mississippi and Alabama, but those are grandfathered in.
LikeLike
I still say OK and OSU to PAC 16 as more valuable franchise than Utah and T Tech..
If the SEC expands, it will be 4 ACC State schools is my bet.. and you can say there is academic issues.. i would argue that 4 ACC PUBLIC schools would fit very well in the SEC East with Vandy, Florida, UGA, and UK.
LikeLike
If anyone thinks that, if the Big 10 starts reeling in the type of money that Patrick is predicting and the Pac 10 expands to 16 teams can creates their own network, that the SEC would not be able to come to an agreement with ESPN to create their own network (possibly with a partnership with ESPN), then they are sadly mistaken. I’m sure that the SEC wasn’t dumb enough to not add an escape clause somewhere in their contract. Contracts are made to be renegotiated, especially when you are talking about the type of money that is being discussed here.
LikeLike
I think an SEC channel is inevitable. Just a question of when the SEC will bite the bullet and start it up (because the first 2-3 years will require both hard work and a decrease in money from what the SEC is seeing now).
LikeLike
I’m not sure on that Bama.
The prevailing sentiment when the SEC landed that contract was that ESPN completely overpaid, and that it was a financial windfall for the SEC in order to prevent the SEC from starting its own network.
Why would ESPN toss that kind of dough at the SEC without any assurances of cost control?
LikeLike
Justin, I doubt that ESPN would want to have a conference on the majority of their channels that is at a financial disadvantage (and thus a competitive disadvantage) from other conferences (this is if the Pac-10/Western alliance creates their own network as well). And with the money that is being discussed here, the SEC would be at a major disadvantage. And if you think the SEC wouldn’t do whatever it takes to not be at a financial and competitive disadvantge from other conferences, then you just don’t understand the SEC’s mentality when it comes to football. I know that I am bias when it comes to SEC football, but to people in the south, college football isn’t just a game, its an identity and a huge part of their lifestyle that has been cultivated that way for decades upon decades. Contract or not, The SEC would find a solution to getting the type of revenue it needs to compete with the Big 10. Plus, I think that ESPN understands this and would probably figure out a way to get the SEC and themselves the money (maybe by building a more indepth partnership a little more along the lines of what the Big 10 & fox is doing now, who knows). JMHO
LikeLike
The SEC will still have deep & fertile recruiting grounds in its backyard. ESPN would be perfectly happy to have a competitive SEC, especially if they don’t have to pay them to keep the competitive. Also keep in mind that ESPN isn’t tied to the success of the SEC; they also have a contract with the Big10 (which the Big10 likely will extend with them just to keep ESPN from being a solely SEC-focused network), so ESPN wouldn’t care too much who’s on top so long as they get the best games from both conference.
LikeLike
It’s worth noting that the SEC covers a relatively small population base. An SEC network would most likely reel in less money than the ESPN/CBS contract. The SEC may draw in the most viewers nationwide, but it’s home terrotity is just too small to make B10 money with a network. That is the issue the Big 12 faces currently. I honestly think that the only other conference that coudl go regional and make money is, suprisingly, the Big East, simply due to population base, it has a better chance of success.
LikeLike
“It’s worth noting that the SEC covers a relatively small population base.”
No.
Using numbers from wikipedia-
Florida 18.5 million (18.5 per school)
Georgia 9.8 million (9.8 per school)
Tennessee 6.3 million (3.2 per school)
Alabama 4.7 million (2.4 per school)
S. Carolina 4.6 million (4.6 per school)
Louisiana 4.5 million (4.5 per school)
Kentucky 4.3 million (4.3 per school)
Mississippi 3.0 million (1.5 per school)
Arkansas 2.9 million (2.9 per school)
total 58.6 million people. 4.9 million per school.
Texas 24.8 million (6.2 per school)
Missouri 6.0 million (6.0 per school)
Colorado 5.0 million (5.0 per school)
Oklahoma 3.7 million (1.9 per school)
Iowa 3.0 million (3.0 per school)
Kansas 2.8 million (1.4 per school)
Nebraska 1.8 million (1.8 per school)
total 47.1 million people. 3.9 million per school.
The Big 12 number is 80% of the SEC number. The SEC could lose any school but Florida and still have more people than the Big 12 even if they didn’t add anyone. You can also see how losing some key teams would devastate the Big 12, especially when you consider Baylor and Texas Tech don’t have huge fanbases.
Now, NY, Pennsylvania, NJ, and Connecticut total 44.3 million people. So you’re correct; there is some value in the Big East schools of Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, and UConn. West Virginia brings the total to 46.1 million people; still less than the Big 12. The other football schools in the Big East are clearly not the main attractions in their own state. Given the differences in passion that the SEC teams have in their teams, they would have a more successful network than the Big East, even if they didn’t expand.
If the SEC were to add Texas, A&M, TTech, & OU, they would gain 28.5 million people for a total of 87.1 million people. That would be 5.4 million people per school in a 16 team league. That would be a big boost over the current number.
If the SEC were to add Oklahoma, Missouri, Virginia Tech, and Florida State, they would gain 17.5 million people for a total of 76.1 million. That would be 4.8 million per school, slightly less than their current average (though it would be more balanced with Florida State adding attention in Florida).
The SEC already has a sizable population; it will get some schools to join it if need be to add to that. Even the University of Houston could be a plus if they don’t get the big Texas schools; with fans of SEC teams (particularly LSU) already living in the area, the addition of UH would get the cable system to add a new SEC network to the 5.7-million person region.
LikeLike
ESPN has history with the ACC..
ESPN make money with the SEC..
It is at the root of why the SEC and ACC will merge if the Big 10 goes to 16..
in a perfect world, the SEC jettisons the Mississippi schools and takes 6 PUBLIC ACC schools
in reality they take at least 4 PUBLIC ACC schools
LikeLike
@Duffman:
In a perfect world the SEC jettisons two founding members, both public schools, to pick up two public ACC schools? That makes no sense.
LikeLike
manifesto,
if the SEC was reforming today (no past history) which is why I said adding 4 not 6 was the reality..
ie if the SEC picked up Clemson and FSU for the 2 Mississippi schools (ie if the Big 10 were forming today – no previous history – IU and Northwestern might not make the cut).
as stated before, most of the SEC and ACC were in the SAME conference at one time, and Texas was in there at one time too..
of course if you were looking at a FOOTBALL only deal. The SEC would pick up TEXAS, TEXAS A&M, OKLAHOMA, and OSU as that combo would dwarf 4 ACC schools. My argument is that these 4 are part of the new PAC 16..
LikeLike
@Jonathon B. You hit the nail on the head. Let’s take a look at Missouri vs. Kansas:
You’re looking at two nearly identical academic institutions, with Mizzou having a higher enrollment and Kansas having a slightly higher endowment. Both are AAU institutions.
On paper, Missouri’s population dwarf’s Kansas’. Take a closer look, though. Discount the St. Louis market, which already offers the Big Ten network. Add the Kansas City metro area to KU’s tally (KU alumni in the KC Metro area outnumber MU 71k to 23k). The cable fees then even out or favor KU.
Both teams have excellent athletic directors. Mike Alden has done a great job to improve Mizzou’s standing in the Big 12 in men’s sports. Despite this, MU still ranks dead last in all-time Big 12 titles, with six (one being in a revenue sport). Lew Perkins has made KU one of the most profitable AD’s in the country and has had top 25 revenues over the last two years.
Let’s take a look at football fan bases. Mizzou has a larger stadium than KU by about 14,000. Both teams have had solid attendance numbers over the last several years. KU has a much better traveling fan base. There’s a reason why the Orange Bowl committee snubbed Mizzou– KU filled up a stadium in Florida. The last three years, bowl committees have selected other Big 12 teams with lessor conference records over Mizzou (including a 6-6 Iowa State team over an 8-4 Mizzou team). There’s no doubt that MU is the better program right now, but KU has more potential.
Basketball isn’t close. KU sells out each game and is a top 5 all-time program. MU can only claim one Big 12 tourney championship (they didn’t win the regular season) and struggles with attendance during non-conference games. Jayhawk fans are dotted around the Midwest and travel to out of state games– they sold out Rosemount when they played DePaul in Chicago and they sold out Las Vegas when they played Florida a few years back.
The simple fact is, if you’re going to pick from the Big 12 North, the only two nationally recognizable brands are Nebraska football and Kansas basketball. If you’re going to look at expansion candidates from the Big 12, you’d have to rank them as follows:
1. Texas
2. Nebraska
3. Texas A&M
4. Kansas
5. Missouri
6. Colorado
7. Baylor
8. Oklahoma
9. Oklahoma State
10. Texas Tech
11. Kansas State
12. Iowa State
1-3 are can’t miss prospects. 4-6 are good prospects. 7-12 aren’t really viable candidates due to academics or athletics.
LikeLike
Why is Missouri a better candidate than Colorado? I’m wondering why Colorado doesn’t get more consideration for the Big Ten. It’s a better school than Missouri – both in US News rankings and in other research rankings, it’s got a better football name, and adds the Denver-Metro viewing area, isn’t that much less populated than Missouri, and gets total viewership of the entire state, as opposed to Missouri which shares St. Louis with Illinois and Kansas City with Kansas. The only thing Missouri has on Colorado is proximity, but if Texas schools are being considered for the Big Ten and Colorado is being considered for the Pac 10 (not much closer), why isn’t Colorado also being looked at?
LikeLike
I will give you my perspective as a Big 12 fan:
That fan support isn’t there and the athletic department has shown it won’t participate in the arms race.
Denver is a huge market, but Colorado fans are pretty apathetic. When KU is in town, there’s usually more Jayhawk fans in their arena than CU fans. I’m fairly sure that Nebraska does the same in football. The way both of their revenue sports have fallen off the table gives them little to cheer about.
Part of this is because CU has made it clear that they won’t go out and spend money on their programs.
Dan Hawkins would have been fired from any other Big 12 school (outside of ISU, maybe), but the CU AD wouldn’t spend the cash on his buy-out. So they decided to go through another terrible year and decline further as a program over a million or two, which is almost unheard of nowadays.
Their basketball program hasn’t been good since the Chauncey Billups days. After trolling around in the basement of the Big 12 for over a decade, the AD continues to take half-measures towards success. Their latest hire is out of Northern Colorado(a Big Sky school), who had zero NCAA tourney bids. I love Tad Boyle, but most schools require at least some mid-major experience or NCAA bids before offering a coaching job in the Big 12.
You could very well be right about CU’s value, but from my point of view, it’d take years for them to build up either program. After that, you have to get the fans interested again. MU’s just in a better spot right now, but that very well could change.
LikeLike
I don’t think its Colorado won’t spend the money; its Colorado can’t spend the money because their Athletic Dept. is so heavily in debt. That is why Colorado wants so bad to go to the PAC 10. They hope it will energize the fan base and alums (a lot of CU alums in CA) and get them to start donating again.
LikeLike
@Mike: I agree. I’m just wondering how they’re going to pay the Big 12’s penalty fee for leaving.
LikeLike
It’s not a fee for leaving so much as it’s a reduction in TV money. They would make up the shortfall in their budget with booster money (they hope the newly excited CU alums in CA will donate early and often) or by taking another loan from the University proper. They will be willing to take a two year hit if the money from the new PAC 10 is significantly better than the Big 12. That won’t be hard if the PAC 10 starts a network, as expected. They have to be hoping the Big Ten will take Nebraska and send the Big 12 the way of the SWC. If the league dissolves, I doubt there will be penalties.
LikeLike
Gopher, you cannot simply discount the St Louis makret. Yes, they “get” the Big Ten Netowrk, but at an “out of market rate.” There is a gigantic difference in carriage rate for the B10 Network out of market, and in market, close to a 700% – 1000% difference. This cannot be discounted. The Big Ten Network is “available” in NYC, but at an out of market rate, on a sport tier. Their gola is to get it to be an “in market” rate on basic cable. That is what this whole fuss is about.
LikeLike
I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about Maryland. First tier research, excellent TV market in a wealthy and growing area. Is it that people here believe they wouldn’t leave the ACC? They will make money (per Patrick’s analysis) and they are a great fit with the Big Ten culture and research commitment. I’d not bet against them turning down an invite.
I am also a bit surprised by the continuing support for Norte Dame. Sure they make money, but it is not the slam dunk we have supposed to this point in the discussion. Put more directly, they don’t fit — are they really worth the hassle?
LikeLike
doh.
“I’d not bet against them turning down an invite.”
->
I’d not bet against them accepting an invite.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND’s worth the hassle, but the Big10 presidents, being traditionalists, may want them.
I’d definitely go after Maryland, but it’s not certain they’d be so willing to leave, even if the dollars make sense.
LikeLike
MC.. I have argued Maryland from the beginning instead of ND
a) people keep shooting me down saying it will be ND
b) people think the ACC will grow, I have been a proponent of implosion
if the BIG 16 / SEC 16 take the 6 top ACC PUBLIC schools, what is left of the ACC? My whole argument has been the BIG 3 predators growing at the expense of the little 3 prey..
so far no one seems to have accepted my premise, but they also have not been able to show why this would not occur…. To me this is a no brainer, as I can find no compelling combination of 16 ACC teams that could hold a candle to the BIG 3.
LikeLike
@duffman – Oh, I’d love Maryland to be in the Big Ten. They’d be a great fit. However, it goes back to what I said a couple of months ago – the Big XII and Big East are very “breakable” while the ACC isn’t as much. I’m just basing this on the fact that there are schools that would likely provide similar or greater financial value (i.e. Nebraska and Missouri) could be obtained with a lot less hassle. It woudn’t shock me to see Maryland in the Big Ten, but one thing stuck with me was a comment that essentially said this – Maryland fans (other than Vincent that posts here frequently) would complain about the move as much as ND fans without the commensurate upside. Schools like Texas and ND are clearly worth a ton of effort to lure. How much would the Big Ten really be willing to dance around with Maryland? If Maryland was as ready and willing to jump to the Big Ten as Missouri or Rutgers, then I’d say that’s a no-brainer for the Big Ten. However, I don’t think the Big Ten is going to tolerate much hemming-and-hawing from that school.
LikeLike
Frank,
again.. why do people think the ACC is less breakable than the Big 12 or BE?? everybody seems to feel this is not possible, but can not seem to offer more concrete reasons as to why? I am not saying I am right, I guess I am looking for concrete reasons for why not.. as the only 2 possible seem weak..
a) UNC vs duke in basketball – thumped many times in past several posts as UNC becomes much more valuable in a BIG 3 without duke
b) academics – the SEC east has Vandy, UF, and UGA which would fit much better with UNC, UVA, and NC State than schools in the SEC west – the less academically gifted part of the SEC (I am viewing the SEC east as forming and academic component that the west might not share).
this also makes Maryland (as a no twin school) a VERY easy pick off for the Big 16. I originally offered the Virginia twins to the Big 10 but that kept getting shot down as nobody seemed to think the Big 16 would accept Va Tech, so I have since dropped UVA to the Big 16.
LikeLike
1. The core ACC schools have more history together. Few people are still alive who can remember seeing the Carolina schools, Virginia, and Maryland playing while not a part of the ACC. That’s not true of the Big12 or Big East. Nebraska won’t be sad if they’re not in the same conference as TAMU or TTech any more, and Rutgers won’t miss UConn or Cincy that much either. There’d be much more fan backlash if the core ACC schools broke apart (especially if Duke & UNC break up).
2. The SEC isn’t ready to expand yet. The Big12 is under siege from both the Pac10 and Big10 (with certain schools open to leaving), but the SEC isn’t ready to raid the ACC yet (they’d have to start their own cable channel first for expansion to make sense financially). Maybe once the SEC starts making overtures to VTech, FSU, and Miami, the core ACC schools will start considering their options.
LikeLike
richard…
a) usc was a charter member of the ACC, and is now in the SEC
b) ga tech went to the ACC in 1978
c) the ACC founded in the mid 50’s so the older folks (see directors and big donors) are still alive to remember. I am guessing the guys in the “expensive” seats remember (folks in their 60’s and 70’s and beyond) and have more money and power than recent graduates.
d) saying they are not ready to expand is wishful thinking, I have a VERY strong feeling they are just waiting for the Big 10 to make the first move. I would be willing to bet they already have several plans in place once “pandoras” box gets opened by delaney. If fact the “silence” from the SEC right now is very telling in its own way.
e) by not forcing anything they can be the white knight to either the Big 12 (via texas, a&m, OK, and OSU) or the ACC (via FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State – the last 3 being ACC charter members)
consider.. clemson already plays..
auburn and south carolina
FSU already plays florida..
UNC already plays LSU..
if you substituted Ga Tech for NC State
UGA plays Ga Tech
f) the duke – unc rivalry..
#1) it is basketball not football
UNC holds a 19 – 1 edge in football, and does not translate to TV money.. I love IU, but I would not call the IU vs tOSU football game a rivalry.. would you??
#2) the basketball rivalry is modern – ask any UNC fan over 45 / 50 if they considered duke a rival when they were growing up..
#3) the rivalry coincides with the ESPN / ACC contract that started in the late 70’s and early 80’s. If UNC thought there was more gravy in the SEC, they would not bring duke.
#4) duke is the little brother in competition.. like people saying that UK views UL as a more serious rival than IU. In the old days UNC’s rival was NC State and could easily become again, if cut loose from duke.
I am willing to bet if UNC was able to cut away from duke in a poll they would do so, especially if they felt they could seriously grow their football revenue (they could always schedule duke in basketball to keep that specific rivalry going) but if you want to fill the dean dome in basketball, SEC fans (especially UK) will travel.
Just imagine a BIG 4 renewal (IU, UK, UL, ND) but revamp it as (IU, UK, MSU, UNC) and play it in Lucas Oil / Georgia Dome in alternating years. UNC could excel without having duke tag along on its coat tails..
LikeLike
Maryland may be harder, but it is much more strategical valuable. With Maryland, PSU and possibly Rutgers, you have the best teams in the mid atlantic region. Later down the road, that allows the Big Ten to focus on the NE for expansion as the mid atlantic schools outflank the NE schools.
If Maryland would be the first offered and accept, could you imagine the shock relative to if the Big 10 took Rutgers or Missouri?
LikeLike
If rumors persist about the SEC picking off the ACC’s southern flank (the schools who likely would have fled to an expanded Big East had the ACC not been proactive in 2003), it would give Maryland officials the public leverage they need to join the Big Ten, basketball games with Duke be damned. Maryland can’t afford further ACC erosion in football. (And I’m certain the Big Ten would rather have Maryland than Pittsburgh, as it would get two new markets rather than none.
LikeLike
You need 61 teams to control the BCS. 3 conferences of 16 teams leaves you a minority to the non-AQ schools…who would predictably vote you out of AQ status and themselves into AQ status. Any combo of big conferences that doesn’t have at least 61 teams is not BCS politically workable.
LikeLike
Let me expand on this a bit. Currently there are 65 teams in the BCS conferences plus ND who vote themselves into the Haves in the BCS equation. There are 120 BCS Football schools, 66 Haves, 54 Have Nots. There are probably 4 teams in the Have Nots who would be good candidates to bump up into the Haves (Boise, Utah, TCU, BYU) and another 5 teams who might have potential (Nevada, East Carolina, UCF, SMU, Houston).
You could lose 5 teams from AQ conferences into non-AQ status and still maintain a sufficient voting block, but cannibalizing 3 conferences, you’d just lose too many voters. The P10 adds 6, the B10 5, the SEC 4, that’s 15 teams that can be absorbed into your big 3. However there are 32 teams in the other 3 conferences plus ND. You need that 4th conference and a 5th conference if your 4th isn’t at least 14 teams to maintain majority rule.
LikeLike
Dcphx..
i see what you are saying..
i was just interpreting what arkstfan said and taking it to the next logical step.. The BIG 3 reform and leave the BCS behind. In this scenario the newly formed BMF (think of Jules wallet in Pulp Fiction) has an 80% demand footprint, and everybody else is along for the ride. I have read in the past where this was desired so the top schools and conferences could dominate the market..
Instead 120 BCS schools, you might be dealing with 64 BMF schools, and 48 is 75% 64. In my predator vs prey argument, the lions pick which gazelles they want to schedule for dinner, but the gazelles do not get to pick the lions. Sure the remaining schools would still play games, but not in front of the nationwide tv audiences who will be watching bama vs michigan in a BMF bowl will outdraw USF vs ECU in the Pappa Johns bowl.
It will clearly define a first and second tier in college football. The first tier will protect 20 or so “historical” BIG time college football programs. the second tier will encompass the rest, but somewhat limit their ability to break into the first tier. It would insure say, that a Central Michigan could never challenge a Michigan for dominance in college football.
I am not knocking Central Michigan, i am just saying that Michigan (and large media companies) have a great deal to lose if the power structure is upset over the long term. If I am looking to expand to the BIG 16, I want Maryland with 26,000 undergrads over duke with 6,000 over the long haul because it means more TV sets over a multi decade horizon. This has been pointed out in previous posts, but seems to get lost on some people posting just how valuable this part of the expansion equation it is..
If it goes to the BIG 3, you can not look at the BCS or the 120 team matrix because it will no longer apply. As it has been noted before, delaney wants to create a legacy. The BIG 3 and the BMF would fit this bill quite nicely. I am will to admit error here, but from what I am reading this fits delaney. If I am not reading delaney correctly this this is moot.
Am I reading delaney correctly? If so you have your future, if he can accomplish his goal.
LikeLike
I don’t think you’re reading Delaney correctly.
He has said time and again, that he doesn’t work for the good of the NCAA but the presidents of the B10. He carries their water and while he might be the agent of change, ultimately they are the arbiters. The presidents of the B10 have many more concerns than getting 48 football teams their own feifdom. I think they know that there is a grey area of greed and monopoly that they can dance around, but breaking off into a 48 unit exclusive club (where the members are the vast majority state sponsored), is far enough over the line that it will draw attention in an unfavorable way.
Ever hear the saying, pigs get fat – hogs get slaughtered?
LikeLike
DCPHX..
I agree.. but the “actions speak louder that words” comes to mind. If Delaney was just adding one team to get to 12, my feeling is it would fit in the Big 10 presidents “comfort zone”. I agree with you 100% at this point.
As I have said before, the day the Big 10 hits 13 we have all gone down the rabbit hole. I note the following..
a) Delaney is not a “lone gunman” from what I can tell. Somebody, somewhere is giving him marching orders. He is already carrying the presidents water so to speak.
b) Somebody, somewhere has given him the order to change the playing field. I say this as by going to 16, he is changing the current status quo.
c) What has been lost on the SEC to 12 was not that they did it.. but that they almost assured a SEC team would be in the NC game every year! They changed the status quo, and now if the B 10 goes to 12 they just “catch up”.
d) going to 16 puts Delaney (vis a vi the Big 10 as a collective) ahead of the curve. If the Big 10 is smart, they must have already thought of this. It is why I would argue Delaney is doing what he is at this time because he has already been given his marching orders.
e) my proof is that it appears as though the Big 10 will not stop at 12. There is no need for the Big 10 to 16, but the fact that it is on the table tells me by simple logic that the presidents have already approved such a move ALREADY!
Delaney may be the dog on a leash, but the Big 10 presidents have already taken him outside for a walk in the first place..
something to think about..
BTW: In the plan I am working on it is the BIG 3 80% + some second tier “filter” conferences / alliances that doles out the remaining 20%.
LikeLike
Frank,
I am afraid all you are seeing is dollar signs and have forgotten that the Big Ten (particularly through the university presidents) thinks of itself foremost as an academic unit.
LikeLike
Well, this is one reason why noone has ever mentioned Oklahoma as a possible candidate for the Big 10.
LikeLike
Everyone discussed by Frank more or less meets the minimum academic standards of the Big 10. This has been discussed ad nauseam.
LikeLike
Mostly adding, but a few comments:
Greenstein seems to have a direct line to Big Ten HQ (which I envision as a grainy blue hologram of Jim Delaney). I would take his comments as gospel which means the original 5 (ND, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri) are most likely. Like many observers I would substitute Nebraska for almost anyone else on the list. I wonder if there are long-term doubts about Nebraska’s viability due to their population size/growth. One of the Greenstein quotes was “They’re looking long-term, across the horizon. What gives them the best shot at keeping value at a high level?”. Another possibility is concerns about the “partial-qualifier” issue.
I was very surprised at how low Pittsburgh was on the list, especially compared to Iowa State.
I’m still amazed by the advertising money revelation. Someone must be buying enough Rotel to fill swimming pools.
LikeLike
I’m still amazed by the advertising money revelation. Someone must be buying enough Rotel to fill swimming pools.
<- best comment yet
LikeLike
@M – re: “I’m still amazed by the advertising money revelation. Someone must be buying enough Rotel to fill swimming pools.”
Little known fact is that all of that Rotel was hauled across America in a Barbasol truck.
LikeLike
Hmmm… A close shave and Rotel… Two things that should never mix.
LikeLike
now if you mix Ro*tel with Velveta..
put it in a swimming pool..
bring in a multitude of 18 wheelers filled with corn chips..
I think you become a GOD in the history of Super Bowl parties!!
LikeLike
@HoosierMike – Speaking of sponsors, I really hope that people start calling this the “Kentaco Hut Center”:
http://tinyurl.com/y273ejh
LikeLike
Kentucky Fried Cardinal Yum!
I’m not sure they thought the new name through.
LikeLike
Wow. Just… Wow. I got about halfway through the first paragraph of that article and scrolled to the top to make sure the dateline wasn’t April Fools. Unsurprisingly, it was not. I, as my handle implies, am a lifelong Hoosier native (IU grad), and a lifelong Michigan Football fan. This unique combination provides me the just the right amount of arrogance AND genetic diversity to have spent the better part of my 28 years trashing, belittling, and generally making fun of all things Kentucky. This news represents an opened floodgate with a force of farcicality possibly too great for even my formidable experience…
That said, I find this agreement slightly more inspired than most (Lucas Oil Stadium, anyone? “Come to Indiana, and getch yer… Oil? really?), but more hilarious than all of them.
I think this shark was jumped when the Double Down was released. At that point, any self respecting city (or Commonwealth) needs to declare: no mas. This is a extinction level event, people, worthy of a John Boehner-esque “HELL NO, YOU CAN’T!” from the legislature, demanding the drop of the “K” from KFC. More worthy, perhaps, than the first iteration as this monstrosity is inherently designed to kill people! It’s a 540 calorie one-sandwich death panel!
This is a dark day for my countrymen to the south. The thought of Kentucky once conjured great things in the minds of Americans, and in many respects was quintessential Americana: bluegrass on a fiddle, horse farms, Daniel Boone, log cabins with quilts on the walls, and warmish southernish hospitality.
Now? Clogged arteries, The Colonel, Calipari, missing teeth and rusted out pickups.
We’ve come a long way, baby. God Bless America. Peyton Manning.
LikeLike
Frank,
My understanding was that it was a push on Pappa John’s. When UL built the football stadium they were having a hard time finding a sponsor. Pappa Johns swooped in at the last min and got a discounted price. Word on the street in the KY, IN, OH triangle was Pappa Johns has been waiting to do the same thing for the new basketball arena (get in at last second for a discounted price).
keep the following in the back of your mind….
a) Pappa John’s is headquartered in Louisville..
b) Yum is headquartered in Louisville..
c) Yum owns Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc..
d) egos = crazy decisions..
My guess is Yum did not want to see both new venues go to a rival. They stepped up to stop such a thing from happening. Of the many food company that Yum owns, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has the most ties to the state of Kentucky. Hopefully some PR group will arrive at a better name before the venue actually opens.
LikeLike
The numbers for Texas are impressive, to say the least. No wonder they are pursuing the “Longhorn Cable Network”. I wonder if that thing will get off the ground?
LikeLike
How does the BTN get a football triple header given that the current ABC/ESPN deal has exclusive Big Ten rights during the 3:30 and 8pm timeslots? No game can be on the BTN in those timeslots if ABC/ESPN has a Big Ten game.
LikeLike
@MStreet
The BTN night games generally start at 6pm CST, so that may be one way they avoid the same time slots as their ABC/ESPN contract. They have later games in the afternoon, but I don’t know what the exact time is.
LikeLike
@MStreet:
The ABC/ESPN agreement would need to be renegotiated as part of Big Ten expansion as that agreement suddenly became more valuable. I am not sure how much (if any) additional revenue ABC/ESPN would give up but the Big Ten would be pushing for the loss of ABC’s exclusivity.
LikeLike
The exclusive ABC window’s only for the 3:30 time slot (right now)
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
bacon
LikeLike
Big 10 will have an amasing Rosebowl rep for the future years.
LikeLike
So I guess the Longhorns’ mastery of the Cornhuskers will have to take place in Pasadena a couple of times a decade?
LikeLike
Not in 2010 my friend. Go Big Red!!!
LikeLike
If the Big Ten wants to increase its revenue, it should definitely and totally agree in that statement that they should start a hockey conference and especially a lacrosse since it’s one of the fastest growing sports, if not, the fastest growing sport in the country if it does indeed invite Syracuse. I’ve made an article about a potential Big Ten Lacrosse Conference last Thursday.
http://www.jasonnessa.com/blog/2010/04/could-big-ten-lacrosse-league-become-reality-w-inclusion-of-syracuse/
Even though that much of the major schools lacrosse teams are in the MCLA, including 5-of-10 current Big Ten members (Northwestern doesn not have a Men’s Lacrosse team), the Big Ten can just easily move them from the MCLA to the NCAA. However, that could also cause a chain reaction in college lacrosse, to where the MCLA will fold or just simply merge with the NCAA.
LikeLike
Ooh, I love threads where I can chime in on both half of my user name!
It’s hard to see, in an era of Title IX and tight budgets, that any of those schools competing in lacrosse at a non-varsity, club level would want to take on the expense of competing at a varsity level and add a corresponding number of opportunities for female student athletes as well.
It is possible that there could be a Big 10 lacrosse league if Rutgers, SU and ND join the Big 10. Just as the ACC competes with just a four-team conference, the Big 10 could do the same, with those three schools joining Ohio State with varsity programs.
(Oh, and after reading your blog post, it’s “Johns” Hopkins. With an S. It’s very hard to convey how annoying that dropped “S” is to those who didn’t go to school there! And it’s also very hard to write about that annoyance without sounding very annoying and petty in the process of doing so. It’s a burden Hopkins grads bear.)
LikeLike
Yea it is kind of annoying when there’s another “s” after “John” cause it’s like that double standard thing or whatever it’s called that your English teacher tells you not to do/use. But thanks for pointing that out.
Also, besides Ohio State being in the current NCAA lacrosse program, Penn State has a lacrosse program in the NCAA.
With Syracuse, Rutgers, and possibly ND lacrosse joins with a newly formed Big Ten lacrosse with OSU and Penn State, the conference could become a becoming, dominate powerhouse in college lacrosse. Too, if they can bring the rest of the schools from the MCLA over to the NCAA, where Michigan has been dominating the MCLA for about a decade, just think of an awesome conference rivalry for Syracuse.
I believe that the Big Ten should definitely look into this and possibly take advantage of it as well.
LikeLike
As a Michigan fan and lacrosse fan, I have long dreamed of a day when the Wolverines actually fielded a legit division 1 team. However, as it stands now, all those schools in the MCLA are non scholarship club teams. As good as Michigan’s club team is, the level of play in the MCLA is basically the equivalent of the NCAA’s division 3, (and it probably is worse, as Michigan has lost to mid level D3 teams in scrimmages over the years.) It would take years before they could even dream of hanging with Syracuse were they to move to division 1, although with the allure that U of M has on the east coast, a Michigan lacrosse program has tremendous potential. More so than any athletic program, Michigan could probably afford to add a men’s and women’s team, but in this economic climate, its hard to see it happening.
LikeLike
I have noticed the area that the college teams in the MCLA rarely get the money from the school. I’ve found out about that when I was going through the Iowa Lacrosse website (BTW, I’m a Hawk fan, even though living here in Minnesota), when people fill out a form to participate in the team, that they’ll have to pay at a range of $400-$600, as well as seeing fine print saying that they don’t get hardly any money.
So yes it would be tough for those teams in the MCLA, but once they could get some of that money from Big Ten’s TV contracts, including from BTN, the players won’t be paying for the equipment and travel costs anymore.
LikeLike
If Fox New Corp is controlling the puppets, could they be pushing the Big 10 east in order to steer 4-6 Big 12 teams to merge with the Pac 10? Thus setting up themselves to be the TV partner of a 2nd conference network 50% owned by Fox?
LikeLike
If Fox New Corp is controlling the puppets, could they be pushing the Big 10 east in order to steer 4-6 Big 12 teams to merge with the Pac 10? Thus setting up themselves to be the TV partner of a 2nd conference network 50% owned by Fox?
Could? Yes.
A P16/20 is also in the B16’s interest, because it gives these conferences that often vote together more power in matters such as the BCS.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that Rupert Murdoch might be playing with these academic institutions like so many pieces on a Risk board? Because that would be awesome.
LikeLike
exactly..
no matter what happens, the media groups are the winners!
LikeLike
It would also create additional market power for getting both of those stations onto Tier 1 across the country. You want the new P10 channel on Tier 1 in Texas and California, then you add the BTN as well. You get them both or you get neither. Same for the B10 footprint.
LikeLike
Now your thinking less like a Big Ten President and more like a tv executive.
LikeLike
I negotiate for a living, seeing how to create leverage to benefit your position is somewhat second nature. Sometimes creating benefit to your position comes from creating benefit for your nominal allies so you can join together for mutual benefit. A strong P10 doesn’t harm the B10. A stronger SEC does. Because if the B12 is harmed and UT looks for a landing spot, the other obvious alternative is UT into the SEC and ESPN’s SEC network which wouldn’t benefit the B10. You need to look several steps down the road. If UT isn’t coming to the B10, we want them in the P10 where the B10 can leverage our P10 relationship to our ultimate benefit (and theirs).
People have previously asked how the B10 would benefit from Texas/aTm in the P10. I always thought that the B10 could benefit from helping the P10 with a viable conference network. If that means Texas/aTm into the P10, then so be it as long as UT has said no to B10.
Once the BTN isn’t the sole conference network selling itself to the cable operators, it becomes much easier to market. I think 5-10 years from now there will be a cable network for every major conference on basic cable and no one will blink an eye any more than getting ESPN Ocho with basic cable.
LikeLike
@Dcphx – I agree with this. I don’t believe the Big Ten would just pass on Texas to allow the Pac-10 to take them. However, I definitely think that if Texas is deciding between the Pac-10 and SEC, then the Big Ten 110% wants them to end up in the Pac-10. Placing Texas in the SEC would be a ridiculous juggeraut that could be a direct threat to the Big Ten, whereas Texas in the Pac-10 is more like creating a West Coast peer that could co-exist peacefully.
LikeLike
Very shocked to see Dennis Dodd’s focus on “Texas to the SEC” in his latest article. Maybe I relied too heavily on the many old articles and stories I read around here about Texas’s aversion to the SEC, but I thought that was a non-issue. I know CBS (his employer) has SEC’s glory in mind, so maybe he’s creating a non-story here. Or maybe he’s simply failed to do ANY research about the issue. (Seems unlikely) None of his source’s quotes (DeLoss Dodds) directly mentioned the SEC though, which makes me think that Dennis is just trying to get the SEC’s name out there in all this.
LikeLike
allyou…
as i pointed out in a previous post.. Texas and the SEC west teams were once all in the same conference, and they share southern values and thinking. I do not think the deal breaker is the SEC or academics.
I think the deal breaker is “sharing”, which is why I have felt the Big 16 will not include Texas as well. That said business make strange bedfellows.
LikeLike
Maybe the Big Ten and Pac-10 could schedule some non-conf. games in various sports to get their fans watching each others channels.
LikeLike
Very much down the road, but yearly 1-1 series between the two 16-team conferences would be awesome.
However, in light of the new size of these 16 team conferences, teams schedules will be so varied every single year as it is, the need/desire for OOC should be much less. Playing teams from St. Louis to Minneapolis to New Jersey (to Texas I hope!) is broad enough. Throwing in a random West Coast or Southern team isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
If the NYC numbers are true, invite Rutgers, Syracuse, Nebraska, Maryland and Notre Dame (substituting Missouri if ND declines). You get the entire NY-to-DC corridor in SU, RU, PSU and UMd and two football “brand names” in Nebraska and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
According to a March 2 story from the Chiago Tribune, the “consensus” of Big 10 sources, officials from other conferences, and TV execs rated RU, Mo., Pitt, and Syracuse in that order….Ilooking back, I think this is an under-reported analysis….
LikeLike
That jibes with the report on the VTech board. That means RU & Mizzou are in (along with Nebraska & maybe ND), Pitt is borderline, and SU is a weaker candidate than Pitt.
LikeLike
Excellent job Patrick, Frank. Very, very interesting numbers. It’s interesting that an expansion could include any of a number of schools. I’m pleased that expansion invitations don’t have to be about population, but can be made with regards to academics and athletics.
From a football perspective, I couldn’t be happier to see Nebraska viable. Fantastic fans. I’d love to see their football team in Wisconsin’s division. In my opinion, we need a high-profile team like the Huskers in any expansion.
I certainly hope Texas would consider joining too.
Academically, I’d like to see Pitt and Maryland. Beyond these, I’m not sure I care too much.
I’m glad to see that the numbers showing Notre Dame isn’t necessary. (Why would it be, really, given what the Big Ten has already built without them?) It’s interesting that any of a number of teams could be inserted for about the same value to the league. How many domers would believe the likes of Boston College or Nebraska would be worth more to the Big Ten than Notre Dame?
Personally, I’d rather see invitees that don’t have to be wooed or cajoled. While it would be fun to see Wisconsin play Notre Dame now and again–as they do have a good football team even now–I just can’t see it being worth all the holier-than-thou drama.
LikeLike
If you take away the tv contracts, Nebraska’s athletic department already makes more than Notre Dame. Boston College brings the added value of millions of tv sets in the Boston area. One interesting note is the national tv ratings, Nebraska pulling a 3.57 over 9 games and Notre Dame averaging a 2.4 over 7 games. I would not have expected that.
LikeLike
To be sure, they were down, and their home games weren’t that appealing (they played USC as well as MSU & BC, but their other home games were against Nevada, Washington, Navy, & UConn, and their neutral site game was against WSU). Still, I think it’s safe to say ND doesn’t have more TV appeal than Nebraska, which means about 10 other schools (the big 3 in the Big10, several SEC schools, Texas, OU, and USC) had as much TV appeal or more than ND these days.
LikeLike
I posted this link in the previous thread:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/135294
I’m unsure how accurate those numbers are (NYTimes has ’05 listed at a 3.6 rating – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/sports/ncaafootball/20sandomir.html), but some of them are probably at or near the right answer (06 and 07 are the same for example). ND’s records, number of home games, and ratings from 2002-2009 were:
2002, 6, 10-3: 3.2
2003, 7, 5-7: 2.4*
2004, 6, 6-6: 2.5
2005, 6, 9-3: 2.7/3.6*^
2006, 7, 10-3: 3.0
2007, 7, 3-9: 1.8*
2008, 6, 7-6: 2.2
2009, 7, 6-6: 2.4*
(*USC@ND, ^Article above or NYTimes)
Point is, even when they’re great (02, 05, 06) ND still seems to average about the same as Nebraska. Which is great for the Big Ten and BTN specifically, don’t get me wrong, but there’s some perspective to be had here I think.
LikeLike
First off, I appreciate your efforts, background, insight, and enthusiasm. However, I’m having a hard time buying into numbers that place ND at about the same financial attractiveness as KS, MO, BC, and MD (and yes, I’ve followed the discussion and understand the market size and cable issues.) Given the potential hassles ND would bring, the relative lack of research, and non-AAU status, why would Delany and others in the know pursue them so hard if they already had more than 5 qualified schools available? Rut, Pitt, Mo, KS, and NE are big state schools that fit basically all the criteria, as does MD, so the only reason to try to put square peg ND in the round hole B16 is that they would bring a very large financial boost.
So it seems like perhaps the model is missing or undervaluing one or more elements. Thus I’m not sure one can use the numbers and argue that schools, X, Y, Z, C, and G are likely to be added. Though it has certainly added a squinty-level layer of understanding from which to analyze.
IMHO, Syr, Rut, CT, Pitt, ND, MO, and NE are all still in the running. Perhaps MD isn’t being pursued, since if the ACC is likely to survive then why piss off a conference you may be negotiating with over matters like the BCS down the road? With apparently enough qualified candidates, better to stick it to the conferences most likely to disappear, the BEast and B12. Plus there’s always the possibility that in the back of Delany’s mind he thinks the SEC could raid and gut the ACC, and thus the B16 might want to woo some of those schools into a B20. Easier to do that if they can’t directly blame you for their demise.
My guess is the rushed timetable is because of evident financial feasibility, and perhaps to pressure and prevent ND from dragging things out.
LikeLike
And to those who say the B10+ is too tradition tied to go from 16 to 20, well apparently the presidents aren’t too tradition minded. One of the weekend reports said they were looking into changing the conference name, which many had claimed was so valuable that it would never be changed.
OTOH, MO may be attractive because its unexciting but qualified nature mirrors many of the current members, such as MN, IA, IL, MSU, PU, and IU. Sorta like how the dorks/uglies sometimes look out for each other in John Hughes movies.
LikeLike
A Big20 would be intriguing. Say Nebraska, Mizzou, ND, Rutgers, & Pitt in the first wave (the rest of the Big12 merge with the Pac10 to form the Pac/Western 20). Then the SEC raids the ACC, taking VTech, NCSU,FSU, and Miami. Maybe WVU instead of Miami. Then the AAU schools in the ACC (Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke) very well could join the Big20. Miami instead of one of those 4? Probably not, since Miami may be underwater by then.
How to divide in to 5-team pods would be a tough decision, though.
LikeLike
OK, I got it:
Pod A:
Nebraska
Mizzou
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Pod B:
Northwestern
Illinois
ND
IU
PU
Pod C:
MSU
OSU
PSU
Pitt
Michigan
Pod D:
RU
Maryland
UVa
UNC
Duke
East (C+D) vs. West (A+B)
North (A+C) vs. South (B+D)
The biggest rivalries broken up would be the ones between the pod B schools and Michigan/OSU/MSU, but I see no good way around that.
LikeLike
OK, second try:
Pod A:
Nebraska
Mizzou
Iowa
Minn
Wisconsin
Pod B:
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan
MSU
OSU
Pod C:
ND
IU
PU
PSU
Pitt
Pod D:
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
UNC Duke.
A+B vs. C+D
&
B+C vs. A+D
Everyone in the old Big10 gets to play OSU and Michigan. ND gets to play eastern/southern teams.
Only traditional Big10 matchups gone for good are IU/PU(/PSU) vs. Iowa/Minn/Wisconsin. I don’t think anybody would care that much.
LikeLike
I love Richard’s pods as they preserve the traditional rivalries.
LikeLike
Well, Patrick did say he was being conservative. Maybe ND locks up NYC, in which case the credit for NYC goes (largely) to ND instead of Rutgers. Maybe ND even allows the BTN to make inroads in to New England (without any New England school or SU!). If so, ND jumps to the front of the line in desirability again.
LikeLike
You are correct that the table is missing something. I obviously am not quite getting some piece of the puzzle but I really can’t figure out what that is. If ND is more valuable (and it probably is) then I have underestimated the impact of adding LIVE programing to the beast. But that also increases the value of Pitt and Nebraska. Maybe this is where I have an error. Also, maybe the BTN sees themselves as national like ESPN instead of regional like FOX Sports Midwest. They already have an impressive reach, adding Notre Dame increases that value…. so does Nebraska.
If the bbs post of $44 million per school is anywhere close to accurate I am WAY TOO LOW on the value of increased programing and the value of advertising. If that is the case, add Rutgers as a token effort to get NYC and NJ then take all the national brands you can get!
LikeLike
Yes, perhaps part of it is the focus on nat’l rating numbers vs. the local ratings for a school in markets the BTN is in or targets. So NE might be a better draw than ND nationwide, but ND surely rates better in NYC, the northeast, and the midwest east of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
Seems apparent down here that behind the scenes (off the record) UT has been throwing cold water on any B10+ talk for them, based on how local sports reporters have consistently reacted as this has unfolded. So basically they’re looking at a P16/Western Alliance, the SEC, or a B12 rebuild. I could easily see each happening, but am surprised at how the SEC option seems to have an equal shot. Also interesting that UT’s decision may basically be decided by aTm and OU.
Some argue that the SEC won’t expand because of their long-term TV contract. I don’t know if they have an escape clause like the B12 does (if the B12 starts a cable channel.) Regardless, ESPN has an incentive to reopen the SEC contract if that allows them to take TX, aTm, OU, and a 4th team. Why? Because if ESPN keeps that block of schools from going to the P10, it gets much harder for the P10 to pull off a BTN-esque channel that could be a competitive threat to ESPN’s and their ratings. For now ABC/ESPN is the national showcase for college football, but they are also the primary SEC network (CBS gets a marquee game each week, sometime two, but ESPN gets the bulk and not just table scraps.) A strong P16 with TX, aTm, OU, KS, maybe Utah or NE is solid competition for eyeballs and ads, while a weak P10/12 is far less so. Plus ESPN’s SEC inventory and potential reach would be more attractive when they have games featuring TX, OU, versus even the alternative of FSU, Mia, and VT.
TX seems to wants to join as a block of schools. Less travel, a more solid voting block that gives them better control of the future in conference matters, preventing OU and/or aTm from getting a recruiting advantage, scheduling advantages (keeping rivals in conf to maintain non-conf scheduling flexibility,) potentially easier state politics long-term, and perhaps even the factor that the UT president has for years now been pushing hard for the state to support and fund TTech and UHou attaining Tier One status and AAU membership. Membership in the surviving BCS conferences is a big revenue enhancer that aids that development and potentially reduces the chances funds UT might tap will be redirected towards TT and/or UH.
So would P10 take OU? Probably, the P10 already has non-AAU members and OU’s research numbers are similar to those of KS, above OR St’s, and well above OR’s. Their level in various rankings is similar. Would they also take TTech? The state is upping their funding with a goal of reaching Tier One by 2015 and more than any other state has the resources and economy to get it done. I could see the P10 insisting on leaving out TT and UT settling for bringing aTm, OU, KS, CO, and Utah (or NE instead if available.) I could also see UT insisting on a compromise where the P10 stays the P10 and UT brings a modified B12-X+Y=10 into an alliance. The 10-team eastern conference could then set their own standards, but have an alliance where each conf is classed as a division with the division winners playing a conf champ game. May not be as financially lucrative, but would be a compromise that overcomes the P10’s issues while allowing UT to bring TT and perhaps UH.
OTOH, I can picture UT insisting on bringing a minimum of aTm, OU, and TT. If they can renegotiate with ESPN, the SEC would probably take that block. Of course TX doesn’t have to go with aTm, but if both aTm and OU insisted on going to the SEC, then UT would probably follow (2 annual out of conference rivalries locks up too much of the schedule, plus it makes for a daunting slate when competing in the tougher, bulked up divisions 16-team conference would bring.) So can UT convince aTm and/or OU to join the academically superior P10, or will the Ags and thieves insist on heading for the SEC, luring the Horns? A west division of TT, OU, UT, aTm, LSU, AR, Ole MS, and MS St is tough but winnable. Good matchups and fairly compact, the MS schools are about as close to Austin as Stillwater, OK. For those saying UT would never sully itself in the academically inferior SEC, take another comparison of the SEC and B12. In both rankings and research they somewhat mirror each other from top to bottom. There are other issues in play, but they aren’t necessarily deal-breakers. It isn’t as if the P10 has been squeaky clean.
Then again, there’s no guarantee any conferences will follow the B16’s lead and expand beyond 12 schools. The P10 might grab CO, Utah, or NE, but the B12 could reload by adding BYU, pushing OU and OK St into the north, instituting an annual cross-conf game, and adding UH and SMU or TCU. The latter has been discussed off and on for a few years. As long as there is uneven revenue sharing you can make a case for how that works out for UT, which has the negotiating leverage of always being able to leave for a new P14/16 or SEC if the small schools vote themselves too big a share of the pie. Plus UT (and aTm) can bank some goodwill in the legislature for future use if they get one or more in-state schools into a BCS conference. UT operates in its own self-interest, but sometimes that benefits their brothers.
Right now the sense I get is that UT is looking towards the P14/16/20, but the more I look at it, the more the SEC option seems not only feasible but almost an equal shot. Still, I’d rather go to the Rose Bowl than the Sugar or Fiesta.
LikeLike
Ironic that Texas, which has always looked down on the SEC’s academic standards, may be forced to join that conference by its rivals.
In any case, the Pac10 is desperate for more TV money these days, so I don’t think they’ll object to Texas bringing its cousins. The bigger issue is that OU isn’t beholden to Texas, and could just decide to join the SEC with OSU by themselves. However, UT probably has enough pull in the Texas legislature to force TAMU to go along with them to the Pac16, even if OU & OSU bolt.
So in the end, I believe Texas (and the other Texas schools UT wants) will join some Western conference regardless of what OU does.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s any chance in hell that Texas will go to the SEC. And I don’t get why Texas would have any incentive to insist that OU gets to tag along.
LikeLike
Geographically the SEC makes perfect sense for the Texas schools. I’d rather be there than the Big 12 right now.
However, I do think moving to the Big 10 or Pac 10 could help the academics more for the schools, so that would be my preference.
LikeLike
I just don’t see Texas giving the SEC the time of day. They have been looking to improve the perception of their academics, thus the reason for contacting the Big 10 and Pac 10 after the SWC fell apart. Maybe Texas AM to the SEC without Texas.
LikeLike
back to a point on texas to the SEC..
I raised a point about IMG..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business)#IMG_College
they have the rights to Texas..
they also have UF, UK, and UT in the SEC..
the ONLY Big 10 team is Michigan..
and the only conference they seem to have locked down is the SEC, so they would have a vested interest in the SEC as Fox has a vested interest in the BTN..
LikeLike
Frank,
Let me ask you a question based on my Texas-centric world view (and meant to bring this discussion towards the affect of Big 10 expansion on the rest of the college universe).
Here is a link to the Longhorns’ future schedules:
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/fb-future-schedules.html
Texas is scheduled to play a conference game at Iowa State on October 24, 2015. What do you believe are the chances that that game will actually be played?
I’d say less than one-in-five.
LikeLike
“Effect,” not “affect.” Argh.
LikeLike
Affect works as well in that sentence — of course the sentence has a different, and not altogether uninteresting, meaning.
LikeLike
FTT:
TX and ND are givens, that said there is one intangible and one money factor you are leaving out that help Pitt out.
Intangible: Durability. Of the candidates, Pitt and Nebraska have been the most competitive over the years. Pitt has survived droughts of competitiveness. The same cannot be said for Rutgers or UConn (if they are in the mix). If those programs take a turn for the worse, will anyone in NYC want to watch? And Syracuse doesn’t look like it’s getting any better soon.
Money: Unlike any of the other teams, Pitt brings an instant national rivalry back with Penn St. OK, so IL and MO play, but when is the last time anyone cared about that game? Is it even televised nationally? Consider the $$ to be raked in if the B10 opens its season with Pitt-Penn State. That’s an instant big moneymaker game that no other candidate school can produce.
LikeLike
Does anyone outside of Pennsylvanianians care about PSU-Pitt? Didn’t JoePa kill the rivalry after joining the Big Ten? If it wasn’t worth protecting then…
I’ve seen UI-Mizzou on ESPN or ESPN2. At least two states are involved. From a national standpoint, I am not wowwed by any of the potential new rivalries like I was about PSU-OSU when PSU first entered.
LikeLike
Nebraska-Iowa should be good one. The fans on both sides have been wanting that game setup for some time now.
LikeLike
@flp_ndrox:
I dunno… I think the new OSU-ND rivalry should be a good one. 😉
(I kid, I kid)
Iowa-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Nebraska could be good. Actually I’m just kind of excited to see Nebraska in the Big Ten regardless. I think they’d bring a consistent national player in the west.
LikeLike
Agree that Pitt has had a long, solid, successful run over many coaching regimes in both football and basketball, and has the best likelihood of long term success vs other Big East schools.
Food for thought regarding Syracuse and UConn– Boeheim and Calhoun are legends. But will they turn into an Indiana post-Knight, or a St John’s post-Carnesecca? Where will that leave the Big 10 if either Syracuse or UConn gets invited, then tanks after Boeheim and Calhoun leave?
Regarding long-term viability, what would be the draw for a blue-chip recruit to the city of Syracuse in an outdated Carrier Dome for hoops, and an awful football program? Or, without Boeheim’s legend, wouldn’t a basketball recruit rather stay at St John’s and play in Madison Sq Garden?
LikeLike
A. You know nothing about the Big East, Syracuse and the Carrier Dome.
B. No one with any skill wants to play for St. John’s. They haven’t had a good program for years.
I love how some people on this board claim to know anything about Syracuse and the Carrier Dome when it’s evident that they’ve never been there. I don’t care if you don’t want SU to join the Big Ten, at least know what the heck you’re talking about before writing them off.
LikeLike
Patrick, I want to thank you for your efforts in this endeavor. I think the points you bring to the discussion are valid parts of the equation.
However, I’m not sure the data being used is correct.
“By the Big Ten’s own admission they are clearing about $0.36 per subscriber per month for the states inside it’s footprint.”
I believe this 36 cents per subscriber per month is the Big Ten’s 51% of the actual 70 cents per month per subscriber the BTN is getting for in-state subscribers which is probably why the terminology “Big Ten is clearing” instead of the BTN is receiving.
http://www.wiseye.org/wisEye_about/NEWS-Time-Warner-Termination.html
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2010/03/how_the_big_ten_network_makes.html
This would mean that the subscribers’ fees for 26 million would produce approximately $218.5 million.
So if we use your $272 million profit, this would mean ad revenue generated $53.5 million for a 20/80 split between ad revenue and subscribers fees. This is probably too low, just as I believe your 60/40 is way too high.
My understanding of this is that it is usually a 25-30 ad revenue / 75-70 affiliate (subscribers fees) ratio.
Also these figures don’t seem to take into account the 49-50 million subscribers outside the Big Ten region that are either receiving it on a digital tier at 10 cents a month or who are paying for it through a sports package.
Any ideas as to how we might be able to close the data gap?
LikeLike
@omnicarrier,
There are markets where the BTN gets $0.70 per suhatbscriber and markets where they get $0.10 per subscriber. Most of the $0.70 markets are in Big Ten home states & Big Ten Universities home cities. Unfortunately, I will never be able to get my hands on that data. Even guessing which cities are 70 cents and which are 10 cents is a difficult excercise. Also trying to determine if the new markets would add 10 cents per or 1.10 per (as the BTN has asked multiple times) is difficult because I don’t have that kind of access. That is why I used the average claimed by the Big Ten.
Say in NYC the 5,000,000 cable HH only want to pay $0.20 for BTN and in Nebraska you get 800,000 HH that will pay $1.10. It’s just impossible to predict individual market negotiations between the BTN and local cable outlets.
Advertising vs. Cable Carry rates is usually very close to 50/50.
For closing the data gap… I wish I knew how to fill in those holes. I can promise you that the BTN execs have filled in those gaps and have giant dollar signs for pupils.
LikeLike
“There are markets where the BTN gets $0.70 per subscriber and markets where they get $0.10 per subscriber.”
True. As the Big Ten’s business model clearly shows. They went hard and fast to get the channel on basic cable in the 60s/70s range and at a higher price – the initial asking price was $1.10 but they said right from the beginning that was negotiable. Which it proved to be that first year when none of the major cable companies were signing up. They had to come down in that price and since then the average “in-state” subscriber fee is at the $.70+ a month fee.
The out of state fee was supposed to be $.10 a month if it wound up on a digital HD tier alone. If it wound up as a sports package, that price would need to be negotiated.
“Most of the $0.70 markets are in Big Ten home states & Big Ten Universities home cities. Unfortunately, I will never be able to get my hands on that data. Even guessing which cities are 70 cents and which are 10 cents is a difficult excercise. Also trying to determine if the new markets would add 10 cents per or 1.10 per (as the BTN has asked multiple times) is difficult because I don’t have that kind of access. That is why I used the average claimed by the Big Ten.”
As the links I provided in my previous post show the Big Ten has been telling people for the past couple of years that they are getting .70 cents plus for in-state DMAs where the cable company has signed on and that they are now in excess of 85% penetration in those markets with all of the major cable companies on board and with national contracts with DirecTV and DISH.
The lone exception we know about is Comcast Philly, which got it at a reduced price because Comcast argued that Philly was a pro-sports/Big East city and that the DMA wasn’t truly Philly, but Camden and Wilmington as well and they weren’t going to be bothered separating out the PA residents from the NJ and DE residents. So they all get in on the digital tier for whatever “bargain” price Comcast negotiated.
“Say in NYC the 5,000,000 cable HH only want to pay $0.20 for BTN and in Nebraska you get 800,000 HH that will pay $1.10. It’s just impossible to predict individual market negotiations between the BTN and local cable outlets.”
We have 3 years of history to go on and the Big Ten has told us the average in-state price is .70 cents a month per subscriber. The Pennsylvania link I provided showed this as well as the Wisconsin link I provided.
“Advertising vs. Cable Carry rates is usually very close to 50/50.”
This is the statement I am questioning the most. As I understand it, the Cable companies overall annual take is indeed basically 50/50 with ad revenue of $24 Billion.
However, again, as I understand it, 60% of that ad revenue goes to the over the air networks, leaving the many cable networks divvying up 40%. So the true ratio is $10.5 Billion in ad revenue and $24 Billion in subscribers fees for the ratio falling between the figures I gave in my post.
With ad revenue taking a hit by 2013, the over the air networks want in now on the subscribers fees as we’ve seen with both Fox and ABC.
LikeLike
Post above edited, this paragraph should read:
This is the statement I am questioning the most. As I understand it, the Cable companies overall annual take is indeed basically 50/50 with ad revenue of $26 Billion and Carriage Rate fees $24 Billion.
LikeLike
Patrick and omnicarrier:
Thanks for this interesting discussion.
Patrick: can you provide more detail about your methodology and sources and assumptions that allowed you to derive your numbers; including a better sense of knowns and unknowns so hopefully you and omnicarrier and anyone else able to contribute can further clarify and correct, if appropriate, the numbers presented?
LikeLike
I think this is an excellent analysis of the TV side of things, but the academic/research aspect sticks in my craw as something the university presidents are going to look at very hard. Certainly television, especially the BTN, has the potential to benefit the universities beyond adding to the AD coffers, but research is a huge source of revenue as well. For many research grants, the university skims ~45% off the top for overhead, and that’s no chump change. Engineering and biomedical programs especially bring in tons of research dollars. So, adding the right mix of schools from the standpoint of benefiting the CIC is as important from a revenue standpoint as is TV money. Many of the biggest research grants are steered to the CIC by senators, and right now the CIC has 16 working on their behalf. Adding schools like Pitt and Notre Dame does nothing to increase the number of senators that can steer grants in the direction of CIC schools. Same with adding both A&M and UT, although that situation is more complex than simply looking at it in terms of senators/research dollars (as Patrick pointed out). Expanding to 16 schools could– with the right choices– expand the number of senators fighting for research dollars up to 26. That’s over a quarter of the U.S. senator pool and a damned powerful force. I’m positive each university prez knows this full well and I suspect finds it to be at least as important as TV dollars. Remember, these are university presidents making the decisions (with pressure from trustees, regents, politicians, etc., of course) so I suspect the academic side of things will play a bigger role than many suspect.
LikeLike
Hodgepodge:
Actually, I don’t think Senators get involved that much in research funding decisions. I mean, yes, there are pork-barrel earmarks, but most research proposals get decided by the scientists and bureaucrats at the NIH & DoD.
LikeLike
Yes, but the Congress sets the budget and it is easier to push for increases in research funding when you know your state has a good chance of landing the money. Of course this depends on the idea the CIC promotes a synergy that leads to more competitive research by its members than would otherwise be the case. I’ll note that one secular trend in science research funding is supporting multi-university and multi-discipline projects. It is more than plausible the type of cooperation and coordination available through CIC connections may have a material impact on funding success.
LikeLike
Yes, coordination between CIC members will become more important, but that means you would want to add schools to get strong research departments, not Senators (who really don’t have much impact on where most research money goes).
LikeLike
As a person who really likes to see the numbers and data while working through all of the possibilities that have been presented so well by Frank and posters, I have created a Google Maps map that I have been copying everyone else’s great information to so I have it all in one place. I take zero credit in the the information, but present it for those who like me need to keep referring to the underlying data.
To find it, go to Google maps, search for ‘Big Ten Network – Cable Providers, University and State Census Data’ and select ‘Show Search Options’ and choose ‘User-defined maps’, you should then see it listed. It still needs cable rates data wink wink Patrick! If anyone wants to be added as a collaborator let me know.
Frank, hope this isn’t a problem.
LikeLike
Interesting to look at.
LikeLike
Sweet. Thanks Shawn.
LikeLike
Patrick: If Texas started a Longhorn Network within Texas along the same formula as the BTN, any notion as to what they might make (in comparison to joining the Big Ten)? I’d imagine they might consider doing it without Fox, given what the Big Ten has shown they could make.
LikeLike
Well they would have to share the money somewhere, so I really don’t know. Ideally you would want to increase the footprint and get big schools with a strong fan base. I really could see them doing this with the Pac 10 and the remaining viable members from the Big 12.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Since Frank allowed us to “think like a fan” for a minute, I’m going to speak as a Penn State fan.
From a football standpoint, I’m very interested in Nebraska and Notre Dame. I’m not very interested in Rutgers (one top 25 finish in the past 30 years), Pitt (4 top 25 finishes in the last decade DESPITE playing in the Big Weak), Missouri (3 top 25 finishes in this decade), or Syracuse (1 top 25 finish this decade). I know they all have solid names nationally, but I don’t want 2 of them in the Big 10, let alone 3 or 4 (if Nebraska isn’t included).
I realized today…this expansion stuff is a ton of fun to speculate about…but when it actually comes down, will it still be fun? Yearly games with Syracuse and Rutgers (PSU’s likely regional rivals with expansion)? Pitt too? Yuck.
LikeLike
Basketball would be fun. Well, maybe not if you’re a PSU fan, but you’d get to see (more) future NBA stars pass through.
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind:
As an Ohio State fan, I agree that the gems in the names mentioned are Nebraska and ND (I just don’t see Texas as a possibility) for football. Syracuse and Rutgers do nothing for me. Neither does Missouri, UConn, or BC. Pitt is kind of so-so.
One thing to keep in mind is that Pitt’s been kind of between a rock and a hard place in the last couple decades. Particularly this decade, given how many top recruits from Pennsylvania have gone to either PSU or OSU. It’s a tough recruiting sell for Pitt to say, “Hey come play in the Big East!” when you have two neighbors saying, “Hey come play in the Big Ten!” Would that change if they joined the Big Ten? Largely, probably not. But I could certainly see them grabbing some recruits here and there from OSU/PSU, not unlike how Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU, etc. occasionally do now.
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind:
(Accidentally hit Submit.)
Additionally, for basketball I would say those other names do bring some excitement. Pitt, ND, Syracuse, UConn? Good matchups.
LikeLike
You don’t want to have 7 of the top 15 programs playing in one conference.
Nebraska or ND gives you five of the top 10 college football programs of all time with UM, OSU and PSU.
If you add any more than that, its overkill. You’re going to get a lot of coaches fired at UM, OSU, PSU, Nebraska if they are losing 3-4 games most season which would be the case if you add any more top programs to the conference.
LikeLike
Well, they won’t play each other, since no school can play more than 9 of their 15 opponents in a 16-team conference. In any case, unless Texas changes their mind, no other top 10 or even top 15 school is a possibility.
LikeLike
syracuse fan here. have been trying to read up on all this stuff and figure out where the orange are going.
you do realize that SU is #15 in all-time wins in football right? yes, we have sucked the past decade (don’t remind me) but HCDM looks to have things turned around and running the right way (unlike at UM where they took our old coach. hahaha) we do have a national championship, a heisman winner and oh yah, jim brown.
trust me, pretty sure none of us want to join the B10+. just take ND and be done with it.
LikeLike
Who knows what scheduling COULD look like, but if we had a homerun conference–let’s say the Texas schools, Nebraska, ND, plus the current “big 3”–it’s unlikely that those 7 schools would see more than 4 of the others each season.
You also have to consider that the Big 10 (16?) would get the same benefit of the doubt that the SEC currently gets. In the same way that 10-2 SEC schools are far more respected than 10-2 schools from any other conference…a 9-3 team from the Big 10 (16?) would be probably be a top 10 team in the nation…and a 10-2 school definitely would be. Adding home run schools MIGHT get some coaches fired due to the competition level but it would DEFINITELY change the perception of the strength of the Big 10.
LikeLike
As a PSU fan, I would love an expansion that included Pitt. I loathed them during the Majors-Sherill era, but those games at 3 Rivers were great theater. A trip to Heinz Field every other year would be terrific. Rutgers is a speculative add. Even with some recent success, RU is till, as Paterno has been saying for 30 years now, a “sleeping giant.” Also love the idea of adding Nebraska, which would create several marquee matchups in football.
Here’s how I would rate the candidates (I’m only considering AAU members, so no ND here. As I’ve stated I don’t think they’re a good institutional fit):
1) Nebraska (the fourth most valuable college football brand can’t be overlooked. If Texas isn’t coming, and I don’t think they are, this is the marquee add)
I would actually stop with one, but if 14 are needed, then these:
2) Pitt (supersolid in the two major revenue-producing sports and the only partner for PSU that would create an instant major rivalry)
3) Kansas (one of the top four basketball programs of all time, would immediately require Big 10 teams to ramp up their games)
If 16-team superconferences are the future, then:
4) Rutgers
5) Missouri
LikeLike
@MikeR – I´m on board with you here. Obviously if the Texas schools want in, that changes things. The same can also be said about the ACC powerhouses. Barring either of those scenarios though, I would love the 5 team combination of NU, KU, MU, RU and Pitt.
I know the prevailing winds kind of point to a more eastern-oriented expansion, but too many of those schools are fatally flawed in one way or the other. Even Pitt and Rutgers have their downsides, but they are smaller than those of the other Big East names being bounced around.
Also, I don´t think we should overlook the revenue and excitement that come from rivalries. When we´re talking about the three Big 12 North schools, you have a handful of already existing rivalries between themselves and other Big 10 schools. Of the Eastern candidates, I would imagine only Pitt-PSU would come close to the rivalries that the Big 12 North carries. I don´t know what this means as far as added revenue for the conference (maybe Patrick could chime in here) but it has to tilt the scale in their favor.
LikeLike
BTW, this was posted by Mike in the other thread:
http://www.techsideline.com/message_board/football/2010/April/17/3523596.php?PHPSESSID=db04e7ee1378a6804c569389f3eab72b
“Went to a cocktail party with a friend yesterday when I was in Chicago.
Met a guy who is a producer for the Big 10 Network. He says the
prevailing plan is to go to 16 teams with the addition of ND, Missouri,
Nebraska, Rutgers, and Pitt. The revenue is projected to be $44 mil per
school. ND is unofficially “negotiating” with the conference, but it is
clear that they will make more as part of this than their own TV deal.
Pitt is not a lock, because it doesn’t really add any new media markets,
but this guy did say there were no plans to approach any ACC
schools.”
LikeLike
Seems like Nebraska, Mizzou, and Rutgers are locks. I’d personally stop there for now and wait to see if Texas would be interested at that point. If that still isn’t enough, some combination of SU/KU/maybe-one-of-Pitt/UConn may still be more appealing to me than ND + someone.
LikeLike
Don’t understand why you think Neb. is a lock when it wasn’t one of the 5 schools intently studied by the Big 10, and has not been featured in stories by sports reporters with Big 10 connections….
I’m not disagreeing that Neb. should be a lock, just that it is…..
LikeLike
That report just studied the 5 most “obvious” candidates. If they expanded the net just a bit further, Nebraska would show up as a screaming thumbs-up. Remember that the Big10 isn’t going to leak all the studies they made, so I wouldn’t rely on how much “buzz” there is on certain names.
LikeLike
The report sounds like it was focusing on how many schools to add, not on which specific schools to add. They picked five schools that may or may not be interested, but, nevertheless, kind of ran the gamut from western to eastern expansion.
Once they decide on a number, then I´m sure they go through the same process that we´re going through on here – and that leads to a few differences from that list that was leaked.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
Do you have a link to that?
I have not seen anything like that. I did see Bielima send a message a few weeks ago that he was working on scheduling Nebraska and Notre Dame for upcoming seasons. If the Big Ten was ignoring Nebraska if favor of UConn or Syracuse they would be doing themselves a big disservice.
LikeLike
Patrick,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-01/sports/ct-spt-0302-big-ten-foot–20100301_1_expand-commissioner-jim-delany-penn-state
“A source inside the league told the Tribune that the report, prepared by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company, analyzed whether five different schools would add enough revenue to justify expanding the league beyond 11 teams.
“The point was: We can all get richer if we bring in the right team or teams,” the source said.
The five analyzed were Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. The source, though, called those five “the obvious suspects” and cautioned that other universities could earn consideration.
It’s also widely assumed that Notre Dame, which came within a whisker of joining the league in 2003, is not ready to give up its football independence, with Irish athletic director Jack Swarbrick saying in December: “Our strong preference is to remain the way we are.””
LikeLike
I replied in the other thread, but basically I could easily see those numbers being accurate. For my calculations I used the the 19.545 million per school and was very conservative (and conservative using 2 year old data). If those types of numbers are accurate, and it wouldn’t really suprise me, then that is exactly why the Big Ten will expand, will go to 16, and it will happen soon. At those types of rates the BTN and FOX are losing around $700,000,000 for each year they delay expansion.
Like I had suggested, the BTN and FOX have opened up a gold mine, and they will ramp up to maximum production ASAP.
LikeLike
I’m usually the first to cast doubts on posts like this, but this sound legitimate for the simple fact it falls into line with Patrick and Frank’s analysis and was posted on Saturday. Patrick stated that he was conservative in his numbers. It could be that the BTN was not and are actually projecting this high of per school revenue. The benefit to all the schools involved would be incredible.
LikeLike
Well, the $44M could be what all schools will get, or it could be what the new schools would bring in on average, depending on how that’s read. Still makes expansion worthwhile, in any case.
LikeLike
Only conjecture I can think of for why Maryland isn’t considered is that the Big10 does care a bit about the pissing-off-other-conferences thing. They don’t care too much about hurting the Big East’s or Big12’s feelings, because those conferences may not be around much longer, and multiple schools in those conferences are looking to leave anyway, but the ACC will be around, and the Big10 may want those schools as allies.
LikeLike
Then, do the ACC a favor and take BC!
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
richard,
if arkstfan is correct. I am not sold that that the ACC as we know it will survive in a BIG 3 world!
if this forces the PAC 16 and SEC 16.. i think maryland is a Big 16 possibility (in place of ND)
and many of the big state schools in the ACC wind up in the SEC 16.
LikeLike
It still may make sense not to antagonize the ACC schools. Then if the SEC raids the ACC, the Big16 could expand to the Big20 by taking the 4 AAU schools in the ACC.
LikeLike
richard..
expanding past 12 antagonizes all parties (Big 12, ACC, and BE) wether it is intended or not. It means a new “playing field” is being created. Creation means change. People fear what they can not control, and change fuels fear.
You can take from this what you will, but when there is uncertainty people get rich for a reason. Be it poker, finance, or basketball tickets (one reason I am happy that duke fans do not travel – means heavily “discounted” tickets) as their is an economic reward.
There is a reason serious poker players are at the table year after year.
LikeLike
Rutgers brings nothing to the Big Ten. Just because they’re in the NYC market doesn’t mean they actually have a lot of people watching them there — Pitt’s national TV ratings were far higher than RU’s these past few years. Sorry, but one big game back in 2006 is not going to get the Scarlet Knights a bid they don’t deserve.
LikeLike
You also need BTN subscribers, and Rutgers raises the BTN subscription rate in Jersey.
LikeLike
Yes those ratings for Pitt games losing to Rutgers 4 out of the last 5 years were were probably pretty good. Do you actually know what those ratings were for Pitt the last 4-5 years?
LikeLike
I noticed you only talked about 36 cents/subscriber IN the BTN footprint. I am willing to bet there is a significant and large subscriber base outside of the Big Ten states. I, for one, am one of many many OSU transplants that now resides in California. I pay $5/month which I’m willing to bet a minimum of $1 goes to the BTN a month. I believe you are vastly undercalling the subscriber revenue from this population. There are tons of midwest transplants in all regions of the country (outside the BTN footprint) in which the BTN is getting $1/month from.
Remember my subscriber revenue is equal to 3 people inside the BTN footprint. As someone mentioned above…there might be 9 million of us non-footprint people if there are 35 million subscribers and only 26 million in the footprint. Meaning the footprint accounts for half the subscriber revenue with us non-footprint people accounting for the other half. So the BTN needs to be careful of not including cannibalizing these non-footprint subscribers. I’m sure there is a large portion already in NYC.
These people would severely alter your ad revenue numbers.
LikeLike
UPDATE, sort of:
Big Ten’s last commish Wayne Duke:
Duke said he was aware of several schools, including Pittsburgh and Nebraska, that were under recommendation to join the Big Ten as far back as 1946. And the addition of Penn State to the conference in 1990 first was pondered in 1981 under his watch.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-0420-around-town–20100419,0,2494876.column
So now it is a financial positive to bring on the desired schools. I think Nebraska, Pitt, Missouri, Rutgers and one of these (ND / Syracuse / Maryland / Kansas).
I’m not sure ND wants to go and I’m not sure that the Big 10 wants them…. maybe it is all posturing. I think Maryland is a good fit but if you are wrecking up the Big 12 why not take Kansas also and retain the rivalries. I’m not sure about Syracuse but maybe they help deliver NYC or maybe Penn State really wants them… but there is a lot of noise around them for a team/school that doesn’t seem to fit as well as the others.
LikeLike
Well, it’s not quite a financial positive for Pitt (or, even if it is, there are schools out there who will bring in more revenue than them), so they’re borderline. I’ve got to think Nebraska, Mizzou, and Rutgers are in, though.
LikeLike
Were I a betting man, I’d place a large sum on Pitt getting in. If 16 is anywhere close to being the financial windfall being suggested, Pitt is too good an academic fit to pass up. Heck, their research expenditures are higher than Cal’s (would be 6th in any B16, 4th in the P10, 2nd in the ACC, and first in every other conference.) Even if they are a bit of a loss leader, their academic heft helps balance out the ‘compromises’ of taking a Syr or ND.
Not a guarantee, some of the B10+ source comments about each needing to financially contribute to the conference seem directed as cover if they are excluded. But as the Presidents gather around the table and weigh various arrangements, I think Pitt emerges as a consensus pick.
LikeLike
Based only on rival and scout forum comments, the average Neb fan is very ready to go to the Big 10, esp. if Missouri also comes. They don’t like Texas’ domination of the league, and think the league is going to fall apart. They would also have a rivalry with Iowa, and could get back to playing Ok. every year.
LikeLike
I have been advocating for a 16 team model for some time now based on what Kevin White calls compression state economics. Consolidating resources has lead to larger profits in just about every industry. One part of the equation that I think many are leaving out is that TV revenue, while important, is just one part of the revenue formula. I believe the revenue generated by increasing the number of partners in the CIC, who pool their resources, would increase big time if the right 5 teams were brought in. Under this model, Texas is ideal, where as ND is a non player. For a sixteen team Big 10 model featuring Texas that considers the additional revenue that would be generated by expansion, check my article at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/02/18/2018-big-16-championship-ohio-state-28-texas-24/.
LikeLike
Nice article, in line with what Frank´s been saying on here.
And, I agree, taking the 5 Big 12 schools (UT, AM, KU, MU, and NU) is the ideal scenario. At this point though, the Texas schools are starting to sound like long shots (although I don´t understand why) and there may be some interest in adding at least a couple Eastern schools.
As for your divisions, you point out that the time zones naturally divide the two sides of the conference. That´s a kind of neat outcome and I´d think you´d name the divisions accordingly: the Central and Eastern divisions.
LikeLike
If Nebraska goes to Big 10, then the Big 12’s lower class has the votes to change from unequal to equal revenue sharing….would Texas and A&M be willing to take a pay cut instead of jumping ship to the Big 10 for a giant pay raise??
That is my big issue with the idea that the Big 10 will take a Big 12 school that is not located in the state of TX…it doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Unless Texas has already decided to either
1. start its own cable channel
2. cast it’s lot with the Pac10 (probably negotiating unequal revenue distribution and other goodies, so even if the new Pac/Western cable network doesn’t pull in as much as the BTN, Texas would still be in the competitive range).
LikeLike
Greenstein interview on a Syracuse affiliate…
http://www.cnycentral.com/sports/video.aspx?id=445814
LikeLike
Very interesting.
Says 5 team expansion more likely than 3; looking West, mentioned Missouri and Nebraska; and looking East (mentioned RU, SU, UConn and Pitt), where UConn with RU and SU could put “strangleghold” on NY metro region.
He believes RU has best potential, and “more and more” thinks SU is invited in a 5 school expansion.
He covered the Northwestern vs Syracuse game last year (SU won) and said “obviously (SU) football facilities are very good”. (Obviously he hasn’t spoken to “Mushroom”.
LikeLike
If those numbers are even close to right the Big Ten should take Nebraska, KU, Mizzou, Pitt, and RU. You could sub in MD for KU but I don’t think they would join. Syracuse is small and private, lacking research money. ND could be a pain in the butt to deal with as they are used to calling the shots. Plus they aren’t big into research. BC is too far away and private. UConn too far away and not AAU.
You can easily split the league into pods
Michigan
Ohio St
Purdue
Indiana
Penn St
Mich St
Pitt
RU
Nebraska
Illinois
Mizzou
KU
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minn
NW
LikeLike
OK, maybe separating Northwestern and Illinois isn’t a dealbreaker, but separating MSU & PSU would be.
LikeLike
MSU & Michigan, not PSU, sorry.
LikeLike
What? Are you saying they wouldn’t play for the Land Grant Trophy every year? Unacceptable!
Seriously, you’re right. MSU would have to be in with Michigan. MSU already gets the short end of the stick a lot in football–they couldn’t break them up from Michigan.
I think you’d have to put Nebraska in with Iowa. One of the big attractions for Nebraska to join would be an annual rivalry game with Iowa. They’d certainly give up annual Mizzou games for annual Iowa and Wisconsin games. That way you don’t have to split up NW and Illini either.
LikeLike
it does bring up a point.. to balance power in a 4 pod system (with Nebraska, Missouri, Maryland, Rutger, and Uconn to the BIG 16. You would assume the haves of BIG 16 football would be PSU,tOSU,UM, and NU. in a 4 pod system each would have to be in a pod to preserve balance..
so..
POD #1 = PSU + 3 teams
POD #2 = tOSU + 3 teams
POD #3 = UM + 3 teams
POD #4 = NU + 3 teams
because based on past football success, putting any 2 of the 4 in the same pod creates means imbalance. Another reason ND might not want to be in the Big 16, as if they were in a POD with UM & tOSU there would be 66.66% chance of failure EVERY year assuming the three teams are about equal every year (ie all 3 have a shot at a conference championship or a NC).
LikeLike
@KingOtto –
With ND on board, the BTN could very well change it’s model. But up to this point, it has been an in-state and out-of-state pricing guide.
I don’t see either Cablevision or Time Warner just handing NYC over to the Big Ten for the in-state $.70 rate without both Rutgers and Syracuse.
Take Rutgers without Syracuse and they will likely argue that Rutgers is not in the state of New York. Take Syracuse without Rutgers and they will likely argue for the Comcast Philly exemption because the NYC DMA includes basically all of northern New Jersey.
And even with both RU and SU there are no guarantees when it comes to NYC. Look at the problems YES had getting on and that was the Yankees!
If the Big Ten wants to play it safe they focus on the midwestern teams. If they want NYC, they will need to gamble on ND, RU, and SU and hold their noses.
LikeLike
I say the expansion has to be done in 2 phases. Start with Nebraska and Rutgers (or) Syracuse. This gets ND off their arse or if not then nothing will. Then go from there based on ND’s ultimatum decision.
LikeLike
I think you forget ND at this point.
But you could still do some damage with the 2 phase expansion. What happens if you start with Nebraska and Missouri? Or those two plus Kansas? In that scenario, you are obviously stalking the two Texas schools. Is it only politics holding Texas back or do they, for whatever reason, not want to join the Big 10?
If you add those first two or three schools and then strike out on the Texas two, you look East and try to wrap up NY-Boston-DC.
There are some question though with two part expansion. First, is there time? Would a two part expansion at this point mean the second part trails a year later? And is that possible with all the TV deal complications? Or is it even necessary? (once the writing´s on the wall, will the Texas schools step up to the plate?)
LikeLike
I think a multi-phase expansion could be a possibility, particularly if the Big Ten wants to land UT and/or A&M. You invite Nebraska and a Big East school now, then see if that lets UT make their getaway from their Texas brethren. But it will only work if everyone promises not to call it the “Texas Two-Step,” because that would be lame.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking the most likely scenario is Missouri, Nebraska and Rutgers. That leaves things open for UT and TAM to join if Colorado jumps to the Pac 10 and the BXII collapses. Or it would leave things open for Texas and Notre Dame in a final expansion if the Big XII collapses and Notre Dame no longer sees independence as viable.
Finally, if none of these things come to pass and Texas and Notre Dame stay put, well, Mizzou, Rutgers and Nebraska are good additions on their own and they could stand pat. Or add Syracuse and UConn to seal up NYC.
LikeLike
@ Pennstgrad
Taking one Big East team is nowhere near enough of a threat to get ND to move. The Big East merely reloads with say Memphis, and rolls on. The only way to force ND’s hand is to kill the Big East.
No, with Patrick’s numbers, I no longer think ND will have to be forced. I think the ND beancounters will have a pretty dang good idea of the financial upgrade, and will get the info on the damage to contributions.
Reading the Tea leaves in Domerland, either the financials come out in the Big Ten’s favor, or TPTB have already decided that CIC membership is in the long-term best interest of the USNWR rankings chase. Or more likely both. The more I hear on NDNation, the more I think the NYC leaks were a trial balloon that went much worse than expected. Knowing how ND handles dissent, I doubt there’ll be debate.
I think the Big Ten takes ND for ad purposes, the ability to jack carrier rates outside the footprint, the pressure of Fox to stick it to NBC/Comcast, and to assist Nationalizing the brand, esp. since I too don’t think that Texas is that interested. If they think they can split the network money in much fewer ways and potentially at their advantage in the former BXII or the Pac-1x, they’d probably prefer to go that way.
LikeLike
I hope you are right. I understand a lot of ND fans despise the thought of conference membership, but if four conferences are going to break away at the end of the day, ND would be foolish to pass on the Big 10 and end up in the ACC, and hope to close the financial gap with the Big 10 (and as strong a brand as ND is, the ACC is so far behind in $$, that there will still be a gap).
They would still be regionalized in a much less lucrative conference, and they’d lose a lot of schools which they’ve had rivalries with over the years — UM, MSU, PSU, etc.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100419/BIGRED/704199797
Jim Tressel was in Lincoln today speaking at the Nebraska’s Sports Celebration Banquet. The following is the section that pertains to expansion:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Expansion in the Big Ten is inevitable, according to Tressel.
He doesn’t want to appear that he has any inside knowledge on the topic, but he doesn’t seem to see a scenario in which his conference doesn’t add another team soon.
“I’m not much different than the people on the talk shows or anything else,” he said. “I just think it might happen.”
And what about Nebraska? Could the Huskers be a possible candidate to join?
Some reports suggest that the Big Ten is considering the addition of as many as five schools.
All Tressel could say is this: “Nebraska’s very highly thought of.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not really giving any new information, but still interesting.
LikeLike
Wow… I know that the coaches aren’t the ones with the best information, but that’s actually pretty informative coming from “The Senator”. Tressel’s not one to say anything without a reason, and for him to give that answer (and not something like, “Well, we coaches aren’t really involved in the process,”) when directly asked about Nebraska’s candidacy is about as clear an indication as I’ve seen that Nebraska is actually being seriously considered by the Big 10. Remember, they weren’t on the initial list of 5 that we saw, and I don’t remember hearing much about them from the actual decision makers. With all the rumors swirling, I may have missed something, of course.
It’s just another indication that Nebraska is being considered, which I’m very glad to see.
LikeLike
Goes along with Bret Beilima’s statement a few weeks ago that he is trying to schedule ND and Nebraska for upcoming seasons.
LikeLike
Bo Pelini is in Columbus today speaking at an Ohio State function, FWIW.
LikeLike
@Mike:
Pelini played for OSU and is from Youngstown, Ohio, so that’s not a shock. OSU fans have often speculated that the AD would go after Pelini hard should Tressel retire anytime soon.
@Brice:
Tressel is called The Senator for a reason. I’m sure he *does* think highly of Nebraska, as do I, but even if someone asked him about DeVry he’d probably say the same thing.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
Mizzou goes nowhere without kansas. Fans hate each other, reams don’t like each other, universities do everything in tandom.
LikeLike
@Nick – No school has openly begged to get into the Big Ten more than Mizzou and even Missouri’s governor talked about the academic upgrade. The people that matter (Mizzou’s administration) will not care what Kansas does.
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 will avoid Kansas for political reasons.
An understated advantage to schools such as Connecticut, Missouri and Nebraska is these are the only flagship schools of their respective states. Kansas bolting would result in some type of backlash from the legislature if K-State was going to be left out.
Its also imperative that if the Big 10 goes to 16 it avoids an 8-3 vote. Unanamity is critical to integrate these schools into the conference, but also if three schools are dead set against expansion, then you run the risk of a school like Iowa State making a power play by forcing Iowa to take them as part of expansion.
LikeLike
justin,
i agree.. it is why i put kansas in the new PAC 16 instead of the new BIG 16.
LikeLike
@Nick: Mizzou and Kansas can be split as long as an out of conference football and basketball series can be maintained. Both are the main money generators for Mizzou’s men’s sports. The game at Arrowhead is very lucrative and when KU travels to Columbia, it’s their only guaranteed basketball sell out.
@Frank: Agreed.
@Justin: I disagree. Kansas’ State government is pretty cheap. More and more, they are asking the Universities to subsidize themselves via research dollars and to pay for facility upgrades out of pocket. Any meal ticket from the Big 10 would raise a stink in Manhattan, but the research and athletic dollars would make it well received in Topeka.
As a former Kansas resident, I really see this as a non-issue– especially if the Sunflower Showdown is kept intact.
LikeLike
I saw this on a TexAgs forum that linked to this blog and got a huge chuckle on a number of levels (starting with the fact that the poster’s name is Jeff George):
Welcome back my friends
To the thread that never ends
We’re so glad you could arrive
Step inside, step inside
Let’s catch you up to date
On that con-fer-ence’s fate
Are they going to expand
‘Cross the land, ‘cross the land
First of all you’ll note
Big Ten schools would never vote
For a Tier-3 school like Tech
What a wreck, what a wreck
It’s because the Big Ten schools
Are no academic fools
Members of the CIC
Don’t you see, don’t you see
Next of all you’ll find
Pockets certainly aren’t lined
By adding schools out in the sticks
Sorry, hicks… sorry, hicks
They want a lot of Joes
Watching Big Ten Network shows
Advertising revenue
What a coup, what a coup
Now you’re up to date
So you can wildly speculate
On who will move to the Big Ten
Er… eleven, eleven
Come and see the show!
http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1613563&forum_id=5
LikeLike
Now, THIS IS AWESOME!
LikeLike
Re calculations and markets
First Patrick: thanks for putting in the time to come up with these estimates; as a professional this had to be an interesting challenge.
The good news is the Big 10 will not be playing a guessing game with respect to the numbers and will without doubt have a nuanced perspective of how the numbers are best understood (present tense and future); will be evaluating the numbers based on a strategy; and will be evaluating the numbers and strategy based on affinity or values; who the schools want as long term partners based on their understanding of who may or may not want to be partners with the Big 10 (including Texas and ND).
Perhaps the most interesting part of reading these posts is the diversity of opinion and some of the confident predictions. (Come to think of it I’ve made my own guesses).
Questions and thoughts:
What are RU’s numbers without NYC households?
Doubt Texas is joining at this point but still not sure what “estimated added revenue” Texas brings when Texas A&M is added as a package? Texas almost certainly can’t be analysed as a single add.
With respect to “total added revenue estimates”, my first reaction is how relatively close the numbers are for Nebraska, down to Syracuse: $54.5 million to $43.5 million.
Note the Syracuse estimate above totally excludes any impact on NYC. UConn at $38 and Pitt at $34.4 million follow.
The RU estimate includes NYC at $68 million, without a lower estimate for RU without NYC. The Syracuse estimate on the other hand with NYC balloons to $66 million. My guess is alone neither school “delivers” the NYC market but each or better both might be instrumental in helping to deliver that market along with other teams in the Big 10.
Strategy:
Is the goal to maximize an existing relatively small yet devoted fanbase or target a potentially much larger, affluent market with a less single minded fanbase? More specifically, Nebraska has to be evaluated as a school with national interest for its outsiding football. Yet even Nebraska is only rated as adding 11 million dollars more than Syracuse presumably absent any impact on a potential NYC market.
Excluding BC and Maryland as seemingly unlikely adds for the moment, Kansas and Missouri, 2 midwestern schools are ranked less than $3 million above Syracuse presumably absent any impact on a potential NYC market.
More to the point this estimate (and the TV viewership chart) of Syracuse is based on at least 7-8 years of its nadir as a football team: in the last few years modern field turf has been put into the carrier dome, significantly more money have been allocated for coaches, new practice facilities and equally important hiring a new coach Doug Marrone, now beginning his second year, who is rapidly turning the program around.
The same could be said for RU, historically a doormat, now at the beginning of showing results based on relatively recent administrative support to be competitive.
Additionally it is unclear to what extant if any the “estimates” reflect the contribution a major basketball program like Syracuse might provide in bringing the Big 10 banner into the NY metro market as well as promoting interest in Big 10 basketball across the network.
To get to the point: SU and RU in combination with PSU and other Big 10 teams would likely turn the Big 10 into the conference of the northeast as well as the midwest.
Pitt is further from NYC than PSU. BC as an isolated team in New England is a nonfactor.
As the 2 major schools in NY and NJ, it is not simply a question of miles to the NYC metro region but where the schools draw their students and where their graduates live and work.
From a strategy perspective, whyich is more valuable: a “safe” school like Missouri or Kansas whose fans will certainly follow their teams or a very large, affluent, contiguous and largely untapped market that will not simply be increasingly likely to follow the local teams but increasingly be likely to follow prominant Big 10 teams such as OSU, Michigan, PSU as they compete for the conference title.
Ultimately the Big 10 Presidents will decide based on who do they want as partners and where does the long term stategy of the conference lie: east or midwest or both?
My belief is the Big 10 if they can not get Texas will consider an eastern stratey that initially targets ND, RU, SU as well as Nebraska.
Should be interesting.
Strategy:
LikeLike
Another issue is that in research, SU is weaker than MU or KU.
If the TV money’s about the same, in order of preference, the Big10 presidents would rather add
RU
MU
KU
SU
LikeLike
richard,
SU is also a PRIVATE school..
LikeLike
So’s Northwestern. I don’t think the Big10 presidents are as hung up on private vs. public as you are.
LikeLike
Richard,
Northwestern was in early on (like Vandy in the SEC). If it is about research, my guess is BIG PUBLIC STATE schools will have more political clout in the state houses. Vandy is a great school, but I am guessing U Tenn has the most sway in Tennessee politics.
It is a numbers game. UNC and NC State are passing a significant number of bodies through their academic and athletic “turnstiles” than Duke or Wake Forrest. In volume this translates to larger voting blocks which politicians need to get elected.
Presidents of STATE schools are directed by board members who are appointed by politicians who are elected by masses of their citizens. Presidents of PRIVATE schools have a different food chain. I am not saying PUBLIC vs PRIVATE is the only reason, I am saying it will affect a part of the decision. As such it should be factored in as much as tv revenue, football status, or any other factors used in consideration. It is why I advocated Flagship or sole state schools (like Maryland) have greater value.
LikeLike
A bit of a disclaimer: This turned out to be a hell of a lot longer than I had anticipated. And I’ve been reading this blog since the expansion was announced but haven’t posted. Sorry if I am reiterating other posts.
Of the expansion candidates, I think the only real “home runs” are Texas and Nebraska. They are a proven commodity that can sell pretty much anywhere. ND has an aging fanbase and too much of a “diva” attitude to be a true home run.
I don’t think that Rutgers and Syracuse together would be able to pull in that kind of coin from NYC but let’s assume that they can and be worthwhile (without ND). I also don’t see BC or UConn adding much in New England to be worthwile.
Maryland would be a great add due to it’s academic/research profile, proximity to current footprint, and the potential DC/Baltimore markets (assuming they have enough pull in that market). It’s all a matter of being able to lure a founding member away from the ACC.
I know this may be beating a dead horse considering how many times it’s been discussed, but I think the only way an expansion to 16 teams will work would be breaking the conference apart into pods/quadrants (quads). Concerning these quads, I also think you’d have to expand to a 9 game regular season where you play one entire quad (essentially creating a division) and one team from each of the other 2 quads. Then, each team would play every team in the conference 6 times over a 12 year period (or 12 all 12 years for the teams within their respective quads). This way, no matter which quad they’re in, the “traditional” Big Ten schools will still play Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State in 10 of the 12 years in the cycle (and play all three in 4 of the 12 years).
Also, to keep the existing members happy, you’d almost have to put the “unbreakable” rivalries in the same quads, regardless of who’s added. One quad will almost have to consist of tOSU, PSU, UM, and MSU and another would almost have to include of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and a fourth team.
Honestly, with all the teams/options that are out there, it’s just an all around win for the Big Ten. But some scenarios are obviously bigger “wins” than others. I obviously think the Texas schools with ND, Nebraska, and Maryland/Syracuse/Rutgers would be the ultimate win. I however do not see it happening. I see the Texas schools heading west and ND declining for the last time (which I honestly hope happens).
The following would be my ideal scenario by adding schools that not only fit academically and culturally, but also expand the footprint and add value based on Patrick’s chart (assuming Syracuse and Rutgers can carry even that portion of NYC). Also, the rivalries would maintain in tact and the quads would be organized geographically:
East:
Syracuse
Rutgers
Pitt
Maryland
North:
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Central:
Purdue
Indiana
Northwestern
Illinois
West:
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
This is assuming Syracuse and Rutgers can pull in the numbers from Patrick’s chart. This conference make-up might become unbalanced whenever E/C and N/W are paired up, but it’s still doable.
The only other thing I can think of would be instead of creating quad-divisions (playing an entire other quad to create a division), you’d play your quad and then 2 teams from each of the other quads to create more balance. Then the top two teams would play for the title (assuming there will still be a title game). Then you’d still play each team in the conference 6 of the 12 years in the cycle.
I guess no matter what happens, it’s still going to be a bit of a nightmare for Delany and Co. to have to figure out. I’m sure he’s already ripping out what hair he has left. 🙂
LikeLike
CB..
if i go with you 16, maybe it looks like this as your NORTH has too many big teams..
E: syracuse, rutgers, pitt, and PSU
N: maryland, indiana, purdue, and tOSU
C: northwestern, illinois, mich state, and UM
W: wisconsion, minnesota, iowa, and NU
with my 5 i was thinking
E uconn, rutgers, maryland, PSU
N missouri, indiana, purdue, tOSU
C northwestern, illinois, mich state, UM
W: wisconsion, minnesota, iowa, NU
not perfect but a start.. but could be some interesting long term TV rivals in MD vs PSU, UM vs tOSU, MSU vs M, and UW vs NU for regular season games.. but keep M vs tOSU on one side but maybe add NU vs PSU on the other side..
LikeLike
Thank you Patrick,
I think many of the long time points are:
1) Does RU bring NYC?
2) Many overlook Maryland, but don’t they bring DC? Which is a growing area and a good demo.
3) Texas and TAMU need a 2-way number.
Add in the new points:
4) Nebraska is higher than I expected.
5) Why would you consider schools at Break-even? Since this is being done for revenue?
6) BC > ND. interesting….
LikeLike
@Terry,
Truth is I was attempting to gauge the potential schools using the last reported numbers that I could and extrapolating. I would guess that the BTN and the conference know EXACTLY what kind of numbers they have and how rapidly they are growing, and they know how much money they could make on added Live Games to the BTN.
I think my numbers were conservative, and maybe too low by anywhere from $10 – $25 million for each school. I was initially interested in worst case senarios or could this fail. I was suprised when even under that type of scrutiny… almost everyone was a winner. Kinda scary what they will be earning soon.
LikeLike
Remember that the INCREMENTAL revenue to an existing school is
(Patrick’s number – $38M)*.51/(total num of BTN members)
So for a $45M school thats an increment of like $300,000 which isn’t much, like about 1.5% of current Revenue.
LikeLike
I have no clue what Notre Dame is going to do. As a Michigan State fan, I would love to see them in the BigTen. But the rivalry has lost it’s luster for me. If they chose to remain independent, that would be OK as well. Notre Dame football will never be the same after the expansion. If they choose to remain independent, they will be on a slow downward spiral because they won’t be able to compete with the schools in a conference.
What this post has shown is that ND is not required for BigTen expansion to be successful. As a football and a BigTen fan, I would love to see Nebraska and Pitt in the conference.
LikeLike
FWIW:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/mizzou/story/F2E29C6C0D4A78008625770B000C33FA?OpenDocument
Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton was believed to be in Washington on Monday, but it was unknown whether he had met with the Big Ten. Deaton said two weeks ago that Missouri had not been contacted by the conference…
…Regardless of what happens, (MO football coach)Pinkel foresees a scenario where super-sized conferences will form the basis of a playoff scenario through four or five major bowls, perhaps with other games following those meetings.
“To me, that’s eventually what the national championship will be,” he said…
…Pinkel speculated that Notre Dame will enter the Big Ten before the game of conference musical chairs unfolds.
“I’d be very surprised if Notre Dame is not in the Big Ten,” he said. “They see what’s happening.”
LikeLike
Key dates from within a long article:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-04-19/sports/os-college-changes-coming-0420-20100419_1_16-team-conferences-conference-expansion-and-realignment-jim-delany/3
Here is the schedule of spring meetings for the six BCS conferences, and a key point to remember. News of conference realignments in 2003, when the ACC raided the Big East, broke during the spring meetings:
May 9-12: ACC spring meetings, Amelia Island
May 17-19: Big Ten meetings, Chicago
May 22-26: Big East meetings, Ponte Vedra Beach
June 1-4: SEC spring meetings, Sandestin Beach
June 1-4: Big 12 spring meetings, Kansas City
June 3-6: Pac-10 meetings, San Francisco
Also, the AAU conference wrap up today and while the BCS meeting runs today through Thursday. At the latter Delany will notify the conferences of the schools the B10+ wants to negotiate with, so we should have good leaks within the next 72 hours.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Value of Expansion Candidates to Big 10 - CycloneFanatic
BTW, remember the comments that new teams would have to in effect buy there way into the B10+? Perhaps that is why MO is so prominent on the expansion list, because in the informal discussions what they are willing to pay for inclusion is higher than most of the other candidates?
LikeLike
Neb and MU leaving Big 12 makes sense, CO to PAC 10. Look for old Southwest conference to re-emerge. SMU, Houston, TCU back with other Texas schools. Big 12 will do just fine – maybe add BYU, New Mexico to get to 14.
WAC is whacked!
LikeLike
The Southwest Conference died for a reason–an all-Texas conference just isn’t financially competitive. UT and TAM really don’t want to be in a conference with SMU, TCU and Houston anyway. (Heck, they don’t want to be in a conference with Baylor, but that got forced on them.) Adding BYU might help since they’re the Mormon Notre Dame, but New Mexico is too small a market and too small a program to help.
If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big 10 and Colorado goes to the Pac 10, look for UT and TAM to put themselves up for auction to the highest bidding conference.
LikeLike
Kudos to Patrick/Frank and others with the financial and legal insight.
Mulling this information over, the things that stuck out to me are:
1) Rutgers will surely get an invite. They have academic appeal, TV viewership/ad appeal, historical appeal (birthplace of FB), and a commitment to expanding the sports (bigger stadium). I think they can also do well as they will be able to recruit more effectively in the Big East. Leaving Rutgers on the table would be counterproductive if the B10 wants the NE corridor (even if ND comes).
2) The first 3 teams should have broad based appeal (diversity) since all teams look capable of being financially reasonable. For example Nebraska’s strengths (athletics) are complementary to Rutgers strengths (academics). Likewise Nebraska’s weakness (location) is balanced by Rutgers and Rutgers weakness (athletics) is balance by Nebraska.
3) Maryland should be a prime target probably #1 (assuming that the B10 has already gauged Texas’ possibility as very low). Maryland combines location (DC/Maryland), academics, athletics, research and is a state school to expand to the east. Essentially Maryland is Pitt in a new market.
4) ND isn’t really in a position to play hardball any longer.
My selections would be 1) Maryland, 2) Rutgers, 3) Nebraska, 4) ND, 5) UConn. I pick ND only on sentiment and media attention otherwise I’m fine with Missouri to balance the invitees into 3 east and 2 west. I picked UConn over Pitt to diversify into the NE states further while supporting NYC with Rutgers and preventing the ACC from matching BC, Syracuse UConn, Pitt to get Connect Four up the east coast.
Rutger’s academic research will appeal to the B10 pres/deans. While not an athletic powerhouse in FB or BB, Rutgers offsets this by their location. Getting a Mich/OSU/PSU/Iowa/Wisconson or potentially Nebraska/ND in the NY viewing region will combine the FB powerhouse with the viewing powerhouse (ads go up). Rutgers also has made a commitment to athletics with a new stadium and retaining Schiano, but the big factor is that Rutgers will now be able to dominate NJ recruiting. They won’t have to turn to Florida or other areas because teams like PSU, ND, USC, etc are poaching the biggest recruits from NJ. Although Rutgers is coming to a tougher conference, I see that they have the potential to match. Additionally, they claim the birthplace to FB, so historically this is a fit.
LikeLike
nittany..
haha i was less sentimental.. so my 5 is Missouri instead of ND!!
but i think you see many things i have voiced in past posts..
I think Maryland might be the gem, and could shine in basketball without being in UNC/duke shadow.. plus you really could get a double in markets (Baltimore + Washington) and not have to take a second school (Like UVA + Va Tech). I also think Maryland could wind up as a solid mid level football school in the Big 16 (with a NC run maybe every 8 – 10 years).
LikeLike
The problem with the Big 10 taking Maryland is that it FORCES the ACC to do something. Alternatively, it gives the SEC an opening to move in on the ACC.
I tend to think that the best case scenario for the Big 10 is Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and UConn.
You get the entire region from Missouri to the Northeast. Pitt and Syracuse are name schools for football, while Rutgers and UConn have the facilities to become great. Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn upgrade basketball. UConn and Rutgers upgrade womens basketball. You add a private school to keep Northwestern feeling like it is not a complete odd duck. You get an iron clasp grasp on the NY market.
If you take Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, and say Pitt/Rutgers… now the ACC could take Syracuse and UConn–and associate with Notre Dame somehow (say, all sports except football) and have a 4-2 edge for the NY/Northeast market for both cable rates and advertising.
Maybe you can shave UConn off and add Missouri. If UConn goes to the ACC, it would give the ACC the Northeast, but not NY.
LikeLike
Uh, Pitt & Syracuse aren’t exactly name schools. Syracuse’s TV ratings are poor, and in merchandise sales, all of the Northeastern schools (SU, RU, Pitt, UConn, & BC) rank behind the regular Big12 North schools (Mizzou, KU, Colorado), not to mention Nebraska, which is top 10 any way you measure brand (merchandise sales, athletic
revenue, Forbes brand rankings, TV ratings).
There’s a reason why the ACC has been reluctant to take the Big East schools, even though they’ve been available up there since forever.
I use to be a fan of the Northeastern strategy, but I was somewhat shocked at how poor the brands of the Big East schools are. Thus, I think you have to take Nebraska & Mizzou, then if no ND, decide whether you can still take NYC with 3 BE schools or maybe add Kansas/Colorado as well.
LikeLike
Ratings for what? 2009 football? When you are on the SNY channel, what kind of ratings do you expect?
Regardless, if you think that taking two Big East teams is going to generate ratings, I think that is a flawed theory. If Syracuse-Rutgers does not generate interest, why would Syracuse-Iowa, UConn-Iowa, or Rutgers-Iowa?
Better off taking 3 Big 12 teams (Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri), than trying to get ratings by picking off one or two Big East teams.
I suspect that this is where the 5-team addition gathers steam. You need to bring in some rivalries to get the early momentum.
LikeLike
Guess you changed your mind (you went from 4 Eatern schools and 1 Western to 2 Eastern and 3 Western. BTW, the ratings in question were for games that purportedly were broadcast nationally (on ABC, NBC, or an ESPN network).
LikeLike
I don’t want to add 5 times unless one of them is Neb or ND….that’s too many mediocre football teams to add……
LikeLike
Patrick – Completely Awesome analysis.
Frank – Superb follow-ups
Commentors – As Always, thought provoking without any BS you normally see on other blogs.
My Question is: When do we start selling this information to the Big 10 for doing all their research for them?
Seriously, and if I missed this, I apologize: How did the Domers fall off on the revenue so quickly? Are we missing something simple? If I read this correctly, not only does the Big 10 not need Notre Dame, they may not actually want them…Does that make sense to anyone else? Or like I say, are we completely missing something?
I agree with Patrick in that Notre Dame will probably not be part of this equation moving forward – I stated this yesterday when the article came out with respect to the discussion at the AAU. So, if it’s not The Domers, who is the 5th team? My guess is UConn or Syracuse, further decimating the BEast.
What is important is that Nebraska will create product that people will want to tune in for regardless of who they are playing. I think Pitt and Missouri are also “must see games”. We’ve had Rutgers in the Big House and frankly, it wasn’t all that exciting. Maybe a rivalry develops with certain schools? And I can’t wait to see Basketball, Baseball, and even Hockey improve.
LikeLike
@MIRuss
If anything, Patrick’s analysis shows that the BigTen should drop the focus on ND and go after Texas. Pursue the strategy to get the dominos to fall in the Big12 first, then put the press on UT.
ND may shake out as a result of these moves, but it doesn’t matter in the end.
Hook’em Horns!
LikeLike
This is the part that I don´t understand.
What is holding Texas back from the Big 10 or the Big 10 back from Texas?
Since any scenario involving Texas is the top priority, I think this needs to be the first issue resolved.
If the Big 10 raids the Big 12 North, where does that leave Texas? With the Big 12 crumbling, would they really choose the SEC or the Pac 10 over the Big 10 – even though the academics, the distance, and the money would all strongly favor the Big 10?
Again, Frank, as you said in regards to Notre Dame, how can any business exec turn down an offer for higher revenue, lower costs and lower risk?
LikeLike
2 reasons I can think of:
1. They want to start the Longhorn Network.
2. They want to be top dog in their conference (or at least their division). They’d probably maximize their TV money by joining the Big10, but wouldn’t be able to bring any of their cousins along (except TAMU). Plus, in the Big10, all the other big dogs like OSU, PSU and Michigan (as well as TAMU) would get the same amount of conference money, and they wouldn’t be able to police TTech, OU, and OSU. I think the Pac10 is so desperate for TV money now that they’d be OK with unequal revenue sharing as well as Texas bringing along TAMU, TTech, OU, and OSU. That way, they’d still get the most revenue of the schools in their neighborhood, play many games close to home, and also be able to police their local rivals.
LikeLike
Texas may want an unequal revenue sharing model.
The PAC 10 already has this with SC and UCLA getting a disproportionate share.
Its very possible that the Big 10 approached Texas, and was told that the conference had to be flexible on unequal revenue sharing, as well as taking a couple Texas schools, and the Big 10 balked.
Texas may feel its able to cut a better deal on its terms with the PAC 10 — which would need Texas very badly if it hopes to get close to the Big 10 revenues after this expansion.
LikeLike
I think Texas would be OK with equal revenues as long as they were getting more than they got in the B12. I mean, is Texas, with all the money they pull in, really going to cost themselves $10 million over a principle that they should make $3 million more than Northwestern?
I think the Texas issue is more of a political and cultural one. They like that all the decisions about their fate are made in Dallas and not Chicago. They don’t want to explain to the legislature why TTU is getting screwed. And they don’t want to tell their alums that the nearest away game is Iowa City.
Right now, I think TPTB in Austin are pulling their hair out not knowing what to do. They don’t want to join the B10, but they’re worried they may be stuck in a worse situation if they don’t.
LikeLike
MIRuss: Not quite sure what “Big House” you are referring to but since Greg Schiano took over for the 2001 season, Rutgers played Michigan State 2x and Illinois 2x (2003-2006). They were 2-2. Since 1980 they are 6-6 (MSU 3-2, Illinois 1-1, NW 2-0, PSU 0-3). Forgive me if you are referring to prior to 1980.
OT note: Rutgers basketball is awful, new coach search underway. I posted some short list candidates recently, according to NY Metro College hoops guru and NY sportswriter Dick “Hoops” Weiss he is hearing Jim O’Brien (OSU, BC) is now the favorite and the frontrunner.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2010/04/20/2010-04-20_rutgers_targets_obrien.html
LikeLike
With all the Big 10 talk, Rutgers could certainly make a splash and make things more interesting if they went after Bobby Knight.
LikeLike
His name is popping up and his son very recently said he wants to coach again. Even referred to RU. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Football is pretty cyclical. One bad coach can cause a significant problem.
Pitt’s football records:
1990: 3-7-1
1991: 6-5
1992: 3-9
1993: 3-8
1994: 3-8
1995: 2-9
1996: 4-7
1997: 6-6
1998: 2-9
1999: 5-6
It took quite a while to right the ship… and then it only really solidified under Wanny in the past few years.
Syracuse went through a tough period in the 2000’s with the end of the Paul Pasqualoni period and the disaster that was/is Greg Robinson. Things are turning around. Still over scheduling.
Rutgers was absent from the football landscape until 2005. Schiano was given the time to turn it around and has done so. Still underscheduling.
I think these are three great additions to the Big 10, with Rutgers’ NJ talent pipeline outweighing their inferior basketball program.
LikeLike
Those bad seasons make Pitt’s TV ratings more impressive. Note also, they only won the BE once since ’91 and that was a with a tiebreaker (and got pasted by Utah). Pitt has shown it has a resilient program. Syracuse could probably make the same case. Rutgers? We’ll see.
LikeLike
Those tv ratings were for one year only, Pitt’s best year in the past 25+. I guarantee you that you wouldn’t see the same picture if the ratings for the past five years were averaged.
LikeLike
According to my daughter who does this for a living, her college football ad sales are very much a now sell. She cannot use previous year’s trends very effectively, to the buyers it is who are they playing and how well are they doing this season. For 2009 Pitt was a hot sell with very good ratings. Previous year’s trends are supplemental info. Nice to know. Good leading indicator. If Pitt continues to do well (and they should) and play meaningful games in November, they will continue to draw good ratings. That is true for most of the expansion candidates as well. Win and they will watch.
LikeLike
Rick… that’s the whole point. If Rutgers loses Schiano or UConn loses Edsall… and both teams plummet due to hires that do not pan out… what happens to your ratings then? If Pitt can go from Dan Marino to a decade of futility… how are Rutgers and UConn assured of perennial football success? And if both teams become Big 10 doormats, what have you added?
Again, this is probably what is causing the Big 10 Presidents pause. The Big East does not present any sure things individually.
And, if that’s the case, why bother at all?
LikeLike
EZ: Schiano makes 2.0 million a year. Nice coin. If in the Big Ten, they would continue to pay him top dollar. I don’t see him leaving if they continue to win, he’s in a power conference, and Rutgers AD continues to pay him top market value with additional BT money. He loves it there and if he continues to be paid fair market price like his peers he will stay. Much less risk than Edsell. He will go somewhere unless UConn really steps up and pays big time. He is prime to move. He makes 1.45 million. Risk here. Will UConn pay him over 2 million with BT money, probably if he doesn’t leave before the Big Ten decides. We’ll see
LikeLike
I can’t believe anyone leaves anywhere, but they seem to do so. Regardless, if the Miami Dolphins offer Schiano 5 years, $25M, are you telling me he says no to that?
If Paterno retires and they throw big money at Schiano or Edsall.. do either say no?
Meanwhile, Florida, Florida St. and Miami all have potential openings someday. If Schiano is still doing well, why not target him?
LikeLike
So true EZ. The Terry Shea era wrecked the RU program in the mid to late 90’s. The Doug Graber era before that was average but the Shea era was God awful. Devastating. Wanny saved the Pitt program and hopefully Doug Marrone will at Syracuse as well. Rutgers has a chance to rebuild Basketball with the right new hire now. The search is on. Now Eddie Jordan’s name is moving up the short list. This is a critical hire. A real resurrection project for the right guy.
LikeLike
MI RUSS..
I would argue that the least the Big 16 could do was to give the post here that came to fruition some perk for life. frank would be first in line, but i want some sort of dibs on future basketball (men’s & women’s) tickets..
*smile*
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank - The Value of Expansion Candidates to the Big Ten Network
Big East loyalty clause to leave is 27 months so this and the end of year being 6/30/2010 might explain the acceleration of the B10 expansion talks. So we’re talking 2012-13 year for any Big East additions.
LikeLike
I have not seen this posted yet. According to Dodd Texas is working on their own channel. I have only heard speculation that Texas wanted to, or could.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13251288/texas-expansion-decision-will-set-off-big-domino-effect?tag=globalNav.collegefootball;cover
>>
The UT-centric channel would be available in-state to televise minor sports, campus activities, basketball and possibly some football games. IMG College, which oversees the school’s trademark licensing, marketing and multimedia rights, thought enough of the idea to enter into distribution negotiations with major cable carriers.
“We’re working on a channel, ‘network’ is not a good word,” Dodds said. “Texas ought to have our top games on a bigger entity [but] we need to keep some football and basketball and baseball and women’s basketball and have our own state-of-Texas deal.”
<<
LikeLike
wow…welcome Nebraska….
LikeLike
MIKE,
you made me think of the elephant in the room.. which schools are IMG schools?
LikeLike
I know Nebraska is and Kansas maybe.
LikeLike
One fact that was brought up in the latest Chicago Tribune article on expansion was very interesting – ND would supposedly save MILLIONS of dollars in travel costs by joining the Big Ten (which makes sense because so many Big Ten schools are within driving distance of South Bend and that’s where real cost savings are achieved).
So, let’s think about this for a second – ND would make substantially more TV revenue in the Big Ten AND cut down expenses for Olympics sports drastically, which means that the net gain for ND’s athletic department is incredible. This doesn’t even account for the fact that research funding, which is how universities really bring in money, would likely rise over time by ND’s inclusion in the Big Ten as a CIC member. Once again, the ND alums won’t care, but the administration is going to realize (if it hasn’t already) that it is truly a financial disadvantage for ND to be an independent from this point forward than the to join the Big Ten. In almost any line of business (and believe me, ND is BIG business), you’d be fired on the spot if you blindly turned down a virtually guaranteed simultaneous increase in revenue AND decrease in expenses AND decrease in risk in the future (since a 16-school Big Ten means that ND truly doesn’t have a conference “safety net” any longer). ND can talk about joining the ACC and Pac-10 in theory, yet those would both be situations where the Irish would take a pay cut AND increase expenses. The Big Ten really may have boxed ND in here.
Once again, I completely understand the emotional sentiment of ND alums (and I know a lot of them), but this is looking less like giving up few million dollars (which may be worth giving up as the “price” of independence) and more like giving up a net of tens of millions of dollars per year (which almost anyone would be foolish to turn down no matter what else is going on).
Here’s the article again if you haven’t seen it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0420-big-ten-chicago–20100419,0,3111131.story
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank
One concern you hear from ND fans is that if they join the BigTen (or BigInteger), it will change the undergraduate experiece from something that is unique to something that is more like a big state school.
How would this happen? Did Northwestern lose their identity and get transformed into a copy of a state school? Is Evanston now equivalent to Champagne-Urbana? I don’t get how ND would be compelled to focus on graduate students at the expense of the undergrads.
PS – thank you for this blog. Very interesting and informative.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s a pretty silly argument. Actually, the only argument that makes much sense, and it makes a LOT of sense, imo, is that ND would have less scheduling flexibility to play a national schedule. With 12 games, three would be against MSU, UM, Pur–no change. 4 others would be OOC-no change. However, that leaves 5 games to be played against Big 10ers that could be played against coast teams or TX teams…or even SEC teams.
“Twer me, I’d ensure ND that it will always also play PSU and Pitt each year…I think most Domers would be interested in those games…but that leaves 3 others against other Big 10 teams…
In any event, I am sure warming up to the Neb for ND swap….Neb. fans are like Iowa fans–very friendly, yet passionate. Think of how much less crap we have to listen to for the next 10 years…..
LikeLike
Frank,
We’ve seen SO MANY logical arguments based on revenue impacts that I think we can all conclude – regardless of your bent – that Notre Dame joining the Big 10 is good for Notre Dame (and the Big 10).
What we haven’t evaluated, and someone needs to look at this, is the pure vitriol and hatred of the uneducated Domer fan and how they will reject the decision. And they will. Lord knows they will. They haven’t been following your blog…
If that’s the case, then Heads At Notre Dame must ROLL! Those heads would include the President (Jenkins) and the AD($warbuck$). And I’m not entirely sure either one of those guys is old enough at this point to commit political suicide. It doesn’t matter to these fans that in 10 or 15 years it will be the best decision ever made; on the contrary, they will probably be branded in Notre Dame’s history as “those that gave up our independence” and get a special seat right there along side Losingham, the Weasel (Weiss), and former AD Kevin White…..
LikeLike
Not just “uneducated Domer fan[s]”. I’ve been following along, and I still think it’s a bad idea long-term for ND. I think ND will join for CIC and scheduling purposes, and BTN revenues will offset the major donor and fan revolt.
If ND goes to the Big 10 or ACC, it will be done with the permission of TPTB. Jenkins and Swarbrick will likely keep their jobs until the day ND needs a scapegoat…and that’ll be years out. Sure, the rank-and-file will considered them apostates who lost their faith in “the Spirit of Notre Dame” and despise them as traitors to the ideal and curse their names above all others. But that won’t matter to the ones calling the shots as long as the ND brand grows.
P.S. Weis isn’t disliked. We wish he did better, but we harbor no animosity and wish him well. It’s the folks who lack the love like Davie and Willingham who villify.
LikeLike
NDRox:
Thank you for making my point. Weiss wasn’t hated? Seriously? Is that what you meant to type here, forever captured on the internet?
LikeLike
MIRuss, I assume you mean Weis. He was not hated by the alums. I am sure that non-ND fans did not like him and came up with many brilliant criticisms about him (e.g., he is arrogant or he is fat). The alums simply wanted him to win more in the last three years (that is, they wanted him to take the squad to a BCS game every year).
He still has close ties to the school. When the ND girls BB team played in KC in March, he hosted the squad. CW worked very hard, turned recruiting around after TW, and was an alum. He simply didn’t win enough. Ineffective — not hated.
LikeLike
Yeah, I stand by that.
WEIS WASN’T HATED BY THE ND FAITHFUL. More than anything he was a disappointment.
He wasn’t the answer for ND as a head coach. He had his chance and had to be let go for the good of the program. But it wasn’t personal, it was business. He’s a Domer, and he has shown he loves ND. He cannot be hated for failure. We reserve our hate for those like Davie and Willingham who had neither skill nor love and tried to blame ND for their personal failure.
LikeLike
Kelly should do very well. I expect ND to really get better with him. They should be real good real soon. He is a very good coach.
LikeLike
Okay, NDRox and Rick,
Explain this, if Charlie was so loved:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/2009/09/charlie_weis_billboard_suggest.html
Yeah, there’s a lot of love out in Domer land for Charlie.
I know several Domers – I’m talking Blue (or Green) and Gold Blood, dedicated basements, etc. Let’s just say any discussions did not have the words “Weis” and “Love” in the same sentence…
Sorry, Frank. I know that’s NOT what this site is for.
LikeLike
toughlove
LikeLike
Re ND’s decision
Frank, the decision makers at ND need to step up; if they pass on this opportunity for stability in conference membership, financial benefits, plus association with quality academic and research schools, they seriously could look back on a decision to say no as a major and historic mistake.
The only possible explanation might be they have spoken to the ACC and are confident the ACC has reserved a place for them in the future should they want to join that conference. And that regardless, they prefer the ACC schools to those of the Big 10.
LikeLike
Except, other than for emotional value, there’s no reason to prefer joining the ACC to joining the Big10 . . .
LikeLike
Frankly, if ND intentionally joins the ACC rather than the Big 10 I’d have to conclude that all Domers are a word that rhymes with wussies……seriously….
LikeLike
Actually, the ACC does offer ND something the Big Ten doesn’t.
First, a better chance to dominate at football. Playing OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa is likely more daunting than playing Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Boston College, Virginia and Virginia Tech. FSU and Miami are the only football powers, and both programs have seen brighter days.
The second advantage of choosing the ACC is that Notre Dame can feel in control of making their own choice. I think ND resents the fact that they’re not really in control of their own football landscape any longer–it’s being dictated to them by a rapidly changing environment.
And I know that they can’t stomach the fact that the Big Ten, (which ND has always felt superior to in every possible way) is largely responsible for that changing environment and has already pulled ahead of Notre Dame and is about to step on the gas to leave them even further behind.
LikeLike
OK, that’s another reason. Still, it’s rather shortsighted (IMHO). For better recruiting grounds and a chance at more conference titles in the short-run (as well as emotional value), they’d be joining what will definitely be the weakest and most unstable of the power conferences left. In the long-term, there may not be an ACC left, and then what does ND do? Would ND still be relevent enough for the Big20, Pac20, and SEC to care about it decades from now when they break off from the NCAA?
LikeLike
No, but it’s the only non-BE BCS conference this side of the Mississippi with more than a token private football school. Heck, they’re the only BCS conference outside of the BXII that even have sectarian Football schools. That’s why some ND folks consider them as a better option in a worst case scenario situation than the Big Ten.
If the Power schools break off from the NCAA, I doubt they’ll bring any private schools with them. The money in that future appears to be with schools that have government subsidies in better populated states. Any way you wanna slice it, ND will probably be on the outside looking in regardless. I can’t see the CSC allowing ND to go down that path.
LikeLike
Richard..
i can think of at least 3 that are not emotional..
1) public vs private
2) research vs education
3) predator vs prey
i can think of several more, but these are easy to see by all
LikeLike
Ultimately, that’s all emotional, since all those distinctions do is create warm fuzzy feelings about “we’re special”. Now, TV money, travel costs, research funds, donations; that’s not emotional, that’s money.
Oh wait, recruiting grounds. I guess that’s another reason in favor of the ACC. Still ND would have to give up a lot financially and join a weaker conference (that’s more in danger of being raided by the SEC) for the emotional satisfaction and recruiting exposure (at least, before the SEC takes those away).
LikeLike
Why do you think you have an insight into the culture at ND? Donations? You mistyped or you are so completely off base it reduces your overall credibility. In one generation ND has become a top 15 school in endowment per student. Why would ND risk a 97% alumni participation rate (behind Princeton and Yale) to gain 10m per year from extra tv revenues? You have never answered this question. The reason is: there is no answer that you can provide. It is not emotionalism — it is brand management.
LikeLike
That’s the main financial reason for ND to remain independent. I’m sceptical that donations would be affected that much between whether ND goes to the Big10 or ACC, if they do decide to join a conference. Maybe I’m wrong. Ultimately, ND would still not maximize their finances by shunning the Big10 (in a perfect world for them, they’d be able to hang on to alumni donations while still reaping the financial gains from joining the Big10). Perhaps their alumni base will always keep them from ever reaching that maximum. That’s why I think it’s perfectly possible that ND may join the ACC. Long-term, I don’t think it would be the best move for them. We’ll see how it plays out.
LikeLike
BTW, I don’t claim any insight in to ND’s culture (unlike you, who seems to think you know how the Big10 works even though you tend to be way off base); I am pointing out that the alumni base seems to be basing their viewpoints mostly on emotional reasons (only argument that isn’t emotionally-based is that the ACC has more fertile football recruiting grounds). I don’t deny that these emotions have dollar values attached to them, since alums can choose whether to donate or not, but ultimately, they’re still emotions-based. Liking the ACC because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to be associated with Wake Forest and BC (and Clemson & NCSU) is emotions-based reasoning. Liking the Big10 because your school would get more money from the conference isn’t emotions-based reasoning.
LikeLike
I think the 16 team expansion is going to happen. I think we get Texas to come by threatening to take Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. If we can get Texas then I think we can get Notre Dame to follow. I think this breakdown would be the best for a future 16 team conference. With this breakdown you would leave most of the rivalries intact. (Mich/Ohio State, Texas/A&M, Iowa/Wisc) and you would renew the PSU/Pitt and create new ones in (Iowa/Nebraska, Wisc/Nebraska).
East
Penn State
Pitt
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Northwestern
Purdue
Notre Dame
West
Texas
Tex A&M
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Indiana
Illinois
East
Top Tier
Penn State
Michigan
Ohio State
Middle Tier
Pitt
Michigan State
Bottom Tier
Purdue
Northwestern
Indiana
West
Top Tier
Texas
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Middle Tier
Iowa
Wisconsin
Bottom Tier
Minnesota
Illinois
Texas A&M
LikeLike
Leave it to a Nitt to put Nebraska and Notre Dame in the “Top Tier” and intentially snub the one school that’s owned his alma mater 8 of the last 10 years. I’ll chalk it up to the bitternes of the past two years.
Iowa is without a doubt a TOP TIER player in that divisional alignment Kevin. :p
LikeLike
I’ll give Nitt the benefit of the doubt and assume he is going by a historic view of tier strength, since we know ND is currently bottom tier!
LikeLike
Putting aTm in the bottom tier is a bit of a stretch. Historically, it is a great program. It wasn’t too long ago that they dominated the Texas rivalry and were a national powerhouse.
LikeLike
Any “analysis” that purports to quantitatively value Rutgers, Maryland, and BC football over ND is immediately discreditable. Period.
ND just slipped to second place behind Texas in the Forbes football franchise ranking in the last year or two, so there’s a serious, serious flaw in the purported “analysis” by someone who concededly doesn’t have all the figures and is doing a whole lot of extrapolating. This isn’t to knock “Patrick,” but let’s apply some common sense here, folks.
LikeLike
@NDx2
If you have an analysis which would show that ND would bring in more revenue to the BigTen than Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College, please share it.
Keep in mind that Patrick’s work is an analysis of how valuable ND is to the BigTen, and the BigTen Network. I’m sure that by itself ND is worth more than those other programs, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
Patrick’s analysis shows that Big Ten expansion won’t necessarily be negatively affected on what ND decides to do. However ND probably will be negatively impacted if the BigTen expands without them.
LikeLike
@ NDXx2
The Sniff Test was difficult for me as well as I have seen so much on the relative value of Notre Dame. However, I will give Patrick this: Notre Dame is already in the footprint and adding it to what is already BTN households doesn’t have as big of an impact as adding new areas and new footprints, so that part is logical.
What can’t be gauged, and Patrick admits this, is what market share could be increased at a national level by adding Notre Dame? There’s a number there that he’s missing…and I’m not sure how you value it.
Patrick, do you add the “NY Market” and give the Domers a litte extra to keep them ahead of the pack?
LikeLike
Unless you can show Notre Dame captures the NY market, you can’t just fudge your numbers so your favorites come out on top.
LikeLike
Scott,
I wasn’t suggesting fudging it. I have seen reported elsewhere that some of NBC’s biggest numbers from Domer Games come from the NY market – that’s all.
LikeLike
IIRC, the Forbes list factors in a whole range of revenue sources, including donations and university-centric ad money. This revenue is not the type that would be shared within a conference. Patrick was– correct me if I’m wrong– focusing purely on television revenue, in terms of BTN subscribers and ad revenue. I too am surprised to see ND so low on his list, but it is certainly a more accurate portrayal of the situation than is the Forbes list.
LikeLike
@NDx2: Remember, however, that we aren’t talking about the overall worth of the brand. This is in regards to value for BTN, and I think you can make a case that says ND is undervalued in these evaluations. But, let’s also be honest and not overvalue ND’s ratings push, because this is the only team in America where we can look at specific ratings (NBC) to see how they perform. And the results are sometimes good and sometimes not so good, as has been talked about in this thread and previous threads.
Moreover, Forbes’ list I assume would be overall worth of the athletic program, including things like sponsorships, trademarking, apparel sales, etc. These don’t affect these numbers because the Big Ten isn’t sharing that pot. Indiana doesn’t see a nickle from any Ohio State gear sold for example. My understanding is that revenue is shared only from bowls, television stuff, and sponsorships that are conference-wide.
So ND being in the Big Ten footprint can be considered somewhat of a negative, but that’s offset by the fact that it’s a strong brand (which would for sure raise advertising revenue despite not necessarily adding any new markets). Conversely, Rutgers is in a large, “new” market which (ideally) offsets the fact that they’re mostly a turd burger athletically speaking. Patrick’s analysis probably isn’t perfect — he has stated so himself. But I wouldn’t just flippantly disregard it because your favorite team didn’t rank as high as you’d think/prefer.
LikeLike
My analysis was purely from a television standpoint, and there are issues with estimating the revenue for Notre Dame when they do not bring any additional TV sets. But, as I mentioned, I am being way conservative and I have probably seriously underestimated the impact of additional games on the BTN. The BTN doesn’t care about how great you think you are, or how special you seem to believe your football team is. They care about numbers and dollars. ND doesn’t add new television markets, they don’t add anything on the research side, their tv ratings are lower than Nebraska or Pitt, and they are not AAU members. What “NDx2” does seem to bring is an obnoxius and entitled attitude which seems outdated and myopic. They don’t seem to have the same educational philosophy as the rest of the Big 10, and I could see that killing ND more than any tv analysis.
LikeLike
You will never convince a Notre Dame alum that their school isn’t the best, that their football team isn’t the best, that they’re not the most valuable, most revered and most desirable program in the land, and that they always will be. If they’re not so good at something (research level, graduate studies, basketball, etc.), it wasn’t important anyway.
Notre Dame is a religious school, and it appears that domers have applied a similar faith in the superiority of their school. No statistics or logical argument will ever change that faith.
As Mark Twain once wrote, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
LikeLike
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Pingback: A blog on why 16 teams for Big 10 makes sense - HawkeyeNation Forum
From the NY Times article:
The best chance for the Big East to survive, he said, would be if the Big Ten, with 11 teams, adds only Notre Dame.
Two questions.
1) Would the B10 be satiated by just adding ND at this point? Or does 3 or 5 teams pretty much have to happen?
2) Any chance other conferences (Big 12 and Big East specifically) attempt to lobby/blackball/plead with ND to join the Big 10 to attempt to preserve some semblance of the status quo?
LikeLike
I can’t see the Big East threatening Notre Dame since half of the conference is made up of Catholic schools.
LikeLike
1. If the big revenue generator is advertising, them you want as many conference games as possible (so long as the new schools are at least passable). The Big10 will go to 16 with or without ND.
LikeLike
Interesting question…if only ND were invited the Big 10 would have pissed off a LOT of people…that can’t be good….
LikeLike
Frank and Patrick: Please explain why Texas (and possibly TAM) were NOT in your projections for the five schools to join???
LikeLike
@Tom Smith: A lot of people have speculated why. They’re the awesome girl you want that unfortunately lives across the country. Lots of reasons, but I think the main one is that they’re big enough and far enough away that their interest is lukewarm at best.
Personally, I think if you’re going to 16 teams, you need to pick an expansion direction and go that way. If you want Texas, expanding east isn’t in the best interests of the conference because you become spread too thin. It’s going to be hard enough to manage 16 teams and form cohesion as is. Adding schools that far away, again IMO, is mercenary. You don’t want schools to feel mercenary, even if they are, because a mercenary ultimately has zero loyalty. While you can’t put a price on it, I do think the Big Ten is strong precisely because it’s largely been a loyal, cohesive conference. Ultimately the same reason I never gave much thought when people joked about USC or Miami or any other school some people mentioned between scoffs.
LikeLike
Tom,
I honestly think if Texas & Texas A&M want in, it is a done deal. They would be the best financial choices…. no doubt. I think that Texas has other plans, they are fully aware of what is happening and are dreaming of something different long term. My hunch is they merge with the Pac 10 and create their own network. Ground floor development, work the process in their favor. That’s why I didn’t include Texas in my prediction….. I think they have other plans.
LikeLike
I don’t think any conference is going to be raided of more than two teams. Delany has said on multiple occasions that the Big 10 will not be the death blow to any conference.
With this in mind, a likely five could be Rutgers and Syracuse/Pitt, Nebraska and Missouri/Kansas, and Maryland. No conference gets hammered, although Big East is bleeding profusely.
The exception to the rule may be if Texas/A&M are in the picture then the Big 12 could take three hits (w/Nebraska). This might eliminate Maryland and save any hard feelings with the ACC, whom Delany has sentimental ties to UNC.
I was really surprised the numbers showing how important ad revenues really are. This obviously makes TV rating a key factor. I have always thought Nebraska was a prime candidate but never thought Pitt was viable until reading this article.
The next sixty days should be extremely intriguing for all college sports fans.
LikeLike
Where did Delany say that?
LikeLike
I recall this from his multiple appearances on ESPN a month or so ago.
LikeLike
@Jeff Quimby: I thought Delany said it wasn’t the Big Ten’s “intention”, not necessarily that they would actively try not to do it. There’s an important distinction I suppose.
LikeLike
you guys need to look at what is said.. and what it can imply..
delaney takes no more than two from ANY conference.. easy enough.. but it implies that no one else will.. say..
big 10 gets missouri and nebraska!! that means the big 12 is now ten.. which means the pac ten can now take 4 -6 more teams.. yes the big ten only took two, but by taking two it began the big 12 implosion..
big 10 gets maryland and UVA!! same thing, they only took two.. but now the ACC is crippled.. so the SEC intervenes and picks up 4 more.. and the implosion begins..
big 10 gets Uconn / Rutgers.. and the impolsion begins..
the point being .. the big 10 only took a school or two, but forced implosions and forced the little 3 (ACC,B 12, and BE) to seek shelter..
if you are FSU, UNC, Clemson, and NC State or Ga Tech.. you can find a nice warm (and VERY profitable) home in the SEC, where you can align with the predators, rather than trying to limp along as prey.
LikeLike
Don’t think the ACC is going to be picked on this round. It’ll be extremely hard for Maryland and Virginia to separate from the NC schools. The Big10 will start going after ACC schools only if the SEC announces it’s looking to expand as well.
LikeLike
I am one of the Big Ten fans who are really fascinated about the expansion talks and I will like to throw in my two cents here. First and foremost I like that the discussions on this blog are civilized and you can actually learn a lot of inside stuff from fans of other schools. A lot of really good points and a lot of great ideas had been brought up here which makes this blog one of the best when it comes to Big Ten expansions talk. Now, please allow me to state my thoughts on this.
The athletics world is changing and is changing fast. I believe that ten years from now the landscape of college sports will be totally different. Even if Big Ten adds only one team for now, those new financial possibilities that we as outsiders have identified, and I believe they are many more that we cannot see at this time, in the future will be too big to ignore and more and more university presidents will come along (even ND’s). So why wait until the last minute when you can join now and actually have a say in the matter?
When we are talking about the candidates for expansion, I think we are forgetting something. The first negotiations have been taken place inside of Big Ten and athletics (football + basketball), academics, TV and research people were represented, which makes me believe some kind of give and take to satisfy everyone was proposed. You can’t find 5 schools that will be perfect candidates like Texas (which I don’t think is coming) and you also can’t just add the top 5 athletic or top 5 revenue schools. You have to find some kind of balance to make everybody happy. This will be like a family with four kids buying Christmas presents just for two of them. Remember CIC is a big player at that table and is coming home empty in most scenarios. This is way I think Pitt has a very good chance of getting an invite.
Now, this is who I think the candidates will be:
1. Nebraska (football, TV)
2. Notre Dame (football, TV, academics)
3. Syracuse (TV, basketball)
4. Rutgers (TV)
5. Pitt (research, academics, basketball)
I think in this case everybody is getting at least one present. A lot of people were talking about how senators from new states added will help getting more research money for CIC, now I ask you this: In that case, why Syracuse or Rutgers or any NE universities in general don’t have more research money? Maybe because of the Ivy League universities! That’s possible. Anyway, my point here is chasing senators is not a good idea, after all they are politicians.
A lot of people are having different opinions on how the scheduling should be, so I try one scenario myself. Here it is (for football only):
1. Create 4 pods (2 fixed and 2 rotating). The 2 fixed pods will never be in the some division nor the 2 rotating ones.
Fixed Pod A – OSU, MI, MSU, ND
Fixed Pod B – WISC, IOWA, NEB, MINN
Rotating Pod C – PSU, RUTG, SYR, PITT
Rotating Pod D – PUR, IND, ILL, NW
2. You use the fixed pods as bases for your divisions to keep them balanced and rotate the other two pods.
3. Go to 9 conference games. Play 3 games inside your pod + 6 more games against the other 12 teams. This means you play everybody outside your pod every other year.
4. You play everybody inside your division + 2 from the opposite pod (Fixed Pod A – Fixed Pod B) (Rotating Pod C – Rotating Pod D)
5. One problem with the 9 conference games is that you play a 5-4 or 4-5 schedule (home-away). You can fix that by having one division playing 5 home games and the other one just 4. This will make it fair inside the divisions. To keep thinks easier you can rotate after two years so the second year the division that had 5 home games will have 4 now. That way you basically have a home and away series every 4 years with the teams outside your pod.
6. This scenario keeps most rivalries intact inside the pods, creates new ones and guaranties balances divisions.
LikeLike
I think most Big10 people would prefer Mizzou to Syracuse:
1. More research
2. Better football
3. Better brand/Better TV money (unless Syracuse helps in delivering NYC, but their football TV ratings have been poor).
What’s clear is that the Big10 can’t take all 4 of Syracuse/Pitt/ND/Mizzou. Even if ND backs out, they’d choose 2 from SU/Pitt/KU.
LikeLike
The is no debate with #1 where Syracuse gets crushed. But #2 and #3 I think you are completely wrong.
Syracuse the last 5 years has had its worst stretch ever. Mizzou its best since the 60s. Do you think that Syracuse is totally done? The current 5 years is more important that the history of the program?
Upstate NY has about 6 million people. Syracuse would carry that. Mizzou has about 6 million people but has little influence over Kansas City. On top of that Syracuse has a better national brand.
LikeLike
Demographics aren’t helping ‘Cuse. Granted, Missouri isn’t exactly a growing region either, but upstate NY is now a rather poor football recruiting ground. I’m not sure they’ll ever recover their past football glories. In fact, I’d say they have a better chance of going the ruote of their fellow private Northeastern schools in the Ivy League and the military academies . . .
Firing Pasqualoni has got to be one of the dumbest decisions I’ve seen in college sports in my lifetime, and I thought so at the time as well (same as firing Solich, but Nebraska at least has their insanely fervent fanbase to keep them relevent).
Oh, and as for brand, Mizzou moves more merchandise these days than Syracuse. I was shocked as well.
LikeLike
As one of the few Syracuse fans who loudly and consistently objected to the idea of firing Pasqualoni, I would find it quite ironic if the Big 10 took Pitt and Rutgers over Syracuse based on the relative strengths of their football programs. Pasqualoni dominated those two schools over his career, and beat them both in his last season as coach.
That said, I think it would be a mistake to assume that Syracuse football is never going to regain its footing as a solid but not great program. Over the 20-year period ending with the firing of Pasqualoni in 2004, Syracuse had the 18th best winning percentage in college football, ahead of Texas, Alabama and USC. Fortunes do change in this sport.
LikeLike
Agree.
Syracuse has played a lot of Big 10 schools recently, and this idea they are out of their league geographically is crazy.
Big East teams already play in Tampa (USF), Milwaukee (Marquette) and Cincinnati (UC), so I don’t see trips to Iowa, Minnesota or Wisconsin as some ridiculous development.
LikeLike
I like it. The fixed pods are the stronger in fb, the rotating are stronger in bb (overall-I don’t mean a particular school as there are some exceptions). This is good because it helps maintain balance. I even thought rule #4 would imbalance it at first glance, but on further examination, it works perfectly.
In football, each “fixed” school has five “fixed/tougher” members, and four “rotating/weaker;” and each “rotator” has five “rotating/weaker” members, and four “fixed/tougher” Except that each rotating pod has at least one school that is generally the equal or better of the fixed in any given year (i.e. PSU for C and rotating between Purdue, Ill, NW recently for D), which gives the rotator anther “tough.”
Similarly for bball, where the relationship is reversed.
Again, I don’t mean to imply that, say that individually this “tougher/weaker” relationship is accurate, but overall, they imply that relationship.
Beyond that, I can’t see a major rivalry split up (except maybe the little brown jug). Nice Work!
LikeLike
To everyone using DC/Northern Virginia for reasoning to include Maryland, consider that many local TV providers (i.e. Comcast, Verizon) include the Big Ten Network as, at the least, an optional channel. So many homes in the area are already part of the “AVAILABLE” number. The value of Maryland should be not the addition to “AVAILABLE” but to actual subscribers.
LikeLike
Laughable link of the day:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/sports/local/100419-report-says-university-of-houston-a-viable-bcs-candidate
Super secret ‘college football sources’ we’ll call U and H reveal that an unrevealed entity, we’ll call Cougar, paid for a study that shows UHou would make a great mail order bride. Especially if glorious conference of BCS expands.
LikeLike
Someone should tell him April 1 has passed. I mean, Hawaii?!?
Still, I wonder if UT would decide to take UH along instead of Baylor to merge with the Pac10. Say the Big10 takes Mizzou, KU, and Nebraska. OU and OSU bolt to the SEC. Texas would have a hard time scrouging up 6 teams to join the Pac10 with. BYU and/or Utah would be available, but UT may prefer more Texas teams. Think an Eastern division of the Pac16 that includes 5 Texas schools (UT, TAMU, TTU, Baylor,UH) Colorado + the 2 Arizona schools would fly?
LikeLike
Yes, I could see TX’s first offer including TX, TT, OU, Baylor, aTm, and UHou, with perhaps Baylor being their first drop, then UHou. But UHou is still Tier Four on USNews’ rankings, so perhaps even too much for a desperate P10 to accept. OTOH, UHou is actually ahead of TT in research funding (partly because TT spun off its med side a few years ago) and has the same goal of reaching Tier One by 2015. UH is well behind TT in sports attendance, TV draw, and merchandising. They may need a perfect storm to end up with TX, though their prospects for ending up in a BCS conference are better. A few months ago UH was being discussed for MWC expansion. Probably not until next year, so as not to risk the MWC’s AQ bid if UH came in and had a down year before the evaluation period was through.
I could see Utah, CO, TT, TX, aTm, and UH if OU and/or KS weren’t available. Could also see TT, TX, aTm, and UH to the SEC. That could make for a relatively low revenue P16 (if all the other majors go to 16 or 20) alliance of the P10 + Utah, CO, OU, OSU, KS (I can’t see them making the cut for the B16) and ISU, no equal revenue sharing in that combo!
LikeLike
U Houston + TCU would make a good combo for the Big 12 if the 2 big Texas schools leave. They might be a decent combo for the Big East right now.
If a Pac 16 is formed with Texas involved, I think 5 Texas schools would be too much, and 3 (UT, A&M, & Tech) work just fine. If a 4th school is desired, either Houston or Rice would likely be the candidate. Houston may be more politically advantageous, as it is the other big state school. Rice would bring academic prestige, and it has been playing Texas regularly (albeit in a contract that favors UT). Rice could be a compromise candidate that Stanford and Texas could agree on.
Other schools outside of the current Big 12 that might be considered for a Pac 16 would include Utah and New Mexico. They bring decent academics and close most of the geographic gaps in the conference. They don’t bring huge populations, though, so they’d be the last ones chosen.
LikeLike
Remember that, when the SWC broke apart, not even the expansionist WAC wanted Houston. SMU, TCU and Rice were all acceptable, but not “Cougar High,” as UH is affectionately referred to in Texas.
When UH made the Cotton Bowl for the last time in the mid-1980s, the president of the Cotton Bowl got into a bit of hot water for saying that all of the 7-11s of Dallas would be thrilled at the arrival of tens upon tens of UH fans.
And the idea that Texas would be the driving force behind pushing UH into a BCS conference is pretty laughable, given the grudge presumably still felt after the last time Texas visited UH, and the temporary bleachers built to hold Texas fans were mysteriously deemed “structurally unsound” two days before the game, preventing most Texas fans traveling to Houston from being able to attend the game. UH still hasn’t popped back up on Texas’ schedule since, despite a desire to play regularly in the city of Houston. Rice serves that purpose well enough.
So, no, do not take any reports of UH being a viable, Texas-backed candidate seriously.
LikeLike
@Frank – You’re famous. You made the Daily Herald (blog)
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3857
LikeLike
FRANK:
I am still not sold on ND to the Big 16
My 5 are Nebraska, Missouri, Uconn, Rutgers, and Maryland..
that said.. in most of my previous post I have argued to look at the big picture, and not with a Big 10 bias.. living at the center of 4 different conferences keeps me more fluid..
I still can not remember reading on post on this series of blogs on the composition of the boards of the Big 10 (vis a vi) their composite breakdown based on faith (one MAIN reason I have given, as why ND will not join.. my argument is that LIKE follows LIKE going forward (as Northwestern, Vandy, and Stanford would not fit their conferences today). with this in mind can you or someone address board composition of each Big 10 school?
I have met and heard Bobby Knight many times.. and he has made many references to being a Methodist. I am struck by the fact that while we now know the faith of the board of ND, but not of the current Big 10 schools as a whole.. If i have missed this in a previous post, please link me back. If not this should be discussed if the folks in the Big 10 feel that ND will join (at this point I am still 100% unconvinced they will). My base argument has been like follows like..
such as..
PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
CHURCH vs STATE
RESEARCH vs EDUCATION
CITY/STATE vs COLLECTIVE
OLD vs NEW
PREDATOR vs PREY
using these metrics.. plus the revenue.. is why I have the five listed about as the new BIG 16. and why ND and BC are NO, and Syracuse is on the fence..
MY POINT IS.. can we get a faith background for the boards and presidents of the BIG 10 schools?
thanks..
LikeLike
I don’t think the religious backgrounds of the boards and presidents matter; they head large, secular universities (even if Northwestern was founded by Methodists and is still affiliated with Garrett-Evangelical, they’ve been non-sectarian since the beginning). _Maybe_ if there are a preponderance of Catholics, they may feel some sentimental attachment to ND, and choose them over KU or SU if the money’s the same, but otherwise, I don’t think religion will factor in the decision-making.
BTW, it seems that the Big10 doesn’t want to antagonize the ACC, and UConn is both small and non-AAU, so if no ND and SU isn’t up to snuff, KU and Pitt are likely in.
LikeLike
If no ND, maybe Neb, Mo, RU in and final 2 out of Syr/U Conn/KU. This is how the final 3 stack up:
Syr:
#58 US News aca. rating
$25M fed research $s,AAU
private
19000+ enrolled
#63 2009 Director’s Cup
KU:
#96 US News
$74M fed Res. $,AAU
public
29000 enrolled
#72 DC
U Conn:
#66
$67M, not AAU
public
24000
#52
I would stop at 3. If pressed, I’d take KU and U Conn as the last 2.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Pitt. Personally, I’d consider Colorado as well.
LikeLike
yikes, I did forget pitt….so it might be 2 out of these 4: Pitt;Syr; U Conn, KU Of those 4 I’d take Pitt and be indifferent as to U Conn or KU.
LikeLike
richard,
it may not matter to you.. but it may matter to the ND board / president / donors / alumni
I argued pitt early on and kept getting shot down, based on overlapping markets. if overlapping markets matter, then you take uconn instead. Frank actually got me off Pitt and on Uconn / Maryland in the expanded footprint argument.
wether the Big 10 wants to antagonize the ACC , they will by going to 16 (as it forces the hand of the Pac 10 and SEC). Going forward the ACC knows that NO combination they can set up will put them in the BIG 3 (B 16, P 16, and SEC 16). If arkstfan is correct the BIG 3 can leave the NCAA/BCS and have 60 – 80 % of the USA media footprint and form their own “cartel” – a BIG 48 would allow the BIG 3 to control post season bowls with utter DOMINANCE from a revenue standpoint. The small 3 (B 12, ACC, BE) will become smaller and insignificant. if what I am reading from arkstfan and patrick is correct.. the little 3 will be more like the wac, mac, etc of today.. If you feel I am wrong show me any combination of “scraps” not in the BIG 3 will be able to bring enough added value to be able to sit at the table..
the only way this does not happen is if the Big 10 adds only one school and it is a Big East team. As the majority of these posts seem to argue more than 1 team added. the genie is out of the bottle, and the Big 10 will be the instigator for better or worse. no matter where this all falls out, once the big 10 goes past 12, they will be the “evil” empire.
From a personal standpoint, I think the Big 10 to 16, without having to take “pairs” is a cool move. It shows “huge” stones, but that being said.. to think everybody else is just going to sit around an do nothing is naive at best. Maybe I am wrong, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that I am not. Things change to account for changing demographics (see also the fall of the Harvard and Yale as football titans). My argument from day one has been a dynamic model vs a static one. if B 10 goes to 16, it will force the hand of the other 2 possible “mega” conferences (and why i have argued the texas twins will call the PAC 16 their new home).
As an individual I would not like to see this happen, I am pointing out that an action that shifts the landscapes will be met by other “predators” not to fall behind in the food chain. It is why I feel that what we as individuals want is not what we will get, but by opening up pandoras box we are forcing actions.
case in point is a SEC / ACC merger of sorts. While folks have said it would not happen because of academics, I would argue that BIG ACC STATE schools to the SEC is quite possible (as the academics in the SEC EAST are Vandy, Florida, and UGA – with UK gaining ground rapidly). Am I in favor of this.. NO.. but I can see it being a very real possibility.. (it would also allow Maryland to go to the BIG 10 – which I would favor).
LikeLike
Big10/16/20 and the SEC could very well split up the ACC between them. Then they and the Pac/Western 16/18/20 could split away from the NCAA and have their own basketball and football championships.
Big20 champ still meets Pac20 champ inthe Rose Bowl. SEC champ meets the second-best of the 3 conferences (or, if they throw the rest of the NCAA a bone, the NCAA championship winner). Plus-one to settle it all.
LikeLike
richard,
i think arkstfan is correct.. 16 + 16 + 16 as going to 20 only weakens the value. if 48 schools can dominate 80% of the market EVERYTHING else becomes scraps..
so Big 16 meets Pac 16 in rose bowl
and SEC 16 meets “best of rest” in sugar
winners meet each other for NC!!
but the real winners are the BIG 3 because they could “force” 3 + teams into remaining bowls as a “cartel” that no combination the “scraps” could muster to oppose them..
in the Mu Ha Ha world delaney wins the battle, but loses the war! as in trying to dominate, he forces a draw between the big 3. as stated before the big winner out of all this will be the media companies and their shareholders….
LikeLike
Eh, I think the Big10(/16/20) would be happy in a Big 3 world, since each conference would dominate their geographic area, with no room to expand.
LikeLike
richard..
ie.. that was arkstfan point ..
BIG 16 + SEC 16 + PAC 16 covers the east / midwest upper + east / south + lower midwest / west respectively..
the point was once each conference hit 16, there would be no need to go to 18 or 20, as the incremental value would go down. the rest of the country would have to fight for the “scraps”.
sorry, if i did not make that clearer..
LikeLike
@duffman:
“If you feel I am wrong show me any combination of “scraps” not in the BIG 3 will be able to bring enough added value to be able to sit at the table”
Sure.
Assume the Big 10 takes two of the following four teams: RU, Pitt, UConn, SU.
ACC gets the other two and WVU and either Louisville or Cincy. All three of those schools have been in the BCS over the past four years.
The pair of schools from the WVU/UL/UC trio might be seen as academic drags, but if it’s conference survival we’re talking about, standards can be lowered.
LikeLike
Hop Horn,
the BIG 3 means BIG 16, PAC 16, and SEC 16.. which means 4 – 6 of the current BIG PUBLIC ACC schools wind up in the BIG 16 or SEC 16 (an ACC that would no longer contain Maryland, UVA, UNC, Clemson, Ga Tech, and FSU).
I pegged a Big East / Catholic conference and a ACC / Private conference, but it would not include at least 8 BIG schools that are in the BE and ACC now. I have drafted on legal pads how the BIG 3 + the scraps based on arkstfans premise, and it really becomes the “haves” and the “have nots”. WVU = 60,000 + UL = 56,000 + UC = 35,000 stadiums (consider the size of Big 10 and SEC stadiums and you begin to see what I mean). Clemson has 82,000 seats and FSU has 84,000 – if they jump to an expanded SEC, you can see how quickly this creates wider gulfs. If the “re formed” ACC “averages” 45,000 seats and the SEC “averages” 90,000 you can see how big the gulf becomes.
In my notes a “private” conference would include Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Wake.. etc.. but it would not have the brute force a Trio of 16 team STATE school conferences (BIG 16, PAC 16, and SEC 16) would in terms of TV contracts.
LikeLike
@duffman
The B10 are pointedly secular schools. Catholics on the boards don’t matter to the Alums and I doubt they would to TPTB. Mostly because they didn’t in 1999 or 2003 and they don’t seem to affect life in the B10.
LikeLike
People keep throwing around 16 and 20 team super conferences as though they “have” to happen. Fact is they haven’t worked for quite some time and the barriers to their “being born” are quite significant.
You really see the SEC adding 4-8 members to split the huge ABC/ESPN contract they just signed (and probably get much resistance to changing, especially in this economic climate), diluting the payout per school? Sure adding Texas/TAMU to the Pac10 and filling in some extras will bump up the total Pac10 contract, but if previous history is anything its going to drop the per school payout, and how does that help the conference (there’s a reason why Texas insists on un-equal revenue sharing with schools it deems “inferior” to its market draw)? Even if the ACC adds all of Pitt/Cuse/UConn/Rutgers what’s that “really” going to do for their negotitaions on the upcoming contract (I’d probably say it’ll have about as much impact as its had for the BigEast).
As Frank/Patrick have stated so many times on this blog the only way a “Super Conference” works is with a dedicated television channel where it can showcase (and collect the ad revenue/cable carry rates from) live sports events that the ABC/ESPNs of the world are simply not interested in airing (tier 2/3/4 football/bball games, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, wrestling, etc). Its for this reason a smaller private school in a secondary market (Syracuse) can actually provide tens of millions of dollars to a conference via a dedicated conference channel while it would draw nary a glance from the big networks.
Facts are with the way the economy is right now I only see two possible conference television channels being able to be started (SEC & a PAC10/Big12 merger) and both would have serious challenges to raising the money (folks just aren’t in the risk taking mood these days). Even when they could (and I’m sure they could eventually), I’m not expecting them to get up and running for years (closer maybe to 2020?). By that time the Big10 will have already expanded to 16, raked in the cash, and maybe even starts looking for a second round of expansion (and why would a school want to join a start up television channel when they could potentially join one that’s been profitable for a decade by that point?).
LikeLike
Well yeah, these 16/20 team superconferences are likely decades down the road. We’re just trying to speculate what the final endgame would look like.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Though there is another thing I just thought of…would it actually be worth it?
I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it’ll be profitable at some point to some extent, but as we’ve seen tv channel profitability comes down to advertising. Advertising comes down to tv sets and what you put on them.
Now ABC/ESPN is going to take the “marquee games” so that means (by definition) you’re going to have “secondary events” that are going to have limited to no national appeal. If that’s the case, your conference channel is going to draw on the aforementioned advertising from the local demographics.
But here’s the thing that Patrick could perhaps shed some more light on, but I think I’m on fairly solid ground on…if there’s an “average” program that only reaches a limited number of sets and an average program that reaches a large number of sets who gets more $$$/ad? I’d bank on the larger market (duh).
The reason why this application of “no duh” is important is any additions to the SEC/Big12 are likely to be average programs in smaller markets. Maybe the SEC picks up WVU (which I’d actually argue isn’t average), but its value to a conference outside of its marquee games is marginal due to its small home footprint and likely alumni base (which probably largely reside in Big10/ACC states anyway). I guess I’m saying in a very long winded way, while another conference(s) may very well start their own channels, their own demographics, and those of the schools likely to join, are such that I can’t imagine them having the same “gold mine” that the Big10 has.
I guess yet another reason why the Big10 is most likely to push eastward and ensure it encompasses the largest population center in the US…
LikeLike
PSU guy..
I do not think we are looking at 20 team conferences, I do think we are looking at 16. as it has been pointed out, you have 3 16 team “footprint” conferences” that can reform their own NCAA / BCS. Once you have gotten to 16, there is very little reason to go to 18 or 20..
for some of these reasons….
a) 2×2 = 4, 2×4 = 8, 2×8 = 16.. so the next progression would be 24 ( a hard thing to accomplish)
b) 16 + 16 + 16 = 48, which translates to the BIG 3 (B16,P16,S16).. after 48 you are dealing with the laws of diminishing returns.. after you get past the perennial top 10 (ohio state, michigan, usc, texas, oklahoma, nebraska, alabama, and a few other teams) plus value added teams in their respective conferences. You have probably 80% of TV football demand.
c) small markets (see WVU) and small undergrads (see Wake Forrest) do not translate to big $$ via fan demand.
d) delaney wants to go out with a bang, so adding 1 school just gets him to where the BIG 12 and SEC are now. He seems to want his place in history, so 16 gets him there (if anybody thinks I am reading delaney incorrectly please tell me).
LikeLike
PSUGuy:
The Big12 won’t be able to add anything worthwhile; most likely, the most powerful schools (that aren’t taken by the Big10) merge with the Pac10. As for the SEC, they don’t have to settle for small markets. Virginia’s not small. NC isn’t small. South Florida (assuming it doesn’t get flooded) isn’t small either. There’s plenty of virgin ACC territory for the SEC to encroach upon.
LikeLike
richard,
in a flooding of south florida, all the more reason to avoid miami and USF.. and go for FSU!!
LikeLike
duff…don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we’re going to see 20 team conferences either (though I do admit to “evil genius” thoughts of inviting Cuse, UConn, Rutgers, Pitt, MD, Mizz, Nebraska, Texas & TAMU and locking up the US from New England down through the mid-west). However, the point brought up by Frank/Patrick is that so long as a conference has its own television channel, the old adage about “conferences with too many members reach a point of diminishing marginal returns” no longer holds true. Fact is when the only person buying was ABC/ESPN, and there was only so much $$$ you could get out of them, there did come a point when adding school X actually reduced the per school payout. However, with a conference tv channel its been proven that even if a team does not raise the “ABC/ESPN contract” payout enough to offset its inclusion to the conference, it COULD provide enough $$$ by incorporating markets previous untapped by the conference channel.
Personally, if they think that 16+ bring even more money (and they fit), and I have yet to see why this wouldn’t be the case based on the numbers shown by Patrick’s spreadsheet, why stop at 16 just so the rest of the NCAA can play catch up?
@Richard, while I agree about the North Carolina comment (who knew they had so many people?!) I think my overall point stands.
Don’t know accuracy, but found it on this site so its good enough to talk to…VA, while populated, tends to be skewed toward the DC metro area. Which tends to be inhabited by transplants and MD grads. While it would be an increase in “tv sets” I have to admit (based on my own experiences of living in the southern MD area for the past 6 years) I would not see it as a “complete” ownership of the market if the SEC took either (or even both) of VA or VaTech. OK and Kansas are low pop states and if a SEC conference tv channel started, teams like GaTech, Miami, FSU, etc would already find themselves smack dab in the market of the biggest members already in the SEC. If Pitt is borderline on the amount of money it can add to the Big10 because of PSU/OSU are other schools going to be any different against GA and FL?
Again, not saying that conference wouldn’t make money …it would. Just that with a conference tv channel you actually want to branch out to encompass as much area and include the highest population centers as possible (as opposed to getting the biggest programs with the largest national appeal). While the SEC could in fact get some very nice schools, in areas of decent population, I don’t think anyone is going to say they’d be to the level of NJ/NY up through New England (at least I wouldn’t).
LikeLike
@duffman – I see what you’re getting at, but I really don’t think that this is what it’s about for ND anymore. Otherwise, why did it join a conference for all of its other sports with schools that are secular public research institutions (and in most cases, not as prestigious as the Big Ten’s members)? The ACC has a research consortium like the Big Ten (albeit not as strongly developed), so that obviously wasn’t a hinderance to BC joining that conference. The faith argument will likely be used as an excuse by Domers (that these big, bad secular universities will suck the religious life out of the school), yet the ONLY thing that ND has been independent in is football. So, if ND is solely defined by football (because for some reason, according to Domers, its identity hasn’t already been compromised by being in the same conference as USF and Cincinnati for other sports), then what they’re saying that they’re the Catholic version of the University of Alabama. As one of the top 20 undergrad schools in the country, maybe ND’s administrators actually want to break the “ND’s identity = independence in football” image and re-focus its identity on greater academic endeavors. Oh, and it’s not as if though ND would still make a crapload of more money in the Big Ten for football itself, so football will actually be funded better than ever. If ND wants to stay independent, it’s because they want to stay independent for the sake of being independent. All of the other arguments set forth are, as Adam has described before, post-rationalizations to justify a pre-determined conclusion.
LikeLike
frank..
sort of my point.. as why ND went to the Big East in the first place (a collection of catholic schools and urban state schools with catholic footprints). maybe i am wrong here, and willing to admit it.. but they did not join the B 10 the first time.. and I still view them as an education school vs research school.
I do not view ND as a football school. I view ND as a religious school with a mission that is beyond research or athletic metrics. I feel sure I am not alone. As I said early on ND makes sense in the Big 10 from my point of view, I do not have the power to make it so. I do not think it is an excuse, I think ND just thinks from a different point of view. It may not be what I think, and it may not be what you, richard, mushroom, and others think. We do not sit on the ND board so what we think does not really matter in what ND will ACTUALLY do.
I think the only difference between you and I is that I feel that no matter what data I could come up with to win the argument is moot. I am not a Domer, and will never be a Domer in my lifetime. No matter what I could say or do, it will have NO EFFECT on how ND makes its decision..
HAHAHA – as I am typing this ESPN is interviewing ND Head Coach Brian Kelly.. His comments based on his personal choice is to stay independent..
Also, from ESPN broadcast Big East and BIg 12 are listed as conferences Delaney will approach at Arizona meeting.. TV money is issue for a “raid” of BE and Big 12. Which means arkstfan thinking of a BIG 3 is VERY REAL. which means my predator vs prey argument become VALID. Once this happens I think Maryland is on the table to go to the Big 10, as the ACC will not have the power to stop it.. just saying..
LikeLike
Frank, this post got me wondering – under a new 3 or 4 super-conference landscape could a handful of schools (ND, UT, KU, ISU, etc) be viable under the independent route? Could be something some of these more go-it-alone type schools at least consider. With big names like these maybe they could have success with the tv deal route on their own . . . just not sure.
LikeLike
I can see Texas do it. After that . . . . not really. Independence already ensures that ND makes less money than if they joined the Big10. No one cares enough about ISU for them to do well as an independent, and even Kansas would need a conference as well.
LikeLike
There are a handful of Texas fans who think we could go independent, but most don’t think it’s a viable route, regardless of whether or not a Longhorn Network could be successfully launched.
Who would Texas play in early November in football? Or on a weeknight in February in basketball?
And how would Texas qualify for a BCS game? Sure, the Horns could get championship game bids by finishing in the top two, but it seems doubtful for me that Texas, a school which would be abandoning the conference system, would receive anywhere close to the concession Notre Dame, a historical independent, received in terms of what it would take to qualify for one of the “lesser” four BCS games.
LikeLike
@ Frank
“Catholic version of the University of Alabama”?
What does mean? Should I be insulted?
LikeLike
Nah, ‘Bama’s won a few championships in the last 2 decades.
LikeLike
Whoops, forgot the smily. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: Better Off Red — Blog — Big 10 Expansion Talk heating up again
My goodness, NDNation is something else (except for the handful of readers that link to my blog posts there – I like you guys). Take a look at this argument about how much the Big Ten’s TV deals are compared to ND (and insinuating that the media out there isn’t vetting the numbers correctly):
http://ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=70085;d=all
LikeLike
@Frank:
Ultimately, NDNation is the same as Bucknuts, WeAreSC, MGoBlue, etc. Rationality is a distant second to unwavering, fervent fanaticism. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. Ultimately, even if every ND fan believes they (a) have a realistic say in affairs and (b) think there’s some kind of media conspiracy to sway ND towards a heathen “religion” (aka conference affiliation in football), the truth is the ND bigwigs will get all the necessary information, probably from Delany himself, so they can make an educated decision that isn’t going to involve any but select alumni at best.
In the end, you could prove to NDNation that they’ll stand to gain a billion dollars yearly from joining the Big Ten and most will still look the other way. They’ve got their opinions and no amount of facts are going to stand in the way. Even if ND joins, makes a ton of money, and wins NC and NC playing against the best of the best across the nation, odds are a good amount of fans will still burn effigies of the AD/President because they’re no longer independent.
Did have to laugh at this comment though:
“Word to Jim [Delany]: In terms of actual on-field performance in the major sports of football and basketball, your conference is regressing.”
Is a Notre Dame fan actually in a position to throw stones at the moment (sorry FLP)?
LikeLike
Edit: “wins NC and NC” should’ve read “wins NC after NC”
LikeLike
Manifesto..
Ha Ha.. “will burn effigies”
sad but true, they did it before but called it “inquisition”
and reinforces my position on if the majority of the presidents / directors for the big 10 are not catholic, ND stays put.
those darn catholics are just silly that way *smile*
LikeLike
@Duffman:
I’m totally going to make a Photoshop image for Frank when/if ND joins. I think taking the usual Iranian anti-US rally image should work, with ND fans burning BigTen conference/team flags.
LikeLike
Manifesto,
i would go a step further.. if ND goes to the Big 16 Salman Rusdie and Osama Bin Laden combined will feel safer than Frank!
LikeLike
I don’t know if you’ll need to Photoshop that if it happens.
=)
LikeLike
@FLP:
LOL. Good… it was gonna be a bitch trying to make all those Iranians look like pale, Conan O’Brien-esqe Midwest/Northeasterners. ;D
LikeLike
Not to mention he’s actually wrong. The Big10 has more BCS bowl appearances than any other conference and more Final 4 appearances in the last 10 years than any conference other than the ACC. Granted, there’s been fewer national titles, though a Domer probably isn’t in a position to say anything.
LikeLike
@Richard: Well, yeah, he’s totally wrong. Bad couple year stretch, but during the BCS era the BigTen has been one of the strongest conferences consistently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series#History_and_schedule
Not sure how much ND can talk, considering they’ve lost their only three BCS appearances by an average of 38-14 (38.66 – 14.33, including 34-20 against Ohio State in 2005).
LikeLike
No kidding. I delved into the site and read down a few dozen comments. Funny they’re arguing over it being reported that ND pulls $9MM/yr, but everyone over there thinks it *might* be closer to $12-15MM. All the while ignoring the rate of growth the BTN is enjoying WITHOUT expansion, AND the fact that once this thing breaks open, per Patrick’s conservative estimates, that mythical $15MM will go from about 70% of what a B10+ team pulls in annually to easily south of 50%.
Forget “Wake up the echoes”, simply WakeTFU.
LikeLike
The MAN is STRIVING to keep ND DOWN.
We must RISE, RIIIIIISE, against this Oppression.
LikeLike
I actually found something interesting on NDNation- a link to an old SI article about the last time the conference shuffle took place (1991):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1140740/1/index.htm
It’s good reading, if mostly for the laughs. My favorites:
“The game’s hottest new player is the Big East Conference”
Basically, the big story last time was the birth of the Big East. The story this time is its death.
“They (Penn State) must be having some second thoughts in State College about the wisdom of joining the Big Ten instead of waiting for the Big East.”
I do not think there is any PSU fan who seriously thinks they would have been better off in the Big East.
“Of these, the most vulnerable is the developing partnership between the Big Eight and the SWC, which are exploring what SWC commissioner Fred Jacoby calls “more of an alliance than a merger.””
An alliance that kicks out half of one league.
“Indeed, the SWC and the Big Eight fear that the Big Ten, which will have an unwieldy 11 teams with the addition of Penn State, might look to expand by adding one or more teams from their leagues.”
The more things change…
“(T)he Big East, centered in the heavily populated East, may become as strong and independent as the SEC.”
or not.
I’m not really sure what moral can be reached out of the last time, but I think I can safely say that the only groups that are completely happy with last round are the Big Ten/PSU and ACC/FSU. The Texas-Big Eight has been iffy at best. The Big East is in shambles. The SEC has had its lucrative title game, but I can’t imagine they wouldn’t trade Arkansas and South Carolina for Miami and Clemson in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
I found this old SI article even more entertaining:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1005547/index.htm
It’s a comedy piece, but I can see a new “Big Gulp” with the old Big 8 – Colorado + the Big Ten. I wonder if in 30 years a “Big Ugly” conference where the top teams play. Maybe with promotion/demotion like in the EPL.
LikeLike
This has been my point as well. No one on this board is in a position to forecast five years into the future. Yet you are willing to make a fifty commitment to five new members — based on what? How well will an article “Big Ten adds five to reap cable revenue fees” read in 2029?
LikeLike
Dude, your school’s not adding anybody (and if I had my druthers, ND wouldn’t be 1 of the 5), so you don’t have to worry about that.
LikeLike
This is a silly response. I notice you post all the time — maybe you need a rest.
LikeLike
This is now officially the silliest expansion idea yet. Sillier than the suggestions that the B10 take Iowa State, Louisville or Boise State. This one has them all beat. http://www.hammerandrails.com/2010/4/19/1431777/on-the-topic-of-big-ten-expansion
If Notre Dame says no, the Big 10 should pay the University of Chicago “a heaping crapload of money” to restart their athletic programs. Apparently, he’s serious. His “three school solution” is to add Iowa State, Mizzou and Pitt, since it would give Iowa, Illinois and PSU rivals.
Any more suggestions like this one and we may have to consider Purdue’s academic fit in the Big 10. (I’m kidding on that last point, before a flamewar starts.)
LikeLike
Are you serious! Break up the “Nerdy Nine” just to help out the Big 10, there would be a serious outcry at Carnegie Mellon! If NYU lost that Chicago TV market, just think of how many “techs” would have to start hacking the Big 10 party schools to make up for the lost revenue..
actually it does show out of the box thinking, but it would be cheaper and easier to just merge them with Nortwestern as a PUBLIC STATE institution.
a) what would a merged research number look like?
b) what would a merged endowment look like?
c) at that point they could just buy the Bears franchise and become a non profit..
and yes c) is jest, lest the northwestern folks get uptight..
LikeLike
Not to be forgotten, Tom Osborne at Nebraska has close ties to Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez (Barry played for Nebraska), and Head Coach Bo Pelini has close ties to Big Ten football (grew up in Ohio and played for OSU).
If Nebraska wants in, those links could prove helpful.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Penn State’s president Graham Spanier came to PSU from Nebraska. That’s another vote for the Huskers.
LikeLike
NDNation just gives me fits of giggles every time I try to read some of the threads.
“Given that Teddy Greenstein is a typical Northwestern asshole”
Seriously? I haven’t seen that type of anti-NU vitriol outside of Hawkeye message boards. Are they still upset about ’95?
“PS I am not a nutjob.”
Of course you’re not. Now you and your invisible friend just go play nice now.
“By the way, everytime I see a picture of Jim Delaney, I want to slug him. What a smug, fat, fucking asshole.”
This is especially rich from the fans of a school that had Weiss as their coach. Smug and fat don’t even begin to describe him.
“If you told me I would lose both pinkies if ND didn’t join that wouldn’t change my opinion. I don’t think I’m in anyone’s target audience.”
Well he might not be in the target audience, but it does appear that ND lets people like this make their decisions.
“Just so I can state my point clearly, I have very little desire to see Northwestern’s, Duke’s, Syracuse’s, etc. football status, revenue, or access increase because they’re now suddenly in the same conference as ND.”
This one just sums it up for me. ND fans love the idea of the student-athlete, they just don’t want any of them in their conference where their schools might benefit. No small, academically prestigious privates need apply, because they just can’t compete in football.
(As an aside, since I started following college football in ’04, ND has 40 regular season wins. Coincidentally, this is the exact same number as Northwestern. So yeah…)
LikeLike
Nice synopsis of Big Ten expansion issues by Stewart Mandel:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/04/20/expansion-faqs/
He’s also one of the few national writers that has consistently noted the logic of the Big Ten adding Nebraska.
LikeLike
I like Mandel’s Nebraska/Missouri/NYC market school suggestion for 14. For 16, I’d add Kansas and another east coast school. Personally, I think Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Rutgers and Maryland/Syracuse offers an ideal mix of nationally respected brands and new cable markets.
LikeLike
From ESPN:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe says he is not expecting the Big Ten to notify him this week that it will be pursuing his members as part of a plan to expand.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said in December the league will explore options for expansion in the next 12 to 18 months. Several Big 12 schools have been speculated to be targets, including Missouri and Texas.
The commissioners of all 11 major college football conferences are gathered at the Royal Palms Hotel this week for BCS meetings.
Beebe said Tuesday he expects to be the first to know if the Big Ten decides to make a bid for one of his member schools. He also said he believes the Big Ten’s timetable to decide on whether to expand has not changed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ol’ Danny boy could be in for a bit of a surprise soon.
LikeLike
B12 alleged commissioner Dan Beebe is the moronic shill who in the 3rd qtr of Texas-Baylor babbled at length on why playoffs make the NFL inferior to college football.
LikeLike
Well, he’s right about that.
LikeLike
BTN or not, would Nebraska be willing to give up recruiting exposure in Texas?
LikeLike
Nebraska recruited just fine in Texas before they joined the Big XII. I don’t think they’re going to loose too much in recruiting there.
LikeLike
Well, compare Nebraska’s success before they had conference-related access to Texas talent to after. Nebraska’s ability to recruit partial qualifiers seems more relevant to their success.
LikeLike
The numbers in this blog have been great, but I don’t think they explain ND. Politics and emotion explain the ND Hamlet routine. My guess is that there is a raging fight behind the scenes. The Swarbrick faction sees the future, the higher revenue and wants to get in. Swarbrick fears that ND will become the Harlem Globetrotters if they don’t jump into a conference. The problem is history. ND has been a special football school for so long, it’s impossible for some within their community to admit that it over (or at least in serious decay). The psychological pain of admitting that they’re not special is too much. The thought of being just one of 12/14/16 is simply too much to bear. As long as ND is a rich program, the prospect of more rich doesn’t resonate. ND’s Hamlet routine is the public manifestation of this fight.
So, there are three possible outcomes: 1) Swarbrick wins and ND enters the B10 as an equal partner with no special status. OR 2) the “we’re special” crowd wins and ND stays out. OR 3) Swarbrick wins, but the victory is incomplete. The special crowd forces him to demand some type of special status for ND within the B10 (keep NBC and its revenue, for example).
The results of #1 and #2 are straightforward. If #3 – then it is on the B10. Even if that option is a moneymaker for the B10, will the B10 swallow its pride? I doubt it. Let have special status in a conference that doesn’t really need them and where the member schools are fairly equal (at least there is no one dominant school)? In the Big East, fans seethe at ND’s special deal, but as the weakest conference, the BE schools have no choice but to eat it. The B10 is in no such position. There are 4-5 AAU schools who would enter the B10 with no such conditions (MO, RU, Syr, Pitt, maybe NE) and be more than happy to be one of 12/14/16. So, why not just move on. The B10 can have schools who want to be there, will play nice with others and everyone makes more money.
Money matters – and its the easiest thing to analyze, but don’t discount pride, power, and ego. The challenge is that you never know at what point pride is set aside. ND might be running out of time to get over themselves. Looking forward to their next game against the Washington Generals – I mean Huskies.
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2010-04-20/penn-state-president-doesn-t-expect-big-ten-expansion-announceme
Comments from PSU prez saying he does not expect Delaney to say anything this week.
False alarm people, you may leave your bunkers. Nothing to see here.
LikeLike
Yep, his quotes sure sound like the B10+ bigwigs couldn’t reach agreement.
Crazy thought of the day: Delany seems to be suggesting a long-term reorganization based around 4 conferences of 16 teams each. Those 64 might eventually split off from the NCAA. Could Texas, and now the P10, be pushing a more politically feasible alternative of four 20-team alliances? For example, P10 doesn’t expand, starts a joint cable venture with the B12, eventually the B12 pares down to 10 (which could be this theory’s fatal flaw.) B10+ just goes to 14, probably without ND, then waits for a shakeout and continued discussions among the conferences. Gives them a chance to see if the SEC raids/guts the ACC, which could finally force ND’s hand and provide the B14 with a possible ND, MD, VA, Duke, NC, plus one grab. If that plays out, conference 4 would be a relatively poor east to west alliance of the leftovers who want to stay BCS equivalent.
If that’s the case, then the B14 might start with NE, MO, and Rut. Gets the B12 down to 10 and ready to plug and play the Western Alliance and its cable startup.
A bit out there, but hey, we may have a while to speculate.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, 4 BCS conferences of 80 instead of 64, while diluting the revenue a bit, might be able to keep Congress and the state AG’s off their back. Provides more moderate teams so that the big boys can more easily keep their larger win counts per season. Further, it substantially reduces the chances that a non-Big Four conference could convince the broadcast and cable networks to give the outside conference(s) a big contract. Thus by shrinking the number of conferences receiving large contracts, a 25% increase in teams per conference could provide more than a 25% increase in revenue per conference.
LikeLike
I think 3 conferences of 20 is more likely (though the SEC may stop at 16 or 18 while the Big20 and Pac20 get there).
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!:
Which 14 schools would you foresee being promoted to BCS status in a 4×20 setup? (And that 14 doesn’t include ND, which is already at BCS status.)
You could add every school in the MWC, including San Diego State and Wyoming, and still need to find five more viable schools.
I don’t see how that would work.
To me, the whole point of superconferences, in a 4×16 model, sooner rather than later. is to shut out current non-BCS schools from slotting into existing conferences as replacements for departing schools.
LikeLike
That or they are just trying to cover up some leaks. Either way, though, I doubt we’ll see any real news this week.
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
::MINOR UPDATE::
http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2010/04/20/sports/huskers_hq/doc4bce2cca93b36810265003.txt
Most of the article is about Byrne saying the college sports experience is all about the student-athlete.
BUT SOME TIDBITS FROM THE ARTICLE:
Former Nebraska AD Bill Byrne
“The loudest rumors I’ve heard about us,” Texas A&M’s Bill Byrne said Monday from College Station, Texas, “is that the Pacific 10 Conference would be the place that would have the most interest in us.”
Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne told The World-Herald last month that there’s “a fairly good chance the Big Ten makes a move in some way — maybe one team, maybe five.”
Several Big 12 athletic directors, when asked recently about the latest realignment rumors, echoed the line “things feel different this time,” meaning that they sense change.
Byrne said the following about Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany:
“Jim Delany is very serious about this, and he’s a very smart man. He’s going to do everything he can to position the Big Ten to be formidable. They already are, and the Southeastern Conference is as well.”
LikeLike
There are reports, including from Colin Cowherd and Kevin Harlan, that the Big 10’s primary three targets are Connecticut, ND and Pittsburgh.
In fact, Cowherd said Uconn is a primary target at the moment.
I’ve said that Uconn’s candidacy should not be overlooked. If this is about content, you are talking about a nascent football program, a top 10 basketball program, and an unparalleled powerhouse in women’s bball that could bring different type of advertising revenue to the conference, and Uconn is the State U. of a very wealthy state.
Now, if these three are invited, I don’t see how you leave out Rutgers and Syracuse. Maybe once ND accepts, the 15th and 16th spots are given to RU and Cuse.
I understand this board has a lot of love for Nebraska — but its all been speculation from fans, we are seeing consistent reports on the 4 Big East schools and ND. It could all be a coincidence but I’m thinking this is where its going
LikeLike
My guess is that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
LikeLike
I think we´re going to hear a lot of rumors over the next week but nothing official or substantial. Some of this may have legs but most will probably be posturing by different universities, fans, conferences, etc.
That said, I´m not sure I buy this one. Three team expansion like this isolates UConn too much and none of these teams help capture NYC. Uconn may get invited but not as the top priority.
LikeLike
I have been wondering what we can expect from the expansion candidates on the football field in Big Ten play. This is what they did over the last 10 years versus the big three (OSU, Michigan, and PSU) and the rest of the teams:
Nebraska: Big 3: 2-1; Rest: 4-0
Notre Dame: Big 3: 5-6; Rest: 11-12
Missouri: Big 3: 0-0; Rest: 6-2
Kansas: Big 3: 0-0; Rest: 1-2
Maryland: 0-0; Rest: 1-0
UConn: Big 3: 0-0; Rest: 2-0
Syracuse: Big 3: 0-3; Rest: 2-6
Pitt: Big 3: 1-1; Rest: 1-2
Rutgers: Big 3: 0-0; Rest: 2-2
Overall w/o ND: Big 3: 3-5; Rest: 13-14
Overall w/ND: Big 3: 8-11; Rest: 24-26
Maybe the Big 3 becomes the Big 4 or 5 (with ND bouncing back) and Nebraska
The others should not be cupcakes but probably 2nd tier most of the time with occasional bad years for 3rd tier finishes. They probably fall in behind Wisconsin and Iowa most years.
LikeLike
Brian at MGoBlog elaborates on his theory of using a World Cup strategy to divide a 16 team Big Ten:
http://mgoblog.com/content/totally-bats-16-team-big-ten-proposal
LikeLike
I think all this talk about whether or not Notre Dame can turn down the opportunity to join the Big Ten is moot. Notre Dame is not even going to be invited. I don’t think Paterno was speaking off the cuff when he said Notre Dame had its chance.
The Big Ten will be successful beyond their dreams even without Notre Dame, so why bother? They’ve jilted the Big Ten twice recently, and make it publicly very clear that they still don’t want to join, and would do so only as the last resort, and oh, so reluctantly – maybe. If Notre Dame is confused/conflicted about the Big Ten, Delaney and the Big Ten presidents should have a clear view of what Notre Dame membership would bring. They will resent having to give up their football independence, they won’t be happy being part of the CIC, and they probably won’t truly adapt to the egalitarian nature of the Big Ten.
I don’t fault Notre Dame for this (I just think it’s the nature of the beast), but who the hassle when there are such good schools ready and willing to join the Big Ten, even wanting to join the Big Ten, and with whom the Big Ten will prosper. Patrick’s analysis bears this out. And I think Jack Swarbrick knows this, too, and that is why he has been backpedaling since early March.
Again, the Big Ten will not extend Notre Dame an invitation.
LikeLike
grantlandR,
I agree. Too much noise about specifics that ND just doesn’t live up to. ND has their own path to travel as a university which is very different from the members of the Big Ten. Forcing them together is not a good idea, and I think they both know it. I think the media, seeing ND play a bunch of Big Ten schools each year and being smack in the middle of the footprint, wants to push them together. The media thinks it is a natural fit, even though most people can see it is not.
LikeLike
::: MORE TONIGHT :::
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21569/expansion-not-a-player-in-bcs-meetings
Tidbits from ESPN…
Pac 10 Commish Scott’s position remains constant: Expansion makes sense if only it increases per team revenue.
Said Beebe, “Any conference looking at expansion has to look at whether an institution is going to bring at least one unit to pay for itself.”
Moreover, just because a team resides in or near a prime metropolitan market doesn’t mean that team will deliver that market.
Noted WAC commissioner Karl Benson, “It’s how many television sets they can deliver, not necessarily how many people are in their market.”
Of course, Benson then noted that the Big Ten has been delivering on TV, with a conference network that has made per-team revenue by far the biggest among BCS conferences — $22 million, $5 million more than the SEC.
Sounds like some of the other conference heads think ratings are important.
LikeLike
ND and the four East Coast schools — Rutgers, Syracuse, Uconn and Pitt.
You get the largest national TV draw in Notre Dame.
You also lock down New York City and Philadelphia.
Content rules right?
You add the nation’s preeminent lacrosse school in Syracuse to launch a sport to keep viewers in the spring.
Uconn is the most valuable women’s b-ball program in the country by a mile.
Uconn and ND allow the Big 10 to form a hockey league to air games on Friday nights.
Content?
You’ve also created the most dominant basketball conference in the country. I believe that Connecticut-Syracuse-Pitt were the three most successful BE basketball programs over the past ten years.
How about rivalries?
Syracuse-Connecticut is the best basketball rivalry in the Big East.
How I think this transpires. The Big 10 adds the four Big East schools by June 1 — Uconn, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt. They announce an intention to look for a 16th school by October 1.
Why? The Big East schools need to provide 27 months notice to leave now. ND doesn’t play football so the 27 month notice is irrelevant to them.
The Big East either splits in two, with a Catholic league that would be a good home for ND’s basketball, but unsatisfactory for other sports, or it reconsitutes itself with fourth tier academic schools like ECU, Memphis, UCF and Southern Miss.
ND sees the revenues explode for the BTN and announces its intention to join as the 16th member in the fall.
LikeLike
Justin,
I certainly hope that is what happens. As a Syracuse fan that is my dream scenario, but I am not positive that will occur. I could easily see the Big 10 grabbing at least Nebraska from the Big 12 and possibly Missouri.
However several quotes point that the Big 10 is “looking long term” when determining expansion candidates so if cultivated correctly a northeast stretch could be very profitable if SU/RU/Uconn fare decently in Big 10 football. Attendance and fan fervor would almost certainly increase with big names like Michigan, Notre Dame, OSU, and PSU coming to town.
You do make a good point that adding these Big East schools would greatly enhance all the sports in the Big 10. Big increases in B10 basketball quality, and potential establishment of a Big 10 hockey and/or lacrosse league.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing I see…the SEC and the ACC are pretty much static. Low likelihood of either adding a member, especially after contract negotiations just get done (which will be the case with the ACC soon).
The Big12, while vulnerable, is pretty stable at the moment. Even if it lost Colorado (a blow to their money making ability) there are teams in the area that could help offset and allow the Big12 to limp along.
If the Big10 contains its additions to the BigEast it can take the best of the eastern schools before either the ACC or the SEC has a shot at them while not giving the Big12 reason to self destruct (and allow Texas/TAMU/Neb/Mizz to bolt in different directions). Even if it takes a single ACC school (thinking directly of MD) it would be leaving plenty of “low hanging fruit” for the ACC to replace them and again leaves the Big12 “stable”.
This allows the Big10 to consolidate its new members, get a new tv contract, and work out the bugs that will inevitably come with new membership. If the new tv contract is like the old…it should last 10 years which would give the Big10 approximately the same amount of time to work with the new members and determine how successful this round of expansion was.
If its anything like the PSU addition, THEN they could turn to the mid-west and poach the Neb, Mizz, etc…if those schools still maintain the interest of the Big10.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy – The one quibble that I have is that I don’t know if the Big Ten really should be worried about the BE schools going anywhere. The ACC is squeamish about expansion because BC has been a very mediocre success in breaking into the Northeast. If anything, it’s a word of caution about getting too intoxicated with large markets. (Granted, the Big Ten Network is a vehicle that can take advantage of those large markets better than traditional TV contracts.) The Big XII might be able to do things to make themselves more attractive to Nebraska and Missouri over the next few years that would make them harder to get. Is there anything that the BE could do over the next few years that would prevent them from bolting for the Big Ten within 2 seconds? I don’t think so at all – those BE schools will always be there. Think about this: Nebraska, the #4 most valuable football program in the country (ahead of both Ohio State and Michigan) is there for the taking as of today! In terms of priority, a school like Nebraska needs to be locked up before the Big XII enters into a new TV contract that may them more squeamish about a move.
LikeLike
Very true about Nebraska and today, but here’s the thing. What’s their addition to the BTN now? Fact is, Nebraska is a “wow” school only from a football sense and that is only going to help the Big10 (not the BTN) come contract negotiations with ABC/ESPN in 2016. Few added households for the BTN means fewer ad dollars (than could be gotten now) since most of Nebraska’s football content will be on the major networks. They would certainly add money, but it would more toward the older business model of focusing on the ABC/ESPN contract as a primary revenue generation method.
Lets take Patrick’s estimate for a second. Nebraska is looking to add $57 mill to the Big10 pie if its included. Teams like Cuse, Pitt, Uconn (ignoring Rutger/NY for the moment) look to average $37 mill…quite a bit of difference, with the trio adding almost double what Nebraska would bring by itself. However, as I said before Nebraska is a lower population state in an area of slow growth. While it would be a been for any conference, it would be so primarily for the ABC/ESPN contract not the conference channel. And that’s what the channel does that completely changes the game…
I guess I’mjust saying Nebraska is, and has been, a wanted commodity in the college football landscape, but the reasons for why a conference would want it don’t mesh as well with the reasons why a conference tv channel would want to expand.
The real question I guess is does the Big10 really think it will stop at 12/14/16 schools or does it see itself expanding even further. If it is stopping, then yes Nebraska needs to be seriously considered. If it thinks further expansion in the mid-term (say another decade) is probable, then solidifying the east coast markets before the BigEast disintegrates and allows their teams (and markets) to scatter to the new conference tv channels (SEC maybe ACC) is probably the right opening move, as I really think the Big12 (especially Neb/Mizz) are stable enough to wait.
LikeLike
Nebraska would also add value in ad rates, which are a big chunk of the BTN’s revenue. I think the Big10 will still add Nebraska, Mizzou, and try to get in to NYC with more 3 schools (if no ND, then Rutgers, Pitt, & ‘Cuse?) Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn?
LikeLike
Baseball is already an established spring sport.
I believe you are correct on some of those schools. I think Pitt and Rutgers are probable, then either Syracuse or UConn and this is why….
UConn is not AAU, but could be added.
Syracuse spends very little on R&D, something the Big Ten thinks is important.
If these schools are so desirable, why is the Big East conference payout only $4.2 million per school? Football is the #1 money maker, yet Syracuse and UConn average under 40,000 in attendence. TV Ratings nationally for these schools (sans Pitt) are low, the BTN needs games that generate interest. Who watches lacrosse? Baseball will generate more money and more ratings as a spring sport.
Nebraska and Missouri are a better combo to add along with Pitt and Rutgers. As for Syracuse and UConn…. I see it as a toss up. I don’t see ND getting an invite.
But, maybe six weeks from now, we will all see for ourselves. Which will be great!
LikeLike
Re Big East TV contract (Patrick)
Not a TV expert and please correct me if I am wrong, but current Big East contract was negotiated after loss of Miami, VT and BC where UL, Cinn, UConn, USF all were new to a BCS bowl conference and RU was still a doormat and SU was beginning its multiyear slump.
So the current low Big East TV contract is not really a mystery.
Since then SU, RU and the other schools have spent a lot on facilities and salaries and UL and SU last year replaced disasterous coaching selections with Strong at UL and Marrone at SU.
Still trying to understand how your estimates indicate Missouri or Pitt are a better choice than a eastern strategy of RU and SU.
LikeLike
In it’s most basic terms Missouri or Pitt ALREADY make more money than RU oe SU despite location.
That said, that really isn’t my position. I think Rutgers, Pitt, and either SU or UConn are taken along with Missouri and Nebraska.
SU and UConn have holes in their resume that I think are to big to take both. If I were to rank my top 6 and only 5 get invites… SU & UConn are the bottom two.
LikeLike
I know it’s late and you are probably sick of explanations, but how does Pitt and Mizz make more money now than RU and SU despite location? Sorry.
LikeLike
@Rick, Sorry…. it was late and I didn’t have my sheet. I was wrong above. UConn makes $54 mil. Mizzou makes $50 mil. Syracuse $48 mil and Pitt at $42 mil. That is total athletic revenue – conference payouts.
I think the BTN will make money with whomever they choose, within reason. All of these schools are within reason. I could potentially see any of them in an addition. I believe SU R&D expenditures will seriously hurt their cause, but UConn not being AAU and the relatively new football program (with a 38,229 ave. attendence) will hurt their cause.
LikeLike
@ Justin
Who in the footprint watches LAX?
UCONN hockey? No wonder I never heard of them, they’re AHA, which I suppose is still Div 1. If they’re the reason for Minnesota to be forced out of the WCHA and into the B10-hockey the whole state will be upset.
A Big East Catholic league will probably be adequate for ND, especially if they pick up a couple decent Catholic schools who don’t play FBS football.
LikeLike
Forget Connecticut — non-AAU and too new a program for the old-money Big Ten.
The ideal five for expansion: Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse and Maryland (which will accept if it feels the ACC’s southern schools could be picked off by the SEC).
LikeLike
BREAKING
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Big Ten expansion timetable isn’t on fast track
Commissioner says conference will stick with 12-18 month window
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0421-big-ten-expansion–20100420,0,1326764.story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So much for all those people who were supposedly in the know. Looks like we got another year of speculation on our hands.
LikeLike
The best part of the article is “Delany has informed colleagues that, contrary to a Tribune report, the timetable for Big Ten expansion has not been accelerated from the period of 12-to-18 months that was announced in December.” Mr. Greenstein, that report was yours. You are breaking the news that the news you reported earlier is wrong.
LikeLike
Greenstein seems to include a lot of speculation in his columns. Of course there are discussions going on now. Did he think the Big Ten announced 12 to 18 months, and wouldn’t meet with anyone until 10 months have passed? This isn’t a simple process.
LikeLike
I doubt the Tribune just made up a story that the Big 10 accelerated the timetable this weekend.
So what happened? I’m guessing Delaney took his plan to the Big 10 presidents and received considerable pushback from certain schools. We know that Michigan, Michigan State and Indiana voted against Big 10 expansion in 1991 — and that was Penn State, if these three schools or even worse 4, are opposed to a grandiose 3 or 5 team expansion, then Delaney would tone down the rhetoric.
I sense there is a real struggle here between certain execs at the BTN and Delaney and certain Big 10 schools. For example, does Minnesota or Illinois want to lose 50% of their games with Michigan and OSU to play Nebraska or Pitt a few times a decade?
The last thing the Big 10 needs is to invite several institutions only to have them voted down. Its important to present a united front. A failure to do so either leads to the humiliation of a school getting rejected, or if its clear only 8 votes are there, a school (i.e. Iowa State) potentially using politics to strong-arm the Big 10 to vote for the less optimal expansion solution (see Virginia and Virginia Tech in 2003).
I think this is a setback for Delaney — there could be a real resistance to this expansion in some circles. For the Tribune — the mouthpiece of the conference — to basically refute its own story hurts its credibility.
No one is going to put up with this crap for another 12-18 months.
LikeLike
Good analysis! Add Nebraska, say no to Notre Dame, and call it a conference. Frank, if you are still writing on this next year, my wife says you will be cause for divorce!
LikeLike
my thoughts (and my wife’s) exactly. And I NEVER thought I’d NOT want ND in the Big 10. They have been my personal unicorn for this conference since the mid 90s. But the discussions about institutional focus and fit are beginning to sway me from thinking ND will even want to join – which makes me not want them to join. I guess that’s what you call personal growth in real time.
Also, I’m beginning to question how much sense it makes to bring in 2-4 academically and athletically middling Big East schools (and not just because I don’t need more quasi-crappy teams beating up on my hapless alma mater – IU). While it does create more “product” of live programming, I don’t give a rat’s nut about ‘Cuse vs anybody and the same goes for Rutgers in their current state and I imagine 95% of B10 country and probably about 80% of NY/NJ feels the same (total guess). UConn is the only team near compelling, and I have to admit that’s solely due to their quick rise in the D-1 ranks, their game against ND last year and the fact their UofM’s season opener/stadium dedication game this year.
Nebraska v. whomever, OTOH, would be a definite flip back on the ol’ remote from whichever game is being featured on ABC/ESPN. They’re an immediately respected power in the conference that you can cheer against – think a Western tOSU – and that is something as a B10 fan I can really get behind.
LikeLike
Pitt and Rutgers are not academic ‘middling’ schools. Both are world class research schools that fit well. By most measures they would rank just under the upper tier of Big Ten schools. Syracuse has some excellent academics but is not a broad-based powerhouse, especially in the hard sciences where most of the research money lays. UConn has improved its profile quite a bit but is still significantly behind all Big Ten schools except (although they have a decent amount of research money — is the a med school associated with them/ I don’t see where the money is coming from in the other research areas).
LikeLike
@michaelC –
I stand corrected. I mixed up these school’s USNWR rankings with some of the less desirable Big12 schools in my head. Thanks for clearing that up. I did not include Pitt however, as I don’t see them being a part of an eastern only expansion. If the B10 is going to round out at 14, you’ve got to imagine they’re taking RU, SU and UConn. Or do they? Now that you mention it, in an east expansion to 14, I’d much prefer Pitt to SU, for institutional and competitive reasons. Still would rather poach Neb from the B12 than take any combination of these schools.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to downplay Nebraska — they would be my first choice in a twelve team expansion.
However, we’ve seen reports on ND, Texas, Uconn, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers. There is nothing on Nebraska.
We need to consider them a darkhorse at this point with Maryland and Kansas. Unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility.
LikeLike
@Justin… really?
Are you just choosing to ignore the reports about Nebraska? People have posted above in this forum about that in direct response to you. Here from Greenstien (who you said was forefront of this story) https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/#comment-60196 and here from Greenstien again… https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/#comment-60160 here the ex-Big10 commisioner says they have been considered since as early as 1946 .. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-19/sports/ct-spt-0420-around-town–20100419_1_ex-commissioner-pete-vonachen-astros-manager here from SI…. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/20/bcs.meetings/ here from the Austin-Statesman http://www.statesman.com/sports/commentary-big-ten-appears-about-ready-to-pounce-591843.html here from the Northwestern… http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/sports/grayhack-presidents-should-make-big-ten-bigger-1.2232367 etc.
I understand you favor an eastward expansion, and that is fine, but ignoring the westward discussions isn’t healthy. Like FOX News Channel… if you only hear the republican side of things for years, you get a little messed up.
LikeLike
Patrick made some decent points until he stuck his left wing MSNBC tapping foot in his liberal Keith Olbermann kissing mouth.
LikeLike
@Herk/Patrick: And as fun as political quips (insults) can be, let’s keep them out of this. Sports conversations devolving into political (or social) ones are silly and pointless.
LikeLike
@Herk,
That made me LOL! Good stuff.
@ Manifesto,
You are exactly right. Politics and sports need to remain at least 500 yards away from each other. Sorry for breaking the restraining order, I’ll stay away from that kind of garbage in the future…..
As it goes @Herks comeback almost made me fall out of my chair. AWESOME!
LikeLike
@Justin – Excellent observation. This is probably what happened. Greenstein’s sources in the Big Ten office likely were all on board with a particular plan to push forward, but it goes back the one of the first things that we all said about expansion: “Think like a university president and not like a sports fan.” These university presidents have different thoughts and needs than the people on the athletic side of the equation (and very likely be more conservative in their actions). That said, the circumstances over the past few weeks really put the Big Ten in the position to drop the hammer (even appearing to get ND to do a full self-evaluation), so I’m a bit disappointed that the conference isn’t taking advantage of the panic.
LikeLike
After all of this, man, this is disappointing.
I have to think Justin is right on what might have happened on Sunday. That said, if Delany and the boys in the Big 10 office were ready to go to bat, I´m sure they haven´t given up on July 1st.
After talking to the presidents on Sunday, they know where everyone stands, what the concerns are and who needs convincing. From here, you probably try to address those problems and get back to the hold-outs as quickly as possible. As Frank and Patrick have pointed out, there is too much money on the table to put this off for another year.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree 100%. It would be a mistake for the Big 10 to let this linger for another twelve months. You have to strike while the iron is hot.
However (speculating), Delaney may feel this delay could prove beneficial, because it allows the PAC 10 to make the first move. If Colin Cowherd is correct, and the PAC 10 adds Colorado and Utah (with an eye towards a bigger expansion) then Texas may consider its options while the Big 10 is still studying expansion.
If the Big 10 adds five schools, and Texas is committed to not making the first move, then the Big 10 is off the table, and Texas would only have the SEC and PAC 10 as options.
My guess is its still about Texas or ND. I would guess the Big 10 tried to pressure ND to accept — they declined — and other presidents simply aren’t ready to add a bunch of other schools at the expense of weakening the longstanding rivalries.
LikeLike
Also – I do feel that the Big 10 will expand.
One possibility is to invite as twelfth school that everyone feels is a great institutional fit (Pitt or Rutgers), which according to the Tribune report would make the Big 10 money, so that at least you could start playing a Big 10 title game in 2012.
Then, you study expansion for another 9-12 months and see if you’re willing to convince everyone to adopt a 16 team platform.
If the comrpromise is twelve teams, I think the Big 10 would probably take Pitt or Rutgers, see how they fit into the conference, and go from there.
LikeLike
Frank,
First – My wife thinks this is some sort of porno site in disguise even after I let her read some of the posts, so the Big 10 HAS TO DO SOMETHING or there will be hell to pay in my household as well…
Second – I think I posted this in your first blog that started all of this: It takes Universities TIME! Look at the hiring process at the Universtiy of Michigan for the Head Football Coach after Lloyd announced he was retiring AT THE BEGINNING of the season.
1. Sailboat Bill didn’t even have a short list, or so it was stated.
2. I’m not entirely sure he spoke with anyone (unofficially) prior to the OSU game.
3. The Search Committee hadn’t even been formed until sometime in November.
4. It still took the better part of 3 weeks to nail down a candidate.
The PSU addition in 1991 is another great timeline to review….
Let’s face facts: Academia is not the private sector when it comes to transaction speed. And these decisions are decisions that all of the Big 10 Universities are going to have to live with for a long time. Yes, PSU looks great after 15 years in retrospect. However, if I was a president of one of the Big 10 schools and we had just gone through the pain of childbirth of the BTN and I still was unsure of what the kid was capable of, I might not be too willing to rush right out and sign him up for little league, or commit to a college and sign a letter of intent if he’s ready to go to the pros.
The Big 10 holds all the cards (and cash) right now – it’s that simple. They don’t have to do anything and the money still comes rolling in.
Let’s not forget that. Even a conference championship wouldn’t change the money potential that’s rolling in right now. Everything needs to digest with TPTB and we’ll see what happens when the dust settles.
LikeLike
MIRuss, I agree with your sentiment, but they are leaving a lot of money on the table.
If Patrick’s numbers are correct,for every year the Big 10 doesn’t act, they leave $266 mm on the table. That’s enough to light a fire under anyone’s butt.
LikeLike
It’s certainly possible that Delaney is encountering more resistance to his plan by member presidents than most of us on this board would prefer.
Or maybe it’s not so much resistance that’s slowing this down; perhaps it really does take 12-18 months to get this all organized. That’s what he said intially–maybe he said it because he meant it.
It’s possible, too, that by making this announcement, Delaney is simply trying to take the heat off himself and the BT presidents, who are likely getting peppered with questions everywhere they go.
And perhaps they’re waiting on a school like Texas, which might need some time to do an analysis as to whether that Foghorn Leghorn Network they’re considering could fly.
LikeLike
@Scott S, any of your explanations sound possible, although if it´s number 2 (it really does take 12-18 months), why the leak in the first place?
I tend to give Delany more credit than most other sports commissioners or GMs, as I feel like his vision for this expansion would probably amaze the general public.
That said, the Big 10 had a chance to lay the hammer down by moving quickly, and then just sitting back and watching the dominoes fall.
If this isn´t just a diversionary tactic, I tend to think it´s the process needed to reel in the big fish (whether that´s Texas, ND, an ACC school or anyone else)- as opposed to just incompetence by Delany and the rest of the conference.
LikeLike
Could a possible reason for the pushback be that Delaney was proposing a three or five-team expansion which didn’t include a home run (ND/Texas)?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Maybe it’s not pushback. Maybe the Big Ten is waiting for a certain school in South Bend to finally make a decision. I’m skeptical that a 5-school expansion occurs without ND, but would think that a 3-school expansion that has Nebraska would work. The thing is that the Big Ten isn’t going to start talking to people until the point that it knows with 110% certainty that ND is in or out.
LikeLike
@Justin – Yes we will. We’ll put up with this game for years. This is like Fantasy Football and the most high-stakes game of Risk you’ve ever played rolled into one. Every time Delaney tosses out a scrap of information about who might get in and when, we’ll be there to gobble it up and beg him for more. I love this crap, and I have no problem admitting it.
LikeLike
A lot of people seem very interested in this topic. As I write this, there have been over 400 comments responding to this latest post topic, and it’s been up for, what–a little over a day?
Frankly, I’m not sure why its of so much interest–even to me. Frank, any idea how many unique visitors you’ve had to this site in the past month?
LikeLike
I don’t know what kind of numbers Frank is putting up, but apparently this post was #14 out of all blog posts in WordPress for the day.
I think people are visiting for a variety of reasons. Mostly their team is involved one way or another. Other sports fans are coming for the intrigue as what the BIg Ten does will have ramifications for nearly all college teams in the coming years.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why anyone would think there would be easy agreement on how to proceed. If this was simple it would have been done before, and we wouldn’t have typed 3000000 words on the topic in this blog…..
LikeLike
I also have a little bit of “I told you so” coming here…..Awhile back, I said I thought there was a 15% chance the Big 10 would do nothing soon becuase they wouldn’t agree on teams……as I recall a few people said in reply that there was 0% chance of that happening…..
LikeLike
I was working on the premise that the Big Ten would do nothing as an outcome of this process. I didn’t really base the 0% do nothing on this accelerated timeline. I still think I will stick to my projections that they will act within the original 12-18 month timeline.
LikeLike
@Justin
Doesn´t sound like Delany said much today, but I thought this comment might have been telling: ¨”The presidents have been clear: This may not happen.”
I don´t know the context in which it was said, but he sounds frustrated by what may or may not have happened on Sunday.
LikeLike
I love all of you guys, but if I’m still writing speculative blog posts about Big Ten expansion 12 months from now, it’s not going to be pretty.
LikeLike
Is it pretty now?
LikeLike
Well it’s not like he’s blackout drunk streaking naked through the quad. That was months ago:
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/2/22/1321545/texas-to-the-big-10-a-template-for
LikeLike
I do hope that you’ve added “nation’s premier Big 10 expansion-related blogger” to your resume!
LikeLike
Come on, Frank!
This actually gives me something to look forward to every day….
Wait, did I just type that? I’m a bigger loser than all those clowns that follow recruiting.
LikeLike
MIRuss..
no.. recruiting is short term..
but real expansion may last a lifetime..
BTW – love the PORN site thing with your wife, but it does bring up a point.. are men’s sports moving to become the male “soap opera” instead of just being about the games themselves..
and yeah expansion talk makes me a moth to the flame.. fantasy baseball and recruiting news could never appeal to me like this has..
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 may be crossing the line from good pub to bad pub on this expansion business….while it’s good to have everyone talking about the league, they’re now pissing off a lot of people at the prospective schools and in the leagues to be affected….therefore, regardless of what JD is saying, I can’t believe that the powers that be won’t want this decided sooner rather than later…..
By the way, remember when I said Neb. had a 11% chance to be admitted as a 12th member, even though they weren’t in the original 5, as a compromise, interim solution? Hmmmm…..
LikeLike
You also run the risk that the Big 12 or the ACC could potentially step to the plate and remove some schools from the equation.
The ACC can’t compete with the Big 10, and there are certain ACC schools – Duke and UNC — dissatisfied with expansion, but one has to wonder if their commissioner thinks everyone is going to sixteen schools whether they would swoop in now, and give the BE schools an ultimatum while the Big 10 is sitting back and taking its time.
Still, I think there are some Big 10 presidents who only would expand if we get ND or Texas.
LikeLike
I think the only thing that could save the Big XII at this point would be a western television alliance with the Pac10. If Texas goes through with plans for a Longhorn Television Network, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and probably Kansas will be looking to jump ship and no realisticly available team (to the Big XII) can stop that.
LikeLike
Two points…
1) Sounds like it was Beebe that said Delany has informed him (and other commissioners) that the B10 would stick to the 12 to 18 month timetable. While Delany will inform the commissioners of the potential schools they will look at, he doesn’t want to give all of his ammunition away. Timing is very important. Everyone is now bracing for something quick, but if people relax thinking it was a false alarm and then they are broad sided, it might send more shock waves. Besides is that what you’d what Delany to say. It avoids backfiring in his face and doesn’t reveal any more info than necessary.
2) It also lends credence to the stepwise approach. The Big Ten might add one to go to 12 but maintain that they are still evaluating how to go forward or whether they are done. Whatever conference they take a school from will very quickly start looking at replacements. For example, Big10 takes Missouri so the Big 12 must quickly invite a 12 team to not lose the conference playoff for multiple years. Additionally, the longer it takes to add a team, the more the other teams are going to look around. So what if the Big10 takes Missouri and then waits to see how the Big12 respond or how the Pac10 reacts (if they immediately swoop in on Colorado). Put the wheels in motion and let the chips fall where they may. Once the B10 starts to negiotate or talk with teams in the next month or so, I have to think that those schools, except for Texas, will always be gauging the B10 interest before they move since the B10 can likely offer them more than any other conference. Essentially, they want a date for the prom, but before accepting the good looking friends invite, they want to make sure that their dream date has moved on.
LikeLike
Perhaps Beebe is looking to secure a job as a Big Ten deputy commissioner after the Big 12 collapses.
LikeLike
As a long-time resident of Texas, want to give a special shout out to everyone who has, will, or will ever drink the “burnt orange koolaid” (i.e. advocate Texas to the Big Ten). It might actually happen someday (and everyone has got to have a dream), but keep a couple of things in mind.
1. If you think Notre Dame folks are a legend in their own mind, UT actually turns that up a notch. They really epitomize a combination of oversized western ego with a sort of arrogance that they go to the only notable public university in the state. (Look, as a Minnesota grad I can actually relate to that last point. Longhorn fans are fun, but if you’re not a UT grad yourself, they’re sort of an acquired taste.)
2. If Texas alums are sort of different, Texas A&M alums are way differenter. A lot of what gives A&M its unique culture and character is a tie-in with the army ROTC, in some ways it is a West Point south. It has grown to be something of a great university, just have to say that most Big Ten people are not going to feel immediately comfortable with A&M culture either.
From a purely selfish point of view, I would love to see Texas and Texas A&M join the Big Ten. In fact one of the things that first hooked me on reading Big Ten expansion blogging was speculation that this could happen. For a number of cultural reasons, I see Texas gravitating toward the PAC10 (in the long run), the west coast culture amd academics would actually suit them pretty well. A&M arguably could go with them to the west or could just as easily wind up in the SEC, the former more for political than cultural reasons (i.e. state politics).
Last point, Texas is sitting on their own pile of money and undeveloped market potential. The Big Ten’s financial enticements are not going to get the deal done and “threatening” Texas with Big 12 North defections is not going to have a (positive) effect either short-term or long-term.
To summarize, on Texas to the Big Ten, I ain’t seeing it anytime soon.
LikeLike
@Ron
UT fans are not much different than fans of other schools. Everyone thinks that their U is unique and special. As an MSU fan, I hear all about how special a “Michigan Man” is from UM fans.
I met a UT grad years ago. His opinion was that you can think A&M alums as members of a cult.
Do you think its possible that UT, A&M, Tech, and other universities in Texas would form their own “Texas Sports Network (TSN)” to show games that are not picked up by the national networks? This would be instead of a Longhorn Sports Network (LSN). You would get much more content with multiple universities.
LikeLike
A “Texas Sports Network” would surprise me more than UT joining the Big Ten. Texas Tech has its own college culture which sets it far apart from both Texas and Texas A&M (They’re sort of the outlaws out west and that perception pre-dates Mike Leach. You’ll note the Tech mascot has more than a passing resemblance to Zorro.). Also, during Texas-OU football weekend, my general perception is that the fans of non-UT Texas schools root mostly for Oklahoma. That even goes back to Southwest Conference days when a Longhorn win was in their obvious self-interest. Texas is the most fun state in the whole world to follow college football (would say the whole country instead of the whole world, but need to allow for local confederate sympathies and secessionist fantasies).
LikeLike
Good lord, I ignored your first post and your reference to people like me having an “oversized western ego,” but when you start making references like “local confederate sympathies,” you’re revealing a deep ignorance about a state in which you claim to live. Let’s stop it with the untruthful slanders.
LikeLike
Texas is working on creating the Longhorn Sports Network. That network will be picked up throughout Texas. If it adds any other Texas schools to it will will just cut down the amount of money Texas gets from its own network. You won’t see Texas in a conference like the Big Ten unless it fails. However, the PAC 10 or a rebuilt Big 12 might let Texas keep the LSN money and be a member just for the profits off the national contracts.
LikeLike
This is what I don’t get behind a proposed LSN — maybe Patrick or someone else better with TV number can provide some insight.
The BTN is distributed nationally. The proposed LSN would presumably have Texas-wide distribution. (Would DirecTV pick it up for national distribution? Seems doubtful but not completely implausible.) How could the LSN hope to replicate the BTN’s success with such an inherently more limited footprint for distribution?
LikeLike
Texas could make money because they would not share the money with any other schools. So they need 1/11 the viewers of the current Big 10 network to make as much money as each Big 10 school does now. Given the size of Texas, that could be doable if they come up with the programming to fill the network.
Problem is, one school can’t produce much programming. If they take all their home games away from the conference for the network, they become less valuable conference members. Even if they go independent, it becomes less useful for other top schools to schedule Texas. Yes, Texas might pay a good fee for schools to travel to Austin; however, if the game is not available to a national network, it won’t be as useful to the traveling school, which normally uses a game versus Texas to burnish it’s national reputation.
So they likely need some home games nationally televised, which leaves even less live programming to occupy viewing hours. I’d imagine there would be lots of ‘encore’ viewings of games and lots of ‘classic’ games of Texas from years past. It doesn’t seem like it would get the viewers much of the time.
LikeLike
as an aside .. on a per capita basis.. the MOST “colorful” fans in the nation are wearing blue & white and spelling C – A – T – S alot. I am sure there are many really nice and sane UK fans, but their extreme fans would make david koresh and jim jones green with envy to get that kind of blind devotion to their cause. it was in the news that they stopped the legislature session to announce the newest recruit signing his LOI.
LikeLike
the moral of the story: texas destroys everything it touches.
LikeLike
In New Mexico the saying goes ‘So close to heaven, so close to Texas.’
LikeLike
Barnhart on SEC expansion.
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/04/21/should-the-sec-be-proactive-on-expansion/?cxntfid=blogs_barnhart_college_football
LikeLike
Interesting article with some ratings information from 2009….
http://www.footballfoundation.org/news.php?id=2162
“The Big Ten Network’s ratings increased across the board in 2009, with its average afternoon telecasts improving by 28 percent over 2008 and its eight primetime games exploding by a staggering 183 percent. The channel’s telecasts of afternoon games averaged a 2.3 household rating with the primetime games pulling a 1.7 rating.”
For perspective a 1.7 rating = 1,904,000 HH
A 2.3 rating = 2,576,000 HH
There are 112,000,000 HH in the US
“A thrilling-overtime Outback Bowl produced the highest rated bowl ever on ESPN/ESPN2 for a game in the Chicago market (DMA), producing a 7.1 rating as Auburn beat Northwestern, 38-35. The previous Chicago market record was the 2000 Alamo Bowl between Nebraska and Northwestern with a 5.2 rating. The 4.06 national rating was a 32% increase over the 2009 Outback Bowl.”
Northwestern, when successful, can deliver ratings in Chicago. I was suprised ND wasn’t involved in the highest bowl rating for Chicago.
There are other rating highlights for bowl games at the bottom.
LikeLike
I was speaking with my daughter last night and she sells spots for the Austin DMA (she is an Account rep for Cox stations), she sells UT football spots using a typical local rating of 15 to build her fees and per spot costs. To her college football is a gold mine for sales and commissions.
LikeLike
I’m actually suprised it’s not even better for UT in the Austin market. I think you would see the similar sales jumps in all of the big, successful college towns.
LikeLike
When you start dealing with a media market of, what, approximately 1.2 million people, and a football stadium that seats 100,000+, doesn’t the sheer size of the stadium in relation to the market in which it sits have to have some effect on the number of people who actually watch the game on TV as opposed to attend in person?
(Yes, I know that not all 100K+ attending games live in Austin, but a strong majority would, and that’s at least 3-5% of the total potential viewing audience attending rather than watching.)
LikeLike
According to her, the UT ratings depend on the game but in general 15 was a typical number. You are right about typical college football towns and ratings. Her Georgia football ratings and spots pay her bills and are similar to UT ratings. She just picked up the Hartford DMA Cox station and she was shocked at how high/strong that DMA was (includes New Haven) and would foresee excellent ratings and spot charges for Big Ten over the air games with UConn. She also said (shocker..hah) that any ND game is a money maker for ratings. No news flash there.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100420/BIGRED01/100429949
The article, from an Omaha newspaper, suggests that Nebraska isn’t in the mix.
Really think its an Eastern strategy by the Big 10 for better or worse.
However, if the Big 10 does not add ND, its not going to work.
LikeLike
Reading the article, I do not think there is any basis (from that article) to think NE is not in the mix. The thrust is to say things are happening fast and the Big East exit clause makes it likely a move takes place (regarding BE teams) soon.
LikeLike
Shatel is awful (and a Missouri grad). He wrote that Nebraska isn’t a cantidate before even calling his “sources.”
>>
Stay tuned. The story is about to unfold before our eyes.
I’ll have more on this in my Sunday column. I need to make some phone calls. <<
LikeLike
I think an eastern only expansion can work without ND. It just won’t be the exciting or blockbuster move that Frank is responsible for getting all of our hopes up for with the completely logical and reasonable initial posts about UT coming to the B10 (fingers still crossed).
I think that with an eastern only expansion at most they can do 14, and I think they’d be wise to just take one and get to 12.
I think 16 with an east only approach won’t work because I just can’t imagine the CoP/C signing off on adding 5 new schools of RU, SU, UConn, Pitt, MD, as I think Delany’s desire to go big and be bold might be a Grand Canyon away from the thinking of the CoP/C. Does the B10 (and when I say B10 I mean CoP/C, not Delany/BTN) really want to be the first conference to 16 (save the failed WAC) – four schools larger than the ACC, SEC or B12? Does that in any way reflect the B10’s more traditional, staid and entirely frustrating stance on all things college? Is there even an inkling of necessity to do so? If you’re going to be a disruptive force, you better be sure that the shockwaves reverberate in a way that benefits you in the long term, and I don’t see any way this can be assured at this point to the satisfaction of a CoP/C voting member.
As far as 14, I just don’t see the CoP/C chomping at the bit to pick up a threesome of eastern schools, although it’s much more in the realm of possibility. Adding two schools (RU, SU) for one market that neither of them is actually in, plus another to round it out, seems a stretch for me. OTOH, If you take MD, RU, and UConn, the BTN can secure subscriber rates and more importantly, as Patrick has proffered, advertising opportunities in the three wealthiest states per capita. But again, does that appeal to the CoP/C the way it does Delany/BTN?
I think the safe play is to add any one of these schools, let the dust settle, and if the gravy train is still churning in a few years time, re-examine the landscape and feed the money engine with some new fuel.
Aside, I could just see Delany ripping out the remainder of his hair, as he’s sitting in front of the leaders of some pretty prestigious institutions with dollar signs bulging out of his eyes, and them telling him to “slow down, pal”.
LikeLike
Rutgers is right in the middle of the NY Metro TV DMA. NYC means nothing, NY Metro DMA is what matters.
LikeLike
@Rick – In terms of advertising, sure. But I thought the subscriber rates were worked out between the BTN and cable networks based on the states in which a member school was located. Am I missing something?
LikeLike
I’ll leave those details to Patrick or Omni, but Rutgers is in the NY DMA, about a 30 mile trip into NYC, and NJ population is @9 million. I was just responding to what you said that they weren’t even in that market. Not to quibble I am sure we just disagree on the semantics of market.
LikeLike
No, I’m sure you’re closer right. I’m still trying to get a firmer grip on all of this. I think if we meld our two stances here, from an advertising perspective, which Patrick says we can’t underestimate, Rutgers is very much in the NY DMA. From a subscriber fee perspective, it may or may not be.
LikeLike
I’m not sure some appreciate just how close Rutgers is the major cities in question. Rutgers is less than 40 miles away from the Empire State Building. It is also just 60 miles from downtown Philadelphia.
Of course UMinn is in St. Paul and OSU is just a couple of miles from downtown Columbus. NU is 15 miles from the Sears Bldg. and UM is 43 miles from the Renaissance Center. To put it in Chicago-oriented perspective, imagine a school rather like UIUC in Waukegan (40 miles to Chicago, 60 miles to Milwaukee).
There is a fair debate about the mental distance to the media DMAs, but physically — by Midwestern standards — Rutgers is right next to two of the largest cities in the country. No major state university is closer to these markets (even SUNY Albany and SUNY Stony Brook are further away).
If the Big Ten can sell its product in NYC and Philadelphia Rutgers is a vehicle to become the home town team.
LikeLike
MichaelC: it is so close that you could be in downtown Philly or NYC in about the same time it takes to go grocery shopping round trip in the local strip mall on a busy Saturday afternoon in Central/No. NJ.
LikeLike
Rutgers may be close to NYC, but that doesn’t mean you can jump in your car and be there in a jiffy. In fact, most people avoid driving into the city at all costs. Much better to take a train.
LikeLike
I actually e-mailed Tom Shatel after I read that article citing this site among others that are showing numbers in support of Nebraska.
Tom’s repsonse was as follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Everybody is in play. But the top priority is getting Notre Dame. And a way to do that is to impact their conference, the Big East (for all sports except football) and get them to think they need to find a new home. We’ll see. Right now, everyone is guessing.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s all just speculation on his part. I think Jim Delaney is smarter than to put all is eggs in one basket and take 4 Big East teams on the chance he could force Notre Dame’s hand. The multi-phase option outlined by Frank seems to be a much smarter move.
LikeLike
Found some more…
“The Big Ten Network saw its coverage area ratings increase for afternoon college football games by 113 percent from a 0.8 in 2007 to a 1.7 rating in 2008. The network also achieved household impression records with audiences more than doubling in some markets from the previous year. For example, ratings in the Columbus, Ohio market rose from an average 10.3 HH in 2007 to 24.4HH this year, and ratings in Detroit increased from an average 2.4HH to a 6.2HH.”
So in tv terms they are becoming a habit and locking down an audience. It appears they have gone from a 0.8 rating in 2007 (year 1) to a 2.3 rating in 2009 (year 3).
With 3 consecutive years of ratings they can now sell on trends and growth. With only two years you can try but advertisers won’t buy it.
In year one about 896,000 viewers for Saturday football. In year 3 they are now around 2,576,000. Nearly 3 times the viewers in two years…. they are hoping for somewhere around 3.7 million viewers for Saturday games next year. Which would be about a 3.3 rating. In the cable universe that is around the value of a Saturday night ESPN Basketball playoff game and Sunday Night Family Guy reruns on Adult Swim. ** Don’t laugh, they are only 300,000 viewers apart nationally.
I would expect less Rotel and more Ford / Chevy commercials.
LikeLike
I’m a little unclear on this 12-18 month timeline. Assuming the timeline began in December 2009, does that mean we wouldn’t know a who’s invited to join until between December 2010 and May 2011? Or just that it will happen sometime within 12-18 months?
I’d also read in the Chicago Tribune article that universities’ fiscal years end June 30. How does that affect the timeline?
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering the same thing. When we first heard the Dec expansion announcement of 12-18 months didn’t we think a June 2010 recomendation to the University Prez was to be expected and that a 2012 season with new teams was the target? Doesn’t the rumblings from yesterday just mean that it won’t be sooner or am I missing something?
LikeLike
Exactly. What does the 12-18 month timeline mean practically in terms of when a team will be announced, when it will actually join the league, etc.?
Also, is it possible that everyone’s reading too much into this “deceleration” of the timeline? Seems like it comes from one non-definitive quote from the Big 12 commish: “My understanding is that they are still on the same timetable that he outlined.”
LikeLike
I’m guessing we’ll eventually get some leaked information. I find it hard to beleive they can keep everything bottled up for a year and a half. Someone along the line will talk.
LikeLike
“12-18 months ‘ timeline surely doesn’t mean when they join as the 27 month exit rule for BE is in play. I still think we know by the next 2 -3 months with the start of B16 in fall of 2012.
LikeLike
FTT,
Great job with this article. You have some great insight and have really thought about all of the potential ramifications.
Thank you for bringing back some sanity to the Rutgers argument in your piece, but there’s one thing that appears to be lacking with the Rutgers argument.
Rutgers is close to NYC. NYC is the largest TV market in the US. But that doesn’t mean that there are large numbers of NYC people who follow (or care) about Rutgers and it’s sports teams. Rutgers could potentially bring in a NY audience, but the reality is that most Rutgers fans are people in NJ, which isn’t NYC in terms of TV markets. Even Syracuse, which people continue to think will bring in the NY TV market, is closer to Buffalo than NYC. Hell, Scranton, PA is closer to NYC than Syracuse, so I continue to think this argument of “gaining a NY TV market” through either Rutgers or Syracuse is greatly overblown and overplayed factor.
I wouldn’t be surprised, in my humble opninion, that the push for Rutgers and it’s “ties” to the NY TV market come from Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti, who has experience working as a TV executive. Tim’s a good salesman, and he can use the school’s proximity to strengthen his argument. But the reality is this: a small percentage of people in NY associate themselves with Rutgers.
NY is — and almost always will be — a pro sports town. It’s the Yankees, the Mets, the Giants, the Jets, the Knicks, the Nets, the Rangers, and the Isles. They will get excited for the Big East Tourney every year, but it’s like driving to Connecticut to see the leaves change in the Fall — it’s not an all-consuming endeavor and just something that comes around once a year.
LikeLike
Rutgers is in the NY Metro TV market DMA. Being in the 5 boros of NYC mean nothing.
LikeLike
You are right about Tim Pernetti, he also is a Rutgers grad and Football alum. In addition:
“Prior to returning to Rutgers, Pernetti was the Executive Vice President, Content, for CBS College Sports Network. In that role, he oversaw the rights and relationship business, on-air talent, and all network programming and content on air, online and across all screens for the nation’s first company dedicated to college sports.
Pernetti helped to build the CBS College Sports Network, previously CSTV, prior to its launch in 2003, and has played a critical role in establishing it as the multi-media leader in college sports programming, content, news and information. He was a recipient of the prestigious Sports Business Journal Forty under Forty Award, and the Multichannel News 40 under 40 Award both in 2008.
Charged with developing relationships, acquiring rights and creating multi-platform original programming for the first ever 24-hour sports college sports network, Pernetti successfully navigated through a complicated web of media rights deals to come up with new ways to serve college sports fans. Pernetti worked closely with the NCAA and hundreds of schools in every major conference, securing over 2,500 hours of event programming each year and multiple NCAA Championships across 35 men’s and women’s sports. Pernetti was in charge of the CBS College Sports Network exclusive long-term agreements with the US Naval Academy, Mountain West Conference, Conference USA, and the Atlantic 10.
Further he managed company relationships with more than 30 conferences and thousands of institutions. Pernetti remains most proud of establishing a strong relationship in women’s collegiate sports including the establishment of a women’s basketball game of the week package in 2004 with the Big East Conference.
In 2006, Pernetti spearheaded a landmark multi-media partnership with the NCAA to make CBS College Sports Network the home of Division II Sports. The innovative deal effectively increased the scope and reach of NCAA Division II sports with hundreds of games now available nationally via the broadcast network and online. Pernetti’s commitment to providing greater exposure to women’s and under-served sports is evidenced by the network’s unprecedented coverage of lacrosse and volleyball, among others. He has also been at the forefront of the development and creation of the Collegiate Nationals, which crowns champions in dozens of high endurance sports, and innovative original production including CBS College Sports Network’s groundbreaking NCAA March Madness Central, NCAA March Madness Highlights on CBS College Sports, and the WIRED franchise which gives viewers an inside look at games and events through wireless microphones on coaches during game action.
Prior to joining CBS College Sports Network, Pernetti served eight years at ABC-TV and ABC Sports most recently as Director of Programming, where he was integral in acquiring, managing and developing several ABC Sports properties including college football, the Bowl Championship Series, and college basketball. For five years, Pernetti handled relationships and negotiated television rights with all of the major collegiate conferences.”
He knows his way around the TV business.
LikeLike
I’d also add that there are a ton of Big10 grads that have transplanted to NYC. You may also be surprised that a large contingent of B10 alums are actually from NYC metro. I graduated from IU in 2005 and I’d estimate that maybe 15% of that graduating class was from Philly/NY/NJ area.
While nobody may care about Rutgers for Rutgers’ sake, I can near guarantee that when they’ve got a B10 school coming to town, there will be a level of interest above and beyond almost any BE school.
LikeLike
Absolutely true. I’d add however there are a lot of Rutgers graduates in the Tri-state area. For a long time they have not had much to cheer about wrt big time college sports.
Rutgers has not had a history of competitiveness in BB or football for many years. I assure you the difference in sports-related spirit, on campus and off, is dramatically different today compared to five years ago. The investments have been made in football to continue improvement and if Rutgers can be a consistent top 30 program playing nationally-visible competition I believe they will do well in the local media markets.
There are a lot of sports media choices in NYC and Philadelphia to be sure, but there are also a lot of TV sets. Getting the local media to give Rutgers consistent coverage will be a key to breaking through. There has never been consistent availability of Rutgers football and basketball games and that makes it extra hard to gain the visibility needed against the daily coverage of the pro sports teams. I think the skeptics here underestimate the potential impact of the BTN in making Rutgers relevant to the media markets.
LikeLike
I hope the Big 10 takes Missouri, Nebraska, and Rutgers. That way, the ACC can take Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, and WVU and destroy the Big 10 in the Northeast.
I still think people are thinking like a fan and not thinking like a President. Sure, Rutgers has had a few “good” years of football. But what if Schiano gets a can’t refuse offer from some pro team? If it is so easy to replace a head coach… why did Nebraska suffer? Michigan? Alabama? Miami?
What does this matter? If Rutgers returns to being a doormat… what kind of NY market do you have? If Rutgers/Iowa is interesting today… is it certain to be so in 5, 10, 20 years? If more than 50% of the money comes from advertising… what good is a Rutgers/Missouri game that nobody cares about?
In contrast, UConn has gone from nothing to similar success. They also have a basketball program that is light years ahead of Rutgers. And then there is the women’s program.
Meanwhile, Pitt and Syracuse have tradition that goes back many years… even though Pitt was down in the 1990’s and Syracuse is currently down.
To me, if the Big 10 is going to bother to go Eastward, they need to snag all four teams. Pitt, Syracuse, and Penn St. have a long time rivalry/hatred. UConn, Pitt, and Syracuse have a basketball hatred. Rutgers and Syracuse have a burgeoning football hatred. With hatred comes interest. With interest comes television.
Michigan can be 5-6, but people will watch the Ohio St. game. Same with Michigan-Michigan St. Rivalries generate interest.
LikeLike
I totally agree, go big in the NE if you go at all. One team is like being half pregnant. Don’t leave the door open for ACC options. And yes I do understand the ACC is probably gun shy and doesn’t really have the financial model figured out yet but they will soon if the opportunity presents itself. But the ACC with any 3 or all of SU, UConn, Pitt, and Rutgers will probably secure a nice future for themselves. If the SEC raids then they can still remain viable.
LikeLike
I think the “half pregnant” statement is highly offensive. Just kidding. I agree with it, but I think it is the very reason that “go big in the east” is not going to play well with the CoP/C. They’re looking for a home run with each added school, not two doubles.
Plus, I think the CoP/C is concerned (rightly) about being the disruptive force that completely alters the landscape of college football. Just because BTN payouts are solid now doesn’t guarantee this into perpetuity. I think the CoP/C is treading very carefully here, and rightfully so. I also don’t think they’re all too concerned about what the ACC/SEC/Pac10 counters with or what schools are left available to them. They are on solid financial footing at 11 schools, and would be with 12, and possibly/probably 14 and maybe 16. This is not a zero-sum game. Don’t get me wrong, their primary concern is still money, but maintaining conference prestige is a close, close second.
LikeLike
Direct from Delany now.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-21-big-ten-expansion-update_N.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Delany: Big Ten ‘not anywhere near’ expansion decision
By Steve Wieberg, USA TODAY
The Big Ten Conference is still in the early stages of weighing whether and where to expand and is “not anywhere near” the point of identifying and approaching prospective new schools, commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday.
“We have not accelerated anything,” Delany said, refuting a Chicago Tribune report late last week that the league had stepped up its timetable.
In announcing it was exploring expansion beyond its current 11 members, the Big Ten said in December that Delany would take 12-18 months to draw up recommendations to its council of school presidents.
He met with the presidents in conjunction with semiannual meetings of the Association of American Universities in Washington, D.C., earlier this week, but described those discussions as routine.
While “I’m not saying it didn’t come up,” Delany said of expansion, he insisted it merely was one of several league issues addressed.
He declined to get into details of the discussions.
Delany is in Scottsdale, Ariz., for regular football Bowl Championship Series meetings through Thursday. He spoke to USA TODAY in a telephone interview.
Also in Scottsdale are other commissioners, including the Big East’s John Marinatto and Big 12’s Dan Beebe, and speculation had been rampant that Delany could serve them notice of the Big Ten’s interest in talking to officials at Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Missouri and Nebraska, among other potential expansion targets.
“We’ll work with our athletic directors and our presidents. If there’s a need to have formal discussions about expansion with another institution, we’ll reach out,” Delany said.
“But we’re still in the process of analyzing and gathering information, and we’re not anywhere near what I would describe as formal expansion discussions with any member. We haven’t changed anything, neither the timetable nor the process that was described.”
LikeLike
@Scott C:
Disappointing. I’m glad to see Delany is doing due diligence, but the way things had percolated recently I really drank the kool-aid that we’d be getting new official information soon. Oh well.
Personally I think 12-18 months is just too long. Moreover, his original announcement is a double-edged sword. It obviously created a significant buzz and put other conferences on notice, but 12-18 months gives people time to formulate counter strategies. It seems like the majority of momentum gained by making such a public announcement is lost if you take the full duration. Oh well.
LikeLike
Jeez…Talk about the Fun Police coming in an shutting everything down.
Delaney is worse than my wife telling me she has a headache.
My read on all of this is that the Presidents all told Delaney to cool it with the discussion and stick to the plan. I am sure that they are getting killed with questions that they can’t answer, haven’t researched, and want to deep dive into before anything happens.
But, that doesn’t help the BTN’s cause for growth in the near term. And, whether it’s good or bad, it gives Notre Dame plenty of time to maneuver.
LikeLike
MIRuss: that’s the way I see it too. They have a ton on their plates, the rumors, leaks, and questions they receive are driving them nuts, so they basically said enough. Chill with the leaks, finish the due diligence, and stick to the plan.
LikeLike
IMO…not surprising I guess. The Big10 is getting good money right now and any new addition will be risking that $$$ by splitting the tv contract pot more ways and “rolling the dice” on if the BTN expansion will be able to make up the difference (and then some). The original 12-18 month timetable still fits nicely into my other post concerning getting new teams in the conference and having a year to gauge their worth to the BTN before contract negotiations with ABC/ESPN.
The thing that disturbs me is the thought that the university presidents put the brakes on a multi-team expansion. The Big10 could potentially get itself to be the preeminent conference in the nation, encompassing large institutions in the largest markets, with top notch academics, research, and athletics. Would be a shame to watch some of the teams mentioned slip to another conference because the Big10 decided to play it safe.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily see the brakes put on multi team expansion as much as brakes on the circus surrounding it. I think in no uncertain terms they told Delany to throw cold water on the surrounding noise and keep it low key and on task. Hence the “we may not do anything” splash of sobering water. I don’t know if he was expecting that but maybe he was. Maybe we are just too far out in front of this thing and Delany is navigating it just the way he and the presidents want. Full control, no hint of rashness, buttoned up, neat and tidy. As it should be I suppose.
LikeLike
I think if the numbers and math are reasonably close and conservative, I believe the new schools will be Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Syr and Rutgers. Nothing tells me the B10 will settle for Missouri or Pitt or UConn. They just can’t bring all 3 needs: B10 network revenue, market share and academics. Plus, though ND would be viewed as desirable, the B10 isn’t likely scheming to force ND’s hand. They’re either in or out. No more, no less. Consider all the egos involved in that conversation. Sometimes the obvious ones are the obvious and most likely. I think you can book it: TX, TXA&M, Syr, Rut and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Ugh….this sucks.
I hope the B10 takes Pitt, Rutgers and another non-BE school and they can play their lame style of basketball and sub-par football into eternity. As a Cuse alum, I hope we go to the ACC somehow and UConn comes with. This would make an unbelievable basketball conference and LAX would be very, very good as well.
LikeLike
sounds good….
LikeLike
Most Big East fans are primarily basketball oriented. If the Big 10 shreds Big East football by taking Pitt and Rutgers, and one of either Syracuse or UConn, it will be trouble for the football schools, but great for hoops.
Big East wise, Pitt is always solid, but hasn’t made a Final Four as a Big East member (every other 1980’s Big East school has made a Final Four except Pitt and Judas BC); and further, Big East-wise anyway, Rutgers is considered an Atlantic-10 school.
If West Va, SoFla, Louisville and Cincy start making demands to admit East Carolina, Memphis, etc, then they should just leave the conference and start a new one with those schools (if invited, East Carolina would just use the Big East as a stepping stone to a different conference anyway, like Va Tech did to the ACC).
The remaining Big East would have Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, St John’s, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and either Connecticut or Syracuse (or both). It would be like the 1980’s conference, minus Pitt and BC, and plus Marquette and DePaul… fine with me… each school gets a home-and-away in a 9 or 10 team sane-sized conference… perfect…
Incidentally, if the Big 10 grabs UConn, they may end up overreaching like the NHL did in Phoenix and Nashville. Arizona and Tennessee are large markets, but they don’t care about hockey. New England doesn’t have the major college football culture anywhere near like the Big 10 does.
UConn’s football stadium is actually in East Hartford– and it has the disadvantages of 1) not being anywhere near campus, 2) being a 2 hr drive through congested highways from NYC, and 3) seating only 30,000 or so.
Finally, these coveted Big East football schools have had 15 years to develop a solid footing in college football, based in the northeast with the advantages of big media and huge population centers, and they haven’t capitalized on it. Be careful what you wish for– a scenario where Rutgers or UConn or Syracuse leverages to pull the Big 10 in a different direction that what you’re used to– outvoting Iowa, Minn and so forth… you might turn into a Boston College, which sold its soul for 30 pieces, and is floundering around in a league and culture where they’re not wanted…
LikeLike
“Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, St John’s, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and either Connecticut or Syracuse (or both).”…
and I forgot Notre Dame if they don’t go to the Big 10.
Also, I think Penn State’s move to the Big 10 was the death blow for northeast football– the BC, Pitt, Syracuse, WVa, Penn State grouping of independents was entertaining– presently, we now wonder why anyone should care about playing Louisville or Cincinnati…
LikeLike
Apart from the comments about the state of the Big East as a BB conference post-Big Ten expansion (which I think is a fair assessment — it will continue to be a very good conference), I’ll disagree with the rest of your post.
The management of the Big East has been incompetent for many years. None the least of which has been to concentrate on BB at the expense of football. It has been a complete failure in negotiating media rights. While it is true the last TV contract was inked just after the ACC raid, it is also true the ACC raid may have never happened if the Big East had been under better management.
If Rutgers and Pitt are added they will certainly will not pull the Big Ten in an opposite direction. Their culture and academic interests are well aligned with the rest of the Big Ten schools and completely dissimilar to BC. I think the same comment would apply to UConn and probably to Syracuse as well, although they are private and somewhat smaller. BC would be an outlier for the Big Ten in exactly the same way ND would be (and that has been dissected in other threads).
UConn’s stadium is not a big time stadium — true — and it is not convenient for NYC fans, but so what? UConn’s fans travel to the game from within CT and Hartford is reasonably central in the state. If UConn were to join the Big Ten (which I think is in the not probable territory) a stadium upgrade is likely. They have only been a D1 team for a short time.
LikeLike
Rest assured, ‘Cuse Alum doesn’t speak for most SU alums..
LikeLike
Looks like there will be news today after all (just not what we wanted)
Delany to break silence on Big Ten expansion
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/silent-phase-about-to-end-for-delany.html
LikeLike
Any idea if this will be on TV? If so, what channel?
LikeLike
Probably the Big 10 network. You should call your cable subscriber and demand the channel.
Wink wink.
LikeLike
For the love of God.
Please don’t let the NU-OU rivalry die.
That would be a shame and a disgrace.
LikeLike
Mack, that rivalry died when the Big XII was formed. Let it go. The rest of us Husker fans have. You need to look to the future. If Nebraska joins the Big 10, we’d have a new rivalry with Iowa and have a chance to rekindle the old Oklahoma rivalry on yearly basis as we wouldn’t be subject to Big XII restrictions on playing every year.
LikeLike
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2010/4/20/1433157/audio-espns-colin-cowherd-says
Cowherd says Utah and Colorado “definitely” headed to Pac-10. Of course, he says that UConn is headed for the Big Ten just prior, a candidate that the consensus here seems to consider not entirely wacky but certainly not a top pick.
LikeLike
@M: Cowherd’s a shock jock. Careful putting too much value in anything he says. Most of the time it’s just for ratings.
LikeLike
Cowherd’s job is to say with absolute certainty, things he knows nothing about. Don’t put stock into a word he says.
Btw, UConn is a wacky pick. A school with low research, a tiny endowment, a tiny stadium and 10 years of Division 1 football history is not joining the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The more I hear from “random” sports personalities about expansion the more I realize that this is a micro-story that thousands of us have become obsessed with. We know more about expansion than Colin Cowherd…not just because we’re reading some guy’s blog…but because we’re researching EVERY BIT of news that comes up regarding this.
We can assume that Cowherd has some “source” that has given him (an ESPN personality who could/should have access to better info. than us) good information…but it’s FAR more likely that he’s read one or two articles about college football expansion over the past few months, and he’s chiming in on a topic that is “trending” heavily this weekend/early this week. I’m not saying all of my crazy opinions (Nebraska, Texas, aTm, ND, Rutgers for a 16 team league) are correct, but they are informed and I have tons of facts to back up why my hypothesis could work.
LikeLike
allthatyoucanleavebehind,
Hit the nail on the head here.
This is one of those rare national stories that, so far, is not dominated by leaks and has slid below the radar over the past couple months. As a result, fans like us can talk much more intelligently about this than almost anyone involved in the media. That´s not to say any of us has a direct line to Delany, but it´s very likely that the process that he´s going through is very similar to ours – with the exception that he has more accurate data available.
Until, we get to the stage of this where legitimate leaks start appearing, this fact isn´t going to change. And, as such, I put much more stock in the prevailing opinions on here than the uninformed rambling of the national media. Again, though, when legitimate leaks start appearing that all changes.
LikeLike
I’ve tried to come up with an explanation as to why this story interests so many people. I’ve come up with a few reasons:
1. In terms of sports, it is about as big of story as it gets.
2. It affects a lot of schools. Really, any and every school in the country could be affected in some way.
3. The on-the-surface effects are very easy to understand (schools a b and c join the conference).
4. The overall number of scenarios is endless.
5. Why any particular scenario will actually occur is extraordinarily complex, bringing in politics, demographics, and history.
6. There’s a lot of time to investigate the various scenarios and forces
7. The spurts of leaks give new impetus to discussion every time they occur.
8. Finally, and I think this one is important, is that it isn’t that big of a story in a big picture sense. Very few people will be materially affected by whatever result there is (other than that ND guy cutting off his pinkies). It’s fun to discuss, but no one has their life or livelihood staked on any particular outcome.
LikeLike
Not to mention it’s a healthy dose of college football in the offseason, which is always appreciated!
LikeLike
The numbers presented are a bit confusing. It was stated that BTN “CLEARED” $0.36 per subscriber per month. To me, that means the BTN’s portion. At 51% of the total, isn’t the total per subscriber per month more like $0.70. If so, that would make the BTN’s take more like $218,400,000, not $112,320,000. And if he says BTN made $272,000,000 overall, that leaves only $53,600,000 in advertising revenue. Now all of a sudden the 60/40 breakdown may be more like 20/80 advertising vs. subscriber revenue. Did I mis-read or read too much into Patrick’s numbers… because to me “cleared” seemed to indicate BTN’s take net of Fox’s take.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Patrick stated that the in-state average was $.70. He had to factor in the out-of-state fees which I belive averaged at $.10.
LikeLike
The SEC drinks the Big 10’s milkshake.
LikeLike
@Daniel: On the field, lately yes. In terms of money earned or academic standing of the conference as a whole, no.
LikeLike
@Michael (and everyone else — you know who you are)
The quality of this blog has led to its visibility. That has now (see above) attracted some comfortable with a different level of discourse.
Please do not feed the trolls.
LikeLike
I wonder if Nebraska’s tv ratings as reported in Patrick’s research aren’t artificially inflated based upon 3 games- OU (saturday prime time), Texas (big 12 champ. game) and Missouri (thursday night game- no competition). How much of that tv audience was not tuning in to watch NU specifically, but to watch ‘the only game in town’ or to watch their opponent? Certainly, games against texas or oklahoma in prime time will generate ratings regardless of who the opponent is. Perhaps more than a 1 year analysis is needed.
What raises this issue the most is the fact that the nebraska-arizona holiday bowl had nearly a full-point lower rating than the 2009 Oregon-Oklahoma State (4.6 vs 3.7).
LikeLike
Nebraska-Arizona actually pulled a 4.31 and that game was pretty much over at half-time. 2008 Holiday bowl involving Oregon and Oklahoma State was much more competitive.
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384
And if you want to start throwing out numbers. Let’s look at the second and third highest rated National Championship games. ’95 Orange Bowl and ’96 Fiesta Bowl. Both involved Nebraska. The only game that rated higher was the ’06 Rose Bowl which I think we can all agree was a great game.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/08/college-football-championship-tv-ratings-1991-2008/10473
LikeLike
@Scott C: To be fair, using your second link, Nebraska also has the two of the three worst ratings as well (’92 Orange v. Miami, ’02 Rose v. Miami). Perhaps that’s because Miami has a terrible fan base, I dunno, but I felt it important to show the other side there too.
LikeLike
Yeah, but Nebraska lost those games, so I choose to pretend they never happened. 🙂
LikeLike
@Scott C:
LOL. If I have to hear every college football fan on the planet talk smack about how bad OSU is (and will be for all time apparently) because they got smoked in two NC games then you have to live with your two losses. 😛
LikeLike
Keep in mind that that list is only for the past 20 years. The 1986 Fiesta Bowl between Penn State and Miami is the most watched college football game of all-time with a 24.9 rating.
LikeLike
@soylentgreen: Blowouts usually don’t yield big ratings as far as I know. Nebraska-Arizona was a 33-0 snoozer. Oregon-Oklahoma St. featured a lot of points (73) in a game that wasn’t out of reach until the final three minutes. Nebraska had 33 points before the end of the 3rd quarter.
LikeLike
Soylentgreen,
I completely agree that you need more than one season, but I doubt that would change anything for Nebraska since it is averaged over 9 games. They are in the top 5 winningest programs of all-time. Having more seasons would help more acurately rate all of the teams and might cause some seperation between others. I would bet that the BIG TEN has that data, and is using it wisely.
LikeLike
Source: Notre Dame not in the mix for expansion. Three to Five still possible.
http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/extras/colleges_blog/2010/04/notre_dame_not.html
LikeLike
Please let this be true.
LikeLike
x2
LikeLike
ND_Rox
Everyone and their brother seems to have a source at the BCS meetings in Arizona…I wouldn’t put much into this….
LikeLike
x3
LikeLike
x4, but I’m with MIRuss, we’ve been burned by supposed sources in the past. Until someone with a name says something of value, everything is suspect.
LikeLike
@Mike: Interesting. Well, if true, good luck to ND with all of that.
That said, it certainly makes sense why Delany came out today trying to quiet the storm about this if we’re now officially writing off ND ever joining. Given that ND is the only candidate the Big Ten has (seemingly) considered since PSU joined, the presidents probably need time to readjust their thinking.
Ultimately, it was never meant to be I suppose. With luck, this makes Nebraska target #1 now (or #2 after Texas).
LikeLike
I wonder if the Catholic Big East comment is implying a Big East split?
LikeLike
I am sort of surprised a Boston scribe has that great of an inside source at either the Big Ten level or with an ND insider. Then again, he’s probably getting his info from some Big East people. The kind of folks who’ll likely know the truth approximately a day or so before any merger goes public. On the other hand, since his source seem to be coming to the same conclusions I was initially, I shouldn’t gripe. Be afraid, maybe, but not gripe.
LikeLike
If NU is on the list, I really think the prudent move is to take Nebraska as #12 and stop there.
What is the rationale for including Missouri and another school?
Is there some evidence that Nebraska wouldn’t bolt absent Missouri? Why dilute the league with 13th-14th teams?
Plus, let’s assume the PAC 10 adds Colorado. Now, the Big 12 has lost Colorado and Nebraska, and Texas is definitely exploring its options.
LikeLike
Dateline 2025
The Big 20, in its latest expansion discussions, has finally received a nod from Texas. Texas admits that while the TLN (Texas Longhorn Network) was a success, there simply wasn’t enough diverse programming to hold viewers’ interest. Constant re-runs of Texas Football victories over arch rivals still drew viewers, but not the numbers needed to make advertising worthwhile. So, along with other revenue streams, the TLN will get rolled into the BTN and the overall Big 20 as a result. Texas will realize an immediate $20-$25 million revenue increase in 2026. Frank the Tank, the Big 20 Expansion consultant, offered that while he was the first to predict Texas, he never dreamed it would take this long.
Texas will join the Big 20, along with A&M, and the conference will effectively “split” into two major 11 university divisions that will play round robin games, joining the SECACC Super conference. Teams from these two conferences have decided the national championship 14 of the last 15 years. Boise State was the last non-super conference team to challenge for the National Title in 2015.
The 256 NCAA Men’s tournament just concluded and upstart Oakland University from Rochester, Michigan, nearly pulled of the impossible dream of winning 8 consecutive games over equally seeded or more highly ranked opponents. The University of Michigan of the Big 20 takes the National Title honors…
And finally, Notre Dame AD Swarbrick announced that Notre Dame will not be joining a conference and will continue playing D-II universities. Whenever possible Notre Dame will schedule an FBS school when they have the opportunity in their new 10-2-1 format. Notre Dame was allowed to schedule the 13th game in order to have games continue through December, similar to the super conferences. Swarbrick continues to lobby the BCS to allow a school that has more than 5 D-II schools on its schedule to play in a BCS game. However, the BCS is comfortable with the current format and is reluctant to make any changes to the system.
LikeLike
LMFAO
LikeLike
Eminently believable, except for the UM NC!
LikeLike
And the insurgency begins to take shape…
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5122951
LikeLike
Wow, that’s definitely someone you’d want advising you on the situation. I just don’t know if there’s anything they can do if the Big 10 and ACC want to dismantle their conference.
LikeLike
I happened to be watching ESPN today when they brought Joe Schad in to talk about this and the Big East’s future. Normally I don’t pay that guy much mind, but I thought he had something interesting to say.
He had mentioned that, if the Big Ten was seriously interested in ND (which is debatable obviously), the Big East might consider making an ultimatum to ND. Basically tell them to join up completely or get out, under the hope that (a) without a home for their non-football sports ND would be forced to join up with the Big Ten, and (b) by getting ND the Big Ten presidents would see no more reason to expand so aggressively. Basically a preemptive strike where you remove some toes to save the leg.
I’m not sure I’d buy into the thinking, but I thought it was interesting. There have been some articles and opinions that basically said something similar, only where the Big Ten destroys the Big East to force ND’s hand, which I haven’t thought made a lot of sense. But coming at it from the Big East’s perspective instead?
LikeLike
The Big East leaders are not that smart. If they were they would have dealt with the 8 team 7 game (3 home conference games every other year) fiasco that is BE Football. Now they bring in Tagliabue. What a nightmare.
LikeLike
Would have dealt with it last year and be proactive. Now they are scrambling. Incompetence.
LikeLike
@ Manifesto
I don’t seen the Big East making a threat. Everything I’ve ever heard is that the Catholic schools like ND more than the new Football schools. I think they would be comfortable leaving to form a new conference with ND, especially is Syracuse is looking hard at B10 membership.
Sounds to me like Schad should spend more time lurking here. He’d then realize there’s no reason for the Big Ten not to expand to sixteen.
Lord knows BTN needs the programming. Every time I flipped through it since Sunday they’ve been running the same cruddy Michigan Spring game. Where’s softball when you need it?
LikeLike
@FLP:
Like I said, I wasn’t signing on, but it was at least a new perspective I hadn’t considered or had seen considered on here. Otherwise, yeah, pretty much uninformed talk that I’ve come to expect from Schad (and most of ESPN for that matter).
@Rick:
I think, if they tried it, it would display a shrewdness we have yet to see from Big East officials.
Oh well.. I guess we can file this in the uninformed pile, along with the suggestions of WVU/Louisville/Cincy to the Big Ten, ND joining in all but football, Texas to the SEC, etc.
LikeLike
Actually Beano Cook and Ivan Maisel both said yesterday that they’d been hearing plenty of talk that the BEast might give ND an ultimatum.
LikeLike
@ Playoffs Now!
Yeah. Then I see the http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/extras/colleges_blog/2010/04/notre_dame_not.html
story. Now considering it came from a longtime Boston Globe college sports reporter I’d bet that the info came from a BC source who heard something from a former colleague in the Big East somewhere.
If the Big East does not believe ND will be offered, they have no reason to threaten ND. If ND is not invited the Big East will likely lose enough other football teams that they will truly be dead man walking as a football conference.
hmmm… WVU as an independent or in CUSA? If Big East football does die, who wins?
LikeLike
If Big East football does die, who wins?
The rest of college football.
The BEast has too easy a ride to be getting a BCS AQ. Even the MWC will go to 12 schools once they become AQ, and since 2 of the schools they’ve look at for expansion were in the top 25, they’ll be a significantly tougher conference than the BEast.
Same for ND. I’m all for them being independent if they want that, but to hell with their BCS free pass. Thankfully this next round of BCS talks will see the conferences with greater leverage over the bowls (regardless of expansion) and so I bet an independent ND has to meet the same standards as every team in a non-BCS AQ conference to get a BCS bid: Be in the top whatever in the final BCS system rankings.
LikeLike
@Manifesto – I wrote about this when looking at the Big East’s options a few weeks ago and it’s just not going to happen. “Kicking ND out” assumes that schools like Syracuse, Rutgers, UCONN and Pitt would really rather stay in the BE as opposed to the Big Ten, which I don’t think is the case. At the same time, if the BE were to split, the Catholic schools without a shadow of a doubt would want to be in a non-football conference with ND – that’s what would make a split more than tolerable for them. They have no interest whatsoever in “forcing” ND into the Big Ten. It takes a unanimous vote from all 16 schools to kick ND out from the BE and if you think that it’s tough to get 10 schools in the Pac-10 to agree upon new schools to add, just think about how difficult it will be to get 16 schools to agree upon removing arguably the most famous athletic program in the country in order to add Memphis or UCF simply for football. The 8 Catholic schools and the 4 Northeastern schools that have a shot at Big Ten membership don’t have much incentive to let ND walk to the Big Ten as a sole 12th addition. Here’s what I wrote back then (assumption #2):
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/choose-your-own-adventure-for-big-east-expansion-its-not-easy-being-green-or-purple/
LikeLike
@Frank:
Hm… good points. Figures I would’ve forgotten that you said that earlier. Everyone’s written so much about this topic at this point that it’s hard to remember all the scenarios discussed. Oh well. 😛
LikeLike
Looks like Delany presser didn’t produce much news:
http://twitter.com/PeteThamelNYT/status/12596727183
LikeLike
This blog certainly has taken off. 540+ comments on this thread alone. Sorry if things have been discussed, I just don’t have the time to sift through all the comments.
CNNSI.com has devoted a lot of screenspace toward B10 expansion today. Having read that, this blog and its comments provide the best information and most reasoned thoughts. However, I think this blog is having an effect, because they are no longer just spouting out non-sense that geography should trump everything.
However, regarding Texas, everyone seems to agree that they are the 100lb gorilla. Yet, they are still dismissed as a possible B10 candidate. And maybe UT doesn’t want to join which is fine, but I don’t really understand from their perspective. Unless they are willing to leave millions on the table. I also saw (again on CNNSI) that UT may consider the SEC or Pac 10, especially if the B12 implodes following a B10 expansion. If that is the case, why would UT want to be a part of those conferences over the B10. Why would UT let other events dictate their conference existence yet again (just like after the SWC)?
The only reason I could see UT wanting to stay with the B12 is b/c they feel it could survive a B10 expansion and believe that it could generate huge amounts of revenue – possibly with the addition of a Longhorn network or B12 network with UT retaining the biggest pot. However, it still seems that in such scenario UT will have less revenue than Purdue or Iowa (as part of the B10). Maybe I am wrong on that front.
I just can’t get past the revenue UT could earn in an expanded B10, so I really don’t know why they wouldn’t want to join.
I hope it works, it may not. But it seems to me that the benefit to both the B10 and UT make it a no-brainer.
LikeLike
Texas is starting their own network (I posted a link somewhere in this thread). I think that means they won’t be looking to join the Big Ten. The question for them is, can they pull it off? Will they end up like the Minnesota Twins’ network or the Yankee’s network?
LikeLike
I would refine your statement to read “Texas is strongly considering starting its own network.” I don’t think it’s official yet, and I would imagine that any proceeding with a potential LSN would have to wait until realignment sorts itself out and Texas knows what cards its playing with when looking for its best future home.
LikeLike
At this stage, I would doubt that the public unwillingness of Texas to consider a move to the Big 10 has anything to do with “letting other events dictate their conference existence yet again.” I’m sure the Powers That Be at Texas are quite aware of what is going on and are working out contingency plans behind the scenes.
It very well could be that they do in fact want an invite to the Big 10, but political realities require playing dumb for now and letting public events unfold as they will before making their move.
Or, to apply Gordian’s Knot, the public dismissing of rumors of a move to the Big 10 are indicative of a private unwillingness to move to the Big 10. If such, you and I and everyone else on the board can figure out the possible reactions to a Big 10 expansion which consumes other members of the Big XII: (a) stay put in the Big XII, whether or not replacement schools are added; (b) move to the Pac 10; (c) a hybrid of (a) and (b) with this vague “Western Alliance” which has been discussed; or (d) go independent (which I question the viability of above).
(Note that there is no “(e) join the SEC” on that list. I think it is very important to stress for those not as familiar with UT and the school’s mentality that, for any number of reasons, academics not being the least of those concerns, THERE IS NO CHANCE IN HELL THAT TEXAS WILL JOIN THE SEC, despite these random references from unnamed, non-Texas sources which have popped up. I’ll just leave it at that but will elaborate if anyone wonders why I [and other Horn fans] believe that so strongly.)
As for the other possibilities, there are two big reasons why Texas would bypass the Big 10: either it already knows that political realities won’t permit it, or the administration has run the numbers on what a potential LSN would bring in, a network which would be possible to implement in any of secanrios (a) through (d) but presumably not with a move to the Big 10, and have come to the conclusion that the revenue from the LSN exceed a 1/12 to 1/16 share of the BTN pot.
LikeLike
I am with you on UT never joining the SEC. I’d say right now UT is a cross between Mich and OSU. They are (or think they are) the top public school academically and they are brash and annoying sports fans like OSU (and really because they can be right now).
I live in Texas, and I’m of the opinion that so long as UT takes A&M, politics won’t prevent it from happening. Sure, it may get nasty, but I do not see a repeat of what happened back in 1994. So I don’t think political realities is a reason. With the caveat that I think they will need some political cover like the B12 imploding – and this may be what all this talk is doing.
Maybe UT can pull of the LSN, but it is a huge risk. But I guess one with a huge potential reward. But they will have to be part of some conference.
Anyway, we’ve gone from a one-team expansion to a possible 3-team expansion to now a 5-team expansion. According to this post, the dollars make a 5-team expansion very profitable. But exclusive clubs rarely expand that large unless forced to in order to survive. Like the Big 8 + SWC merger. Nothing is forcing the B10 to expand except additional dollars. I think there is a better chance that UT joins than a 5-team expansion without them.
LikeLike
Agreed, regarding UT more likely than a 5 school add to the B10.
As far as LSN, however, it just seems like a huge risk in my humble eyes to give up the guaranteed revenue boost of joining the B10 while at the same time massively growing that money pie (and thereby your own share). This is the 11+1=13 line of thinking that Frank spoke of some time ago. Except in UT’s eyes, it’s x + 11 = 3x. Going it alone on the LSN front just seems like a big investment without a guaranteed payout. All the while, they’ll let the B10 opportunity pass them by, and should the LSN fail (or not meet revenue expectactions) they’ve now backed themselves into a corner trying to maintain the status quo in the B12 – which none of the other schools seem to be ok with or, heading to the PAC10. Neither of these options are anywhere near as good as the proverbial bird in hand should the B10 approach them, IMO.
But, they need to take their time and weigh the pros and cons on their own. That’s why the decelerated acceleration doesn’t really bother me. I think this works the best if EVERYONE is given ample time to think through all of the possible scenarios so that when the time comes to make a decision everyone’s best interests have been clearly thought through.
What I DON’T want is for UT (or any other school) to feel like they’ve been “trapped” into moving to the Big 10. As JoePa said (paraphrasing), “If you’re going to marry someone, you better be sure you like them a lot.” I think that’s good advice.
LikeLike
My Texas view has been that Texas is most analogous to Michigan, and Oklahoma most analogous to Ohio State (and making Texas A&M = Michigan State, I guess), when trying to compare the schools to those not as familiar with them as someone from the Big XII territory.
I tend to agree with you on the political assessment. I’m still of the mindset that Texas won’t necessarily be tethered to A&M, let alone Tech, as this process unfolds, but I believe most burnt orange followers of realignment might disagree with me, at least when it comes to A&M.
@HoosierMike, I share your concerns as to the viability of a LSN, but I imagine those with better accounting and advertising backgrounds than I are taking a hard look. But just to pick some numbers at random, even if a theoretical LSN could only achieve 10% of the profitability of the BTN, wouldn’t you be better off — and potentially MUCH better off — keeping 100% of that lesser amount rather than 1/12, or 1/14/ or 1/16, of the larger pot?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn (and SH I guess):
“My Texas view has been that Texas is most analogous to Michigan, and Oklahoma most analogous to Ohio State”
As an Ohio State alum, I’d love to hear the rational behind that statement. I guess, as an OSU person, I just thought OSU and Texas were pretty similar.
USNews, if it matters:
#27 Michigan
#47 Texas
#53 Ohio State
#102 Oklahoma
In general, what’s with all the vehemence towards Ohio State? Sure some of our fans are obnoxious, but I’ve come across plenty of obnoxious fans from almost every school (especially on the Internet).
LikeLike
@Manifesto:
I’ll do my best to explain my statement politely, yet honestly, if you promise not to attack me in response. 🙂
Keep in mind that that statement is my personal viewpoint and does not necessarily represent the view of any other Longhorn fan.
That being said, it’s a combination of personal experience and second-hand reports of the games we played against both schools in 2005. I attended the Rose Bowl against Michigan and sat in the Michigan section. Almost without exception, the Michigan fans who surrounded me were polite, fun, knowledgeable and very courteous to me. A great, great group of fans. After UT kicked the game winning FG, I received numerous congratulatory handshakes from the fans around me.
Meanwhile, I didn’t attend the Horns’ game than fall in Columbus, but I certainly read about it. Every Horn fan did. And the reports of fans who attended the game were stunningly negative. Many said that the OSU fans, particularly those outside the stadium (more on that in a second) were easily the worst bunch of fans they had ever encountered. And before you write that off as hyperbole, please keep in mind that there really would be no incentive for any single Longhorn fan, let alone many Longhorn fans, to cede that title to a school with which we had absolutely no history at the expense of giving it to OU, or A&M, or Arkansas, or any other school with which we have a much more heated history.
One of the particular problems is that, apparently in Columbus, 100K fans are inside the stadium and another 100K or so mingle outside. It sounds like, for most fans, there’s about a two mile or so walk from the stadium to hotels, cars, whatever. And on that night, OSU suffered its first ever home loss. So, after the game, Texas fans had to walk a two-mile gauntlet through 100K OSU fans who had had more time to consume alcohol before a loss at the Horseshoe than they had ever had before. Many fans reported being scared — legitimately scared — for their safety and reported that “good” OSU fans often grouped up with them for safety on the walks.
(These stories contrast starkly with the reports of Texas fans who traveled to Lincoln for our first regular-season conference game against the Huskers in 1998. Despite the fact that we broke the Huskers’ multi-year home winning streak, Texas fans came back to Austin overwhelmed by just how awesome the Husker fans were — including one NU fan who offered to buy a bunch of Texas fans a congratulatory steak dinner.)
Additionally, someone noted that a OSU fan noted about Texas fans that he had never seen so many football fans wear polo shirts to a game, and a Texas fan responded that he had never seen so many grown men wear football jerseys to a game. I think that statement, as snobby as it might sound, somewhat sums up the difference. OU fans are those who wear their jerseys to games, while, based on the Michigan fans I sat with, they’re the polo-wearers.
So stepping away from my personal biases for a moment and when I think about this more rationally, I realize that Texas and OSU have a lot in common, and there probably isn’t that great a difference between OSU and UM. And my comparison is strictly on the athletics side and doesn’t go to academics. It’s a desire to be more around the OSUs of the world, in an academic sense, and to flee the OUs which drives my personal desire to see us head north.
LikeLike
@Hopkins – re: LSN share. Yes, it’s better, while riding nearly a decade of 10 win seasons and complete conference dominance and non-stop BCS berths. But what if Texas takes a downturn for a few years, or a scandal – (say Mack Brown is a prostitution ring kingpin using his profits/service offerings to lure recruits – which by the way, I assume to be true as my jealousy and hatred of success by any team not called the Michigan Wolverines blinds me to reason and forces me to conclude that this success was ill-gotten and thereby illegitimate @Manifesto – I think this is the answer you were looking for*) – anything that damages the brand for a period of time/puts them on probation/postseason ban could kill this whole thing. Sure, fans will still watch, but advertisers will drop LSN like Tiger. With 11 other members, this risk is mitigated.
* Just kidding, I think both schools (OSU/UT) are awesome institutions. I think Mack Brown, while having something of an ego is a solid guy. And I think Tressel is – *gulp* – a class act. There. I said it.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn, keep in mind that there is a big difference between fan behavior at a bowl game (where, for the most part, only older, financially well off fans attend) and at a home game– especially one at night. Believe me, M******n has just as many boorish fans that show themselves at home games as does Ohio State, and Ohio State has just as many great fans that you would meet at a bowl game.
LikeLike
Coming from a Michigan fan that sometimes (not always) wears jersey’s to games, I think Hopkins is pretty spot on. I’ve hated Nebraska ever since the 97 split (thanks a lot, Fulmer). I got to go to the UM/Neb Alamo Bowl in the ’05 season. Nebraska’s fans have class (caveat – both fights I got into in my adolescence were with idiots from Nebraska – separate incidents and I was 11 and 13). Before durning and after the game, my dad and I were constantly running into Nebraska fans and were able to strike up great conversations with all of them. At the end most were saying good game, bad officiating, and sorry it worked out the way it did. (the Alamo Bowl is a blast if your team ever goes, I highly recommend going).
Illinois fans can’t stand Michigan, and I get that, but I’ve never gotten a shoulder dropped into me in a crowd leaving Memorial or anything like that.
At the PSU/UM game in Happy Valley last year, I had 3 different people aggressively confront me trying to instigate a fight, and that was with my brother next to me wearing a PSU shirt. Starting a fight with a guy who’s team just lost to Toledo – that I don’t get.
OSU fans – I’ll leave it with what Hopkins said, because that pretty well sums up my experiences at Ohio games. For a time, UofM even starting sending out notices cautioning fans to not show their colors until they were safely inside the stadium. I’ve got OSU fans in my family and ALL of my in-laws, and they’re all reasonable, and enjoyable to talk CFB with.
But almost to a person, no matter who I talk to, it seems that the consensus is that OSU fans are obnoxious and this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy of perception, but anecdotal stories like those UT fans experienced certainly don’t help things. I wish this weren’t the case, because at the end of the day, OSU is representing the B10 as well.
LikeLike
@HoosierMike
“the Alamo Bowl is a blast if your team ever goes, I highly recommend going”
I’ve always wanted to go there for an Iowa game, but unfortunately the Big Ten has severed that bowl tie in. I missed my chance!
LikeLike
@Hodgepodge:
I certainly understand that, and I didn’t have any problems with any of the (presumably better off financially) OSU fans I encountered in Austin the next year when I attended the rematch. (Though way too many grown men wearing jerseys!!) But the question was why I would have made the comparison, and I explained where my biases came from. I would imagine that more than a few Longhorn fans would share those views (though I would not presume to speak for them) as a result of that night in Columbus.
(BTW, here a link to a letter of apology sent by the President of OSU to a Texas fan after that game:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2005/09/13/ohio_state_president_apologizes_to_texas_fan.html)
LikeLike
I’m not denying that SOME OSU fans treated some Texas fans poorly at the game in Columbus a few years ago. That was an unfortunate situation, to be sure and one about which the vast, vast majority of OSU fans are embarrassed. I’m just saying that lumping all OSU fans into this stereotype is as unfair as sterotyping UM fans in a positive light because the boneheads didn’t show up at the bowl game you attended.
And for the life of me, why on earth does wearing a jersey to a game (I don’t, BTW– I don’t even own one) matter in the least? It’s a football game, not a dinner party.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn:
Don’t worry, I like to believe I respond to civil conversation in kind.
That’s unfortunate re: the 2005 game. I remember taking my (eventual) wife to a nice restaurant for her birthday the day before the game, and there were some older Texas fans in there. A couple OSU fans came over and bought them some drinks, and they did the whole handshake and well-wishes and all that. Very cordial on both sides. Later, after we lost, there was the usual message board vitriol on Bucknuts, but the (reasonable) Texas fans that had been on before the game came back and had glowing things to say about the experience. I guess these two things perhaps gave me blinders to what occurred around campus.
You’re right about the parking situation. OSU has lousy parking, and to get to the west campus lots they stuff you into the buses, which I think only creates tension between the passengers. Those who parked in north campus have to deal with walking through a bunch of drunk college kids who’ve been partying since they woke up. Per usual, it seems the few ruining the perception of the whole, and that stinks. I’d like to think we’re a classy group all around, but I’ve been around Bucknuts long enough to know better.
@Hodgepodge kind of has the right of it, really. There are bad fans everywhere. I actually went to the Rose Bowl this year (first time to a bowl, yay!) and found quite a few Oregon fans to be really annoying. The usual taunts OSU fans have come to expect, shouting, etc. The rest weren’t really friendly, but they weren’t unfriendly either, so whatever. Then again they went into that game expecting to stomp us, so perhaps there was some animosity from that.
@HoosierMike: The UM/OSU is just a different atmosphere, and both sides have horror stories of behavior from both the fans and teams. I’ve seen similar warnings regarding being an OSU fan in Ann Arbor. Although I will say this: OSU has a huge campus and a lot of local fans, and not all are actually part of the school.
Unfortunately, combining all of that with a lot of alcohol often equals bad things, and doubly so during Michigan week. The insanity, for better or worse, is part of what makes our rivalry so big. But I’ve heard plenty of bad stories from every team. Last time OSU was in Happy Valley someone decided to pelt our band with bags of urine, for example. Again, a few fools making the rest look bad.
Lastly, I will say it’s going to depend on where your tickets are too. I’ve never heard of anything good happening to fans in opposing teams’ student section, no matter the school.
LikeLike
@HoosierMike: To extend JoePa’s analogy a bit, if you’re going to marry someone, you had better be sure they like you. Thus, adios ND.
LikeLike
Delany speaks, says nothing:
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/delany-sheds-little-light-on-big-ten-expansion.html
LikeLike
Pingback: More Big 10 Expansion Talk – Does Basketball Matter? | The Sports Economist
What the biggest factor wieghing this expansion?
money or research or all the above
LikeLike
I would say both. Money is definitely #1. The more money a school takes in from TV contracts, the less the school needs to divert other funds to spend on it’s athletic program, allowing them to instead invest that money on the institution’s actual mission: education and research.
LikeLike
I know I am in the small minority who would prefer a one team expansion(No Notre Dame please) and an even smaller minority preferring that that team be Nebraska. (I am a 60s PSU alum living far away from B10 area) A poster on earlier boards, Adam, has argued, (successfully for me) that the essence of the B10 will be destroyed with a large addition of non-midwestern universities. Assuming that the vast majority of posters here are younger than myself, do you see this as having any importance? I, like Adam, fear for the destruction of long standing rivalries, that make each conference unique.
As an aside, to my fellow PSU alums, who in large part seem intent on a large eastern espansion, will you enjoy B10 football as much, when Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse or UConn come to Happy Valley every other year, but Ohio State, or Michigan comes once every six years?
And finally, my admiration, for the many posters who are making this such a great read!
LikeLike
Q, as a Longhorn fan, I’m curious: if you fear the destruction of long-standing rivalries, why would it matter if Nebraska, rather than a large non-midwestern university like Texas, were to be admitted to the Big 10? It seems as though you’d be starting from scratch with the Huskers as much as you’d be with the Horns.
LikeLike
@Q – I am in the same camp you are (single school expansion), although my prefs are:
1. UT
2. Neb
3. ND
I am 28 yrs old, a lifelong UofM football fan, and an IU grad. My stepmom is a PSU grad (and huge fan).
Tradition is a large part of the allure of college football for me. I am concerned that if you expand the B10 to 16 or even 14, you’re essentially dealing with two separate current model conferences that agree to put their best two against each other at the end of the year.
My family tries to make it to the PSU/UofM as often as we can and go to see either UofM or PSU if they’re in the neighborhood. If the UM/PSU game was reduce to every 4 or 5 years, that would totally suck. Just as it would suck getting to see Michigan/PSU come to IU, Purdue or Ill (I’m 1, 1.5, and 2 hrs from these schools) as often as they do. Getting up to see UofM in Ann Arbor every year is hard to pull off with a family, and living in Big10 country definitely allows for same-day trips. If Michigan only comes to these schools once a decade, that’s a huge downer.
This is my biggest fear, as an avid fan of a particular team, and the current Big10 in general, to see the matchups that comprise my annual fall love affair to disintegrate.
LikeLike
Q: I think the consensus among PSU folks on this blog is not necessarily in favor of a sweeping eastern expansion. PSU commenters have been very favorable to Nebraska, for instance. As you point out, Michigan and tOSU are very important games for us, and I think PSU fans are passionate about Wisconsin and Iowa games, as they’ve been a thorn in our sides. So, aside from bringing in Pitt to restore a historic rivalry, I am not particularly keen on the SU+RU=NYC line of thinking, as I think its very speculative.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing, I do not want the Big10 to continue to be labeled as “the Midwestern Conference”. Now there is nothing wrong with being such, but facts are facts. The Great Lakes areas have been hit hard economically in the past couple decades and the Great Plains have lagged behind the national growth rate for decades (and were never high population areas to begin with). This means the area the Big10 currently resides in (and most folks are pushing us to expand into) are “dead ends” as far as the long term growth of the conference (a bit of an exaggeration with the Great Lakes areas, but I don’t think so at all for the Great Plains states). While I want both Nebraska and Mizzou in the Big10, and think they are good fits today, and will continue to be so for quite some time, I worry what it will cost the Big10 in that “long term picture” Delany has mentioned if one or both are the only expansion teams made (thinking if they try another gambit to get ND to join).
Right now Cuse, UConn, Rutgers, & Pitt are schools that are good to great athletically ( admittedly depending on sport), good academically, and in areas of high population density. The reason why they fail to bring in money via ABC/ESPN contract is due to the fact that none are national brands in their own right and the BigEast has none to bring to town. IMO, they are the perfect “filler” schools for a conference that already has the national brands. You start scheduling PSU/OSU/UoM (and maybe Neb) against these schools and the ESPN’s of the worlds will start salivating at the advertising revenue big time programs in top population centers can generate.
Truly though, I think the BigEast schools (well at least the ones I mentioned) are undervalued…but only for a conference that has access to its own conference tv channel. Let assume the Big10 were to get Neb, Mizzou, and 3 of the eastern schools in mention (it doesn’t matter who). With 4 divisions, and one of PSU/OSU/UoM/Neb in each division, you can guarantee each school in the conference plays two of the “big time” programs a year (more if they make the championship game), and all once every three years, while using the rest of their schedule on the Big10 network to collect the ad revenue from the local market that ABC/ESPN doesn’t seem to be interested in (as they are looking for more national match-ups). For any other conference in the nation, the incentive to adding any (or all) of those eastern schools is the couple of games a year ABC/ESPN might be interested in because a national brand is coming to town, but to only the Big10, they can provide “home-town” sporting events and the population centers to market to.
IMO, I just see the eastern teams as the method by which the Big10 can solidify its position as the best paid conference, while maintaining its identity as a largely public conference that prides itself on the research levels all its members undertake, and ensure that position is held for decades to come.
LikeLike
Bingo. Well said.
LikeLike
Frank: In honor of the great “Barking Carnival” piece “Being Bill Powers” when you can could you please give us a “Being Jim Delany” and walk us through what you think he was thinking going into the meeting with the Prez’, what happened, and what am I going to do now?
If time permits, one for a University Prez going into the meeting, in the meeting, and what next.
I think I/we need a sanity check.
LikeLike
Re “Being Jim Delany” (Rick)
Speculation unlimited: a novel where Frank recreates what Delany is thinking: LOL!
LikeLike
Yeah well, we have alot of time to kill for the next while after Delany’s statements today.
LikeLike
ESPN lead story on College Football Live is expansion….
I think the gloves are about off.. and I see two paths going forward..
a) Big 10 invites Nebraska, and gets to 12 and everybody chills out
b) Big 10 goes to 16 and we see all hell break loose
In all my posts I have felt that 16 is the long term plan
a) these are smart people, and looking to maximize revenue
b) while academics may speak, money will shout
c) I have advocated the BIG 3, and I think this will happen
these are not things I personally think will be good, but as a realist am willing to concede as things beyond my control.
this said, I stress again the points of ..
PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
PREDATOR vs PREY
1) I agree that Northwestern, Vandy, and Stanford are private, but going forward with the BIG 3 this will not happen again.
2) No matter what happens, once the Big 10 gets to 13 teams the gates will be open and will be impossible to close.
3) Once you get to the BIG 3 and 48 teams, NO conference left will be able to assemble 16 teams that could match the BIG 3 (Not the Big 12, the Big East, or the ACC!). I have been working on a BIG 3 format for the past week and no matter what combinations I plug in the 4th 16 team conference will pale in value. (FRANK.. when I finish plugging in some numbers I will email it to you – thank you for this blog, and may the BIG 16 force be with you).
4) While many have advocated the stability of the ACC, I am not one of them. I think if the Big 12 and Big East are on the block the ACC is just as vulnerable. The ACC has a conference that is 1/3 PRIVATE and 2/3 PUBLIC which in my opinion makes them VERY vulnerable. At least the Big 12 has a strong value with football, the Big East and ACC do not.
5) Once the Big 10 hits 13, they will become the evil empire.. Like it or not they will have crossed a line where the SEC and Pac 10 will be forced to take action that keeps their own conferences long term viability strong. If Big 10 gets Nebraska (which makes the most sense) the Big 12 might be able to add 1 more team. If they get Nebraska and Missouri, we will watch the Big 12 implode.
6) While people on here seem to feel the SEC rides the “short” bus I am reminded of somebody famous who wrote “football drives the bus” and it the past few years the SEC is football. As I said at the beginning, it is not want I want to see (because I am not a president or board member) but what I can see happening in a world beyond my desires and control.
7) This said giving teams like UL and WVU to the SEC may be what we would like to see, but with the rush to 16, and the power of the SEC right now, I think they will get the roses and not the thorns. Texas or UNC could easily go to the SEC (even tho I have said Texas and A&M to the Pac 10 for quite some time) which would keep them strong.
8) I can see one possibility of a BIG 4, but it would mean that the Big 12 would survive intact. So you would have a Big 1(0)6, Pac 16, Big 16, and SEC 16. My opinion for what it is worth would be that the 2 that share revenue (Big 10 and sec) will be stronger than the other 2 (Big 12 and Pac 10) who do not. Wealth shared just seems to be a better model for long term strength and harmony.
If Delaney by going to 16 puts Texas, A&M, OU, and OSU in the SEC then I feel we should all come up with a t shirt to be worn till the end of days at college football games to tell him just how we feel about it!
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I can’t buy into a realignment model that seems to presuppose that Washington State would be a more valuable “commodity,” as it were, than Miami, and Louisville more valuable than Duke. Maybe 50 years from now, there could be a much stronger public/private split than exists today, but we’re nowhere near being there today, and any plan that presupposes that private schools like those would be abandoned today to form a top tier of three 16-team conferences is DOA.
LikeLike
HH,
a) going forward it is about adding teams, not kicking them out as is noted with my comment on Vandy – the SEC may not kick them out, but I doubt seriously if they would add Wake Forrest. A team like washington state is ALREADY in, much like IU and Northwestern are ALREADY in the Big 10. In no Big 10 addition do I see Big 10 subtraction. Same with the SEC and Pac 10!
b) Washington State has 25,000 enrollment! Miami has 10,000 – UL has 15,000 – Duke has 6,000! I have said it many times smaller schools with small football stadiums will be less valuable. I understand the research argument, but if selling seats did not matter why is Harvard vs Yale not the top rated football game in the country! Harvard, Yale, and Duke are top schools but do not have LARGE football bases.
I am not saying Miami, UL, Duke, etc. would not find homes to play football. i am saying they will not find homes in the BIG 3 just like the Ivy’s will not wind up in the Big 3. Teams like UNC and Maryland may find a home in the BIG 3, but Duke and Wake will not. If UNC and Maryland are smart (and I think we all agree they are) they will look to trade up not down.
MONEY is a driver! do not kid yourself, if it was not the Big 10 would add just one more school and be done with it. By going to 16 they are making a financial decision, and to think the Pac 10 and SEC will just sit on their hands is a fools paradise. They would have to go through the same process we have here on this blog and make value added decisions.
Frank has really gotten me thinking about the research part of the equation, and long term adding STATE schools makes the most long term sense. i do not think this will occur in 50 years, as I think it will happen in the next 5. It just makes to much economic and political sense.
LikeLike
I posted this in a different thread. If what you forecast will happen begins to look like it will occur, then you have also identified how a fourth conference will emerge: BC, UConn, MD, Virginia, Wake Forest, Miami, Duke, UNC, NC State, GT and ND provides the foundation for a very good all-sports conference which would make sense with NC champions in many sports, men and women. It does not have to have 16, 12 members would be just fine.
LikeLike
Rich2..
UConn, MD, UVA, UNC, NC State, and GT could all find new homes in the New Big 16 or SEC 16.. that is my point..
Which leaves you with BC, Wake, Miami, and Duke.. Not exactly a football conference folks would get excited about..
LikeLike
@duffman
I think you’re going too far into the future. If the B10 goes to 16, and after seeing these #s, I think they will, I think we’ll see a reshuffling instead of an apocalypse.
Why?
1. Because no conference other than the B10 has the financial incentive to go past 12 (the number needed for a conference championship game).
2. It’s gonna take a while for the other conferences to put together network deals, and I’m not sure how many of them can in the next decade.
3. The other college presidents and conferences are going to watch to see how the B16 is gonna work and if it will get those numbers we expect or be like the WAC-16 end up collapsing under its own weight.
The way I see it, even if the B10 goes to 16, the SEC and the ACC will probably stand pat since they will likely remain intact and at 12. Depending on who goes where, the Pac-10 will snipe at most two schools. The B10 may snipe six from the BXII and BE combined. Depending on who and how bad, the BE basketball schools (and hopefully ND) will leave the remaining football schools.
Depending on who gets taken, I can see this going one of two ways
1. I can see the BXII and BE remnants forming a new conference in a shotgun marriage eerily similar to the SWC-Big 8 merger to wait until the next expansion in approximately 10-15yrs when everyone’s channels are up and running. At least that way those teams have a more realistic shot of maintaining AQ.
2. The BXII reloads with WAC and western CUSA squads to form a weaker by still viable conference while waiting for the next round of expansion. The Big East football schools will take whatever they can get east of Texas to get to nine (9) schools. They’ll likely lose their BCS AQ, but will fight hard to be attractive for the ACC and if they’re incredibly lucky SEC when they go to 16.
LikeLike
FLP..
if the Big 10 goes to Big 16 (and you agree they will) I can see no way the Pac 10 and SEC sit pat.. just can not see it! I am not saying it will be an apocalypse and I agree there will be a reshuffling (which is why I made the BIG 3 argument in the first place). We all seem to agree that the Big 10 gets at least 1 Big 12 school (and possibly 5 – in a UT,A&M,KU,NU, and Mizzou sweep). My question is what is left, that has any value in the Big 12? Same with the Big East!
It will be who grows and who shrinks.. Am i saying that second tier schools in the Big 12, BE, or ACC will disappear? The answer is a resounding NO!! I will postulate that their future economic values will be greatly reduced. If the Big 10 and SEC are over 200 Million per year, and the next best deal is half or a quarter of that value (B12+ACC+P10+BE = 236 Total). A BIG 3 could split the same 700 Million dollar pie this way Big 16/Pac16/SEC16 = 600 Million + B12/ACC/BE “scraps” split the remaining 100 Million.
My point is the remaining teams will have diminishing values NOT accelerating values. I have been arguing that the Big 10 going to 16 will redefine the landscape! Does Duke vs Baylor in football sound like it would generate the same value as PSU vs Nebraska! If you believe this, then I think I can find some valuable swampland to sell you.
I would agree with the Pac 10 and SEC standing pat at 12 IF the Big 10 added just one team! But you and I seem to agree that they will not stop there, and at that time it will be Katie bar the door as the remaining conferences try to muscle up! Once this happens the teams left in the Big 12, BE, and ACC will have the least value.
As I said before I am not happy this will happen, but to stick ones head in the sand will not make it go away. Life is dynamic and will fight to survive! Carnivores eat meat and adapt in that food chain. Herbivores adapt by eating plants and as such can still survive, but the Carnivores are still at the top of the food chain.
if your argument it correct the “shotgun weddings” will be for the weaker conferences as a survival mechanism. But the FAT CATS will just get fatter with no real fear of getting eaten. The Pac 10 and Big 12 can merge, but the BE and ACC would have to hunt on Big 10 and SEC ground.. tell me honestly who you thing would win that fight?
Can the big ACC PUBLIC schools look at their 67 Million and the SEC’s 204 Million or the Big 10’s 242 Million and not see how it all adds up?
LikeLike
@ duffman
Where’s the SEC’s reason to expand? To combat the B10? This isn’t RISK (the board game) or the Serengeti, this is merely business. The SEC has no financial reason to expand and cut the TV and Bowl money pie more ways. The SEC is not in need of additional programming. Their rights fees are set for the next dozen or so years. All adding 4 more teams will do at this juncture is put 4 more schools on the trough.
The *only* thing that makes 16 teams desirable is for conference TV programming and footprint. Without a station, there’s no upside to go more than 12 right now.
I agree the PAC-10 will expand, but merely to 12 teams. Like the SEC, they lack a channel and have no way to monetize the additional games. Also like the SEC, there’s no reason to split the pie more than 12 ways while getting the cable channel set up. All the schools the PAC-10 will be looking at to expand past 12 will probability still be in the BXII or MWC when they finally get the TV channel together.
Clearly the Rose Bowl conferences are going to take some good teams out of the BE and BXII. But there’s only at most 8 of 20 schools that might be taken. 20-8=12 Twelve is still the largest number that a conference can be economically feasible. Even the leftovers of the BE and BXII will be at least MWC level competition and many of them may be attractive to other conferences in the future. Depending on who stays and who goes, the reconstituted BXII may even keep a BCS bid.
Who knows what the demographics will look like in 15yrs? Who knows for that matter what cable and/or PPV will look like then either? What you say may come to pass, but not before 2020.
LikeLike
Check out the SEC commish comments. They will not stand pat.
LikeLike
@ Rick
I took that to mean starting the SEC network. Even fast tracking it, that’s gonna take a while. I don’t foresee them adding teams until that’s up and running…like the B10’s already done.
LikeLike
if the SEC commish wants it and they partner with ESPN as the Big 10 did with Fox.. my guess is it would be done in a few years..
especially if it added OK, UNC, OSU and NC State to the fold.. If it is OK, Texas, A&M, and UNC.. I think it happens faster..
LikeLike
Rick..
can you link the SEC commish comment?
thanks
LikeLike
Sure, Mike posted this earlier from Dennis Dodd:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13266293/whenever-big-ten-expands-college-football-will-feel-trickledown-effect
LikeLike
FLP,
I have to agree with Duffman (we quibble over whether the 2 private schools Duke and Miami will end up in the Big 3, but that’s about it).
Mind you, this won’t happen immediately; it may take decades to play out, but eventually, the Big16/20, SEC, and Pac/Western16/20 will all have their own cable networks, and between them, take up all the most attractive brands currently in the ACC and Big12. BTW, I see 20 as the upper limit. Go beyond 20, and it’s really hard to have a functioning conference (OK, _maybe_ you can go to 22). However, that means there’s still plenty of slots to fill in the Big 3.
LikeLike
This IS a bit like RISK. If the Big 10 goes to 16, there are only X number of assets. If the SEC sits back and allows the major assets to be taken/grow stronger in other conferences, they lose in the long run. If, for example, the ACC beefs up on the best remaining Big East teams in its quest to go to 16, the SEC could still have the power to poach an ACC team or two when the SEC is good and ready. But, while they are waiting, the ACC could grow to equal status…maybe they start their own channel…maybe FSU and Miami return to their 90’s prowess again with a string of top 5 finishes…maybe they snag UConn and Syracuse and win 5-6 straight national titles as a conference. Where would the little SEC be then?
I’m a “4 super conference” guy myself. Big 12 dissolves…Big East assets go south. My biggest quandary is still this…how will the PAC10 expand without Texas/Texas AM? There simply aren’t enough asset out west to fulfill the PAC10’s rigorous academic requirements AND unanimous vote requirement. All the other pieces I can see shaking out.
Big 10 snags BIg 12/BE schools.
ACC snags BE assets.
SEC snags Big 12 football stars and MAYBE an ACC team or two.
But the PAC10…6 more teams?!? I don’t know.
LikeLike
To get to 16 without the Texas schools the P10 can lure ND, grab Utah, CO, KS, and 2 of IA St(academic match), Air Force, Navy, or compromises such as UNLV, NM, Fresno, or (gasp) Boise. How bad do the snobs want to get to 16?
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB
Without cable channels, we’re not at RISK level yet. Since only the Big Ten has a channel, there’s no need for everyone else to lose money by adding all those extra teams that will just end up jumping ship for a better deal / whoever gets the channel profitable first. Y’all may be right, but only once we start seeing these conferences all at 12, and approaching a break-even point with their established cable channel.
So the SEC needs to worry about the ACC poaching…
pick any of the following:
WVU
a Tampa commuter school
a school that went to the BCS without a practice facility
a school that’s been Div 1 for a decade.
The SEC still controls major state schools in the South. They don’t hafta sweat the ACC unless the ACC can start poaching UGA, Bama, or Tennessee. And if you can figure out how to do that, send your resume to the ACC.
I’m also working on getting those last two Pac-16 schools. So far I only have Colorado, Utah, Texas, and TAMU. OK, maybe TT if the legislature bumps them to a top level research school, but that’ll take years. Nevada if they upgrade everything? Kansas??
LikeLike
FLP ..
my six were Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and OSU….
with nebraska and missouri to the Big 16..
I know people say this will not happen, but I am still not sold..
a) the pac 10 all or nothing vote?
I say based on past history it is a vote of 1 in the Pac 10, so if USC says yes.. it will happen
b) the academics issue?
If the Pac 10 can land Texas and A&M, they have little problem with OK and OSU as a tradeoff for the Texas schools.
c) the TV deal?
with OU and Texas, the Pac 10 gains a huge bargaining chip..
d) unequal revenue?
with USC and Texas you have the Sun and Jupiter in a world where they are both pretty happy
throw in warm weather, and good fit for minor sports.. a reformed Pac 10 / Big 12 = Pac 16
while other might scoff.. T boone might make you rethink their future value in any conference
http://newsok.com/with-t.-boone-pickens-gift-osu-kicks-off-drive-for-1b/article/3442701?custom_click=rss
a billion dollars is a big number!!
with 10 Pac 10 teams added to 6 Big 12 teams, the texas schools would not feel like such a minority..
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind:
Think of it less as a game of Risk and more as a jigsaw puzzle in which all of the pieces for a 4×16 realignment are already on the table. (As I’ve pointed out before, the number of teams the remaining Big Four need to all get two 16 is just two more than the cumulative number of teams in the Big East, Big XII and ND — and just ONE more [goodbye USF!] if ND doesn’t play ball.)
If the Pac 10 doesn’t follow the ACC and SEC and Big 10 in going to 16, you’ll be left with some pretty good schools in the middle of the country (Kansas?) whose only remaining option might be the MWC.
Not only does the idea of a Kansas in the MWC seem instinctively bizarre, but it would also mean that the Pac 10 would be a allowing its biggest neighboring conference, a conference which might be on the border of BCS qualification, to strengthen itself further.
Why not just take those BCS-level “scraps” for yourself? Kansas State and Texas Tech can’t be THAT hard to digest.
LikeLike
It looks like some of the other conferences are already speaking out on what courses of action are on the table. Take a look at this link: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-instantreplay-expansion
Mike Slive (SEC commissioner) even decided to speak to the media before Delany gave his presser. I still think that if anyone thinks that the SEC will sit by and let the Big 10 get too far out ahead of them is crazy.
The Pac 10 commissioner also state that they were still planning on continuing their investiagtion into expansion.
LikeLike
I swear I think the Pac 10 will be last to the expansion table. If they were smart, they’d all come to an agreement and jump out ahead of the Big Ten and pick up Texas, aTm, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and one other. Then they could start working on a Pac 10 Network. I don’t think that will happen, though. They’ll have to wade through the Big Ten’s leftovers hoping that Texas and maybe Nebraska remain.
LikeLike
Well, they have, because they have a weaker bargaining position (no network yet, and even when they start one, a smaller population in their current footprint than the Big10 with less avid sports fans than the Big10).
LikeLike
I believe you answered your question. Texas is non-midwestern. It would also be important that Nebraska wants to belong to the conference, whereas it appears Texas does not. Every scenario also envisions A&M coming along. The addition of one school does the least damage to other conferences and their rivalries. I sadly know that this entire discussion of expansion, is driven by dollars. It, appears to me, to be another version of Wall Street. Maximize your gains in the short term without a long term feel for its ramifications. This board wouldn’t exist without the 99% who want large, mega conferences, with the inherent, neat, tidy playoffs they could produce. I, and I believe it is because I am older, love the nuances of the current conferences, and yes, the bowl system.
LikeLike
I would respond by saying that Texas isn’t going anywhere that it doesn’t want to go, and if Texas were to wind up in the Big 10 during this round of realignment, we would look back upon how the Texas administration was playing possum right now in order to minimize political flack until it was ready to proceed with a desired move to the Big 10.
(Again, I’m not arguing that that is what’s happening right now, as I’m beginning to take the words and actions of UT admins at face value. But I imagine that what all of us collectively do not know about what’s going on behind the scenes could easily consume at least 100, if not 200, additional comments on this thread.)
That being said, I still don’t understand why the addition of Texas would be any more threatening to existing Big 10 rivalries than adding Nebraska would be. And if not disrupting existing rivalries were a key criteria in Big 10 expansionism, PSU would currently be enjoying those conference games with Rutgers and Syracuse you disparaged earlier! 🙂
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn First, I did not diparage conference games against Rutgers and Syracuse. My interogative statement was was for the PSU alums who seem hell bent on giving up what they have. And what they have, IMO, is a great conference that includes national interest games with Michigan and Ohio State. Would you like the Longhorns to give up Oklahoma on a yearly basis, and play them 2 out of 6 years? I would guess not! Secondly, you need to get your facts straight regarding PSU and the Big East. First Syracuse, and then Pittsburgh, decided in the 80s that they would rather be independent in football and have Big East basketball, then join PSU in an all sports conference. THERE WAS NO BIG EAST FOOTBALL WHEN PENN STATE JOINED THE BIG TEN.
LikeLike
Q, there’s really no need for the all-caps yelling and telling me to “get my facts straight.” I thought we were having a friendly conversation.
My point of referencing conference games with SU and RU was to point out that PSU is still, moe or less, a newcomer to the Big 10, and that, had there been a concern about disrupting existing rivalries 20 years ago, PSU, nor anyone would have been able to join the Big 10. If that had happened, PSU would in fact be playing those conference games right now with RU and SU in the Big East, regardless (no all-caps needed) of whether the conference was playing football in 1990 or whenever.
And the PSU-to-the-Big-10 example is a great one which shows that adding a premier program can add to rivalries, rather than detract from the existing ones. It’s hard for me to fathom how adding a PSU has proven to be so successful, but adding a Texas, and just a Texas as you suggest in a one-team expansion, would be so detrimental to those existing rivalries.
And Texas could, and almost certainly would, continue to play OU annually as a non-conference game. I doubt that we would balk at continuing to schedule perhaps our biggest rival, unlike a certain another school discussed prominently in this post.
LikeLike
@Q I’m not sure that I see the quibble over Texas, but not Nebraska. Either would be an excellent addition to the Big10, and I say that as a UofM fan, who at this moment really doesn’t need the stiffer competition 🙂 I completely understand and agree with what you said above in that “the essence of the B10 will be destroyed with a large addition of non-midwestern universities”. But I think the phrase that makes this statement true is “large addition”, much more so than “non-midwestern”. I remember the hub-ub of adding PSU, being that they were “out east” and that has worked out amazingly.
Within 15 years (god has it been that long?), PSU has established solid rivalries with the entire “top” half of the league (yes, I’m including Michigan in this, but only because I don’t know how not to).
@Hopkins, I think in Q’s post, he’s still referring to the idea of JoePa’s Dream conference, adding 5 east coast teams, splitting into divisions (of which PSU and the eastern newbs will be a part), and only seeing the majority of the existing come to Happy Valley once or twice a decade. But I could be wrong on that. This, too, as a lifelong B10’er, is my fear.
LikeLike
* and by “be a part” I meant “comprise the eastern division”
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn Emphasis was the intent! Upon rereading your earlier post, I realized I didn’t address the correct issue. I have no idea what criteria the B10 used to invite PSU in 90. On an 8-3 vote, it certainly wasn’t a slam dunk. Going forward, whether or not the COP/C will care about rivalries, I havn’t any idea. If Delany only proposes revenue maximization alternatives, maybe that is what we get. What I think has no bearing on anything. What I would prefer, however, is to maintain what the B10 is; and that is large, state, mid-western universities. If I, personally were to pick a 3 university expansion, it would be Texas/Missouri/Nebraska. A 5 school would be the previous 3 plus A&M and Kansas.
My personal preference is a one school with Nebraska.
On PSU and the Big East; there was a good chance PSU would have ended up in the ACC if not the B10.
On PSU rivalries; some considered Pitt to be the one, others Syracuse. I, an old man who grew up with both, now, could not care less about either. Ohio State and Michigan are the big ones. I just wish we could beat them more than one out of three! 🙂
LikeLike
@Q – I’m assuming your assumption that “Texas does not” want to belong to the B10 is based on the cool comments from the BIll Powers. I think the reason for non-committal responses to this question is that Texas doesn’t need to lobby for consideration (unlike, say Missouri – where the governor of the state even mentioned jumping to the B10 – or Nebraska (Osborne’s comments)). Once the exploratory phase is completed, I’ll near guarantee the first call Delany makes is to Beebe. The 2nd will be to Powers. After that, he’ll work his way down their list. And I’m not sure that 99% percent of posters desire the mega-restructuring of college conferences, just that, based on the blurbs in the media, this is where it’s trending. In fact, you can put me down as one that hopes that D-1 (sorry FBS) consolidates to no less than 6 conferences, and that the champions duke it out in a playoff.
LikeLike
Let’s throw a truly tectonic proposal out there from Texas’ perspective that would simply establish perpetual football dominance for the Big 10.
If you hear the Big 10 is considering taking sixteen teams, and that the Big 12 faces the loss of Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado (PAC 10), would you approach the Big 10 with this proposal.
Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri collectively to the Big 10.
Now, Oklahoma is the school that would presumably give the Big 10 schools pause from an academic perspective. However, are they a dealbreaker? I think if conferences go to 16 teams, you cannot reserve a permanent non-conference opponent for a school with the football pedigree of OU. 16 games means 4 pods, which translates into 9 conference games and three non-conference games. If Texas and OU are playing every season, then there is no chance that either school will ever play anyone else of consequence again.
Oklahoma is not in the AAU, but isn’t it possible for them in the near future? If they were accepted into the Big 10, one has to believe their academic reputation could rise relatively quickly.
Just consider this conference from a revenue and competition perspective — Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in one league? Seriously? Your pods could be
East:
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
North:
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
West:
Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Missouri
South:
Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Think of the end of season rivalries — Thanksgiving – Texas v. Texas A&M
Friday – Oklahoma v. Nebraska
Saturday – Michigan v. Ohio State
It would be unreal, game-set-match for the Big 10. How could any conference possibly compete with that conference on a financial basis?
Would OU be a dealbreaker? Should it be? I agree Texas Tech and Baylor are non-starters, but wouldn’t the inclusion of OU and Texas A&M cause UT to bolt?
LikeLike
I think that would have to be tempting to the administrators, though I wonder how many schools would have misgivings about the sheer number of power schools in the conference. In addition to bringing in Texas’ 2 traditional rivals, it’s the only way to actually geographically connect the rest of the Big 10 to Texas.
The academic side is the bigger question. I don’t know the numbers well, but my impression is that Oklahoma isn’t in the same league as any of the other schools were talking about. I’m not sure that the Big 10 officials would be so willing to let them in, even on a provisional basis.
LikeLike
I’m still a fan of single school expansion 1. UT 2. Neb. 3. ND, but, yeah, I could get behind this easily if it were to occur.
LikeLike
As a football fan, I think it’s great, but I know Oklahoma has no chance of being accepted in to the Big10. Remember that Mizzou and Nebraska are both lower than any existing Big10 school when it comes to research. Oklahoma is a whole ‘nother step lower.
LikeLike
@Justin,
I love the idea from an athletic standpoint.
As for the academics, it raises an interesting question: is an undergraduate-oriented university like Syracuse or even Notre Dame more valuable to the rest of the Big 10 than a larger research school like OU (that fell just south of $200,000 in R&D in 2008)?
It gets us a bit further down the slippery slope. If we´re comfortable with Nebraska, Mizzou and Kansas, it´s not that big of a jump down to OU.
Also from Texas´ perspective, would OU really be a stumbling block here? Would it really make a difference in the politics of such a move to take OU instead of KU?
Interesting to hear what people think
LikeLike
@the guys complaining about OSU fans
A lot of people in the conference don’t like them either. I’ve always contended that to understand why OSU fans are like that, you have to understand that many of them are children of Brown’s fans. If you do not know what Brown’s fans are like, here are two videos:
In this one, the refs undo a play saying that the previous play was being reviewed. The fans were displeased. If you get to the end, you will see the refs leaving the tunnel under heavy bottle barrage after declaring the game a forfeit.
This was the last game before the Browns moved to Baltimore. That object that the entire section is working to throw onto the field is in fact what it looks like, an each bleacher row ripped off its moorings. There may be a fire in the stands but its unclear.
Basically, Brown’s fans make OSU fans look like a Master’s crowd. The apple only falls so far from the tree.
LikeLike
Dodd: Latest rumor.
>>
The latest scuttlebutt is that the Big Ten, eventually, may add these five: Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers and Pittsburgh.
<<
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13266293/whenever-big-ten-expands-college-football-will-feel-trickledown-effect
LikeLike
I could easily see that. Maybe Delany was negotiating with the Big Ten Presidents and trying to convince them 16 is the way to go.
All AAU members, 4 of the 5 are spending big dollars in research, good cultural & geographic fits.
LikeLike
Yes, I could see this happening. Although, Kansas might be a better fit than Syracuse. Divisions would line up nicely with Kansas. Just draw a north/south line through Lake Michigan for East/West Divisions.
Last December, I read an article in one of the Detroit papers that said “not all of the B10 presidents were on board with expansion”. It didn’t say how many were opposed. Apparently, Delany was able to win enough support to proceed with the analysis and hire the consulting firm. He may be running into some headwinds with the presidents.
LikeLike
Can someone please remind me why Mizzou is more attractive than Kansas or UConn or Maryland? This board has my head spinning with the flurry of events unfolding.
LikeLike
I like Maryland, but evidently, the Big10 presidents don’t seem to want to upset the ACC, so Maryland may be off the table. As for the other’s Missouri has more people and they’re closer. That’s about it.
LikeLike
“You don’t keep an institution. If there is a better place, it’s like marriage. You try to make the best house and home for your family but if there is something else that looks better you move on.”
Craig Thompson has a very peculiar definition of marriage.
LikeLike
Yeah, that marriage comment stuck out as quite odd.
LikeLike
Re the ultimate insider speaks (Mike)
This is great: the ultimate insider: “scuttlebutt” speaks:
Great journalism
LikeLike
Some comments on that story:
Isn’t this the guy who was saying U Conn was a lock 2-3 days ago? Seems like these guys are talking out the ass rather than having any legit inside info.
Without ND, I don’t think the Big 10 adds 5. esp. with the resistence JD appears to be getting…..if the Big 10 DOES add 5, let’s get U Conn or KU over Syracuse…although U Conn’s lack of AAU membership, no matter how arbitrary, (as it’s research $s are equal to Mo, KU)…may eliminate it in the end.
If Thompson is married, that comment about marriage had to get a big “WTF” when he got home…just sayin’
Sounds like the SEC commish might be dreaming of an ACC raid….although UL and WVU would be available, the big fish he could be looking at would be FSU, Miami, Clemson, TX. Would any/all of them be willing to ignore academic concerns and jump to the SEC for the $? We’ll see…….
LikeLike
The SEC actually has far superior options than the Big 10 if they can pull it off. I left out Oklahoma. So OK, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and TX could all be on the table.
Of the 5, TZ would be least likely to go, due to academic concerns. All of the reat have reasons, in addition to the $, to bolt.
OK knows the Big 12 is unstable.
FSU may desire to be in the same league as Florida. Same for Miami.
Clemson may desire to be in the same league as S.C.
When FSU and Miami opted for the ACC over the SEC, they did it for reasons related to academics…The ACC hasn’t been as successful as anticipated to this point, and a $ gap has opened between the SEC and ACC. Additionally, there’s been a lot of talk about some tension betweeen the old ACC bluebloods and the newcomers. So, does $ trump the long-term academic view in the eyes of those presidents?
Frank, this should keep your blog going strong for another 6 months or so…..
LikeLike
mushroom,
my understanding is the main reasons FSU went to the ACC in the first place were….
a) for years (as FSU was gaining power) it wanted in the SEC but U of F kept blocking them out
b) once FSU got hot Bowden wanted the ACC because it was the easier path to the NC than the SEC East.
I keep hearing people say UL and WVA to the SEC.. folks it the SEC guy throws down they will target Texas/A&M or UNC/NC State type of deal.. keeping this argument going would be like saying the Big 10 would expand by picking up Iowa State and WVU. In war what is good for the goose is good for the gander!!
The last SEC expansion went into 2 states it was NOT already in, which is why I do not think the big STATE schools in the ACC will not wind up at targets should Texas / A&M go to the Pac 16. For all the SEC “short bus” comments, they at least know how to make large sums of $$, which the ACC has not been able to do.
LikeLike
Yep, there is no way that the SEC will not bring out the “nuclear weapons” in this arms race. Make no mistake, when it come to football, the SEC will pull out all of the stops. The will not be targeting the likes of UL or WV. They’ll target TX, TX A&M, OK, OK ST (if it meant getting OK), VA, VT, UNC, FSU, Miami. If the Big 10 starts an arms race in football, the SEC will follow and will not go half way. I live in SEC country and the culture will not settle for anything less. As a matter of a fact, Mike Slive has already commented on it even before Delany gave his presser. I post this link already but I’ll post it under this thread as well: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-instantreplay-expansion
LikeLike
I agree with what Bam is saying, but the SEC may not get what it wants.
Just my guess, but I think OK will stay with TX and A&M, whatever they do.
I don’t think GT would go to the SEC, but it’s not impossible.
When Miami sided with the ACC rather than the SEC, the reasons were academics, and east coast presence. Those factors haven’t changed.
NC, NC STate, VA, and VT aren’t going anywhere.
Clemson and FSU seem like SEC possibilities to me…
But so does WV. I’d love to have that school in the Big 10 if the academics didn’t suck…and the SEC doesn’t care too much about that.
LikeLike
That’s all fine and dandy, but there’s zero chance that Texas or UVA are going to the SEC, and I’d be very surprised to see UNC there either. You’re talking about some of the finest public academic institutions in the country. They’re not going to be too interested in the lax standards of the SEC. Texas has made that clear in the past.
LikeLike
Bamatab..
I had a friend who went to Auburn for Vet school.. they said that the loser of the Bama vs Auburn had to publicly apologize to the governor and the state for the loss..
Was this woman pulling my leg, or was he serious? This was like 10 – 20 years ago BTW..
thanks..
LikeLike
mushroom..
WVA is numbers!!
1.8 million for the ENTIRE state does not bring much value for a home run on the TV footprint..
academics aside, it is like Duke or WF in football.. not enough fans to merit serious consideration..
LikeLike
On the other hand, WVU is top 10 in merchandise sold, so their fans are almost as fervent as Nebraska fans.
Oh, and I agree on who the SEC will target vs. who they can get. I’m sure they’ll target Texas, UVa, and UNC. I doubt they’d get any of them. VTech seems more likely (and Clemson, if they want them).
LikeLike
Richard..
quick.. who gets the biggest TV audience
a) Nebraska vs Florida
b) Nebraska vs WVU
If you picked b) I will ask that Frank revoke your posting ability 😉
LikeLike
Duffman,
She was pulling your leg. The coach of the losing team doesn’t apologize to the governor or the state. They may have to apologize to every fan they run into for the next 360 days though, but not to the governor or the state.
LikeLike
I meant 365 days. The 360 was a typo.
LikeLike
Don’t forget VTech. I think they’re a prime SEC expansion candidate.
LikeLike
I’d endorse this, though would prefer Maryland in place of ‘Cuse (so UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech can be taken when we expand to the Big20). Hopefully, if Nebraska & Mizzou are taken, the remnants of the Big12 and Pac10 will merge in to a Western20.
LikeLike
A little off topic, but incredible!
Nearly 80,000 tickets have been sold or allotted for the Michigan vs. Michigan State outdoor hockey game on Dec. 11, U-M said Wednesday.
U-M said more than 14,700 tickets were sold Wednesday, the first day of the public sale, for the game at Michigan Stadium.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100421/SPORTS0201/4210442/1361/U-M-already-near-80-000-attendance-for-outdoor-hockey-game#ixzz0lnKYzV1o
LikeLike
We may all be overlooking the possibility that Delany may have gotten some concession from Fox to support expansion. In the proposed scenarios Fox benefits disproportionately from the added markets, subscribers and ad revenues (they still receive a full 40%, not diluted by the additional teams).
I would expect Delaney to ask Fox to accept an equal share of the “dilution” from the added teams – of course the larger pie would more than make up for it.
LikeLike
There may be some truth to this. Has anyone noticed that foxsports.com doesn’t cover the expansion issue at all? There’s nothing; not about the possibility, or Delany’s comments yesterday, or any acknowledgment of the the hysteria at all.
My guess is that Fox doesn’t want to get hit with a conflict-of-interest charge. They can’t possibly be so dense as to totally ignore the issue.
Does anyone watch FoxSports? Have they discussed it on air?
LikeLike
Good info from SI.com Andy Staples
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/21/big.ten.expansion/
ALSO – From Broadcasting & Cable – The BTN chief
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/451777-Big_Ten_Net_Chief_Expansion_Very_Strong_Possibility_.php
Q: Obviously you’ve heard about the possibility of the Big Ten expanding, maybe adding a school like Notre Dame to the conference. Do you expect some kind of expansion to happen?
MS: I think the official word from the conference is they’re exploring expansion. I don’t think anyone anticipates any new teams or games this year. The conference is very serious about examining expansion and I think there is a very strong possibility that they do elect to expand.
Q: Assuming it does happen at some point, what would be the implications of expansion for your network?
MS: Any additional universities that get added to the Big Ten provide the network [the opportunity] to grow its coverage, add more viewers, add more subs. I look at any potential expansion for the conference as having a positive impact on the network. We really have to see how expansion plays out. There’s a very different answer depending on if it’s one school or three or five.
LikeLike
Even though no anouncement was made, and basically everyone is still in ‘silent mode’, I found the developments today interesting.
Especially the comments from the SEC Chairman and the actions of the Big East with hiring Tagliabue (sp?). I have a feeling that there are things happening and the Big Ten is trying to give everyone time to arrange and secure their individual futures, even if not involved. Probably better for everyone in the long run than dropping a bomb and taking schools from multiple conferences, then allowing the insane scramble for homes to result in schools without conferences. Maybe this is a calculated delay to throw a bone to other conferences???? Just a thought.
LikeLike
I also get a sense that they (BT Prez’ and Delany) are also feeling a sense of making sure it is done the right way and with integrity. The use of the words “friends” and “community” gave me the impression that they are feeling a little concerned about the “evil empire” label and are not quite comfortable yet being the grim reaper.
LikeLike
Not to fan the flames of rumor, but from an NU board:
“My girlfriend (current NU student) just had dinner with Morty at her sorority and had the opportunity to ask him about Big Ten expansion (per my request, naturally). He told her that while he couldn’t give out any specifics, this past Sunday the league presidents (and AD’s i’m sure and whoever else is in on this thing) came to a final decision regarding target school(s) for expansion, and my girlfriend said he seemed to definitely be in favor or the decision they reached and he commented that “it will be good for Big Ten athletics””
This probably falls under the “They wouldn’t say anything to a random group of students and it contradicts the public statements that nothing has happened” but who knows…
LikeLike
NU being Northwestern or Nebraska?
LikeLike
Northwestern. President is Morton Schapiro.
LikeLike
My cousin told me he got a hummer from Mary Sue Coleman last night. When she came up for air, she told him that Notre Dame is off the table.
LikeLike
Why would the university president be eating dinner at Kappa Kappa Gamma? Sounds odd, but hasn’t everything been really strange lately?
I guess after re-reading it, it makes more sense as Northwestern.
LikeLike
He wanted Ben Roethlesberger’s autograph maybe?
LikeLike
NU is Northwestern. I guess that moniker might be lost if Nebraska joins the conference.
The previous Northwestern president would have a lunch or dinner with a group of students selected at random once a week. It appears that the new president has continued that schedule.
The Mary Sue Coleman leak confirms the story in the Boston newspaper. Next time your cousin has an appointment, see if he can figure out more about the plans.
LikeLike
Re Final decision on target school(s) (M)
Amazing: “the Big 10 Presidents came to a FINAL decision on target school(s)”
M your girlfriend just scooped several thousand reporters and notable blog writers including our own Frank.
If they have made their final decision, then why is the original 12 plus month timing restated and why did Delany say they are no where near ready to talk formally to candidate schools?
LikeLike
First of all, not my gf. Second, if you want definite verifiable information, you’ve come to the wrong place. It’s just one more rumor for digestion.
LikeLike
Re Correction (M0
Sorry: you are quoting a poster who cites his girlfriend who apparently has scooped several thousand sports writers.
Please don’t interpret my post as negative: I found it interesting.
Actually in the informative link you provided above re the President’s meeting,the article says:
“The presidents have been clear: This may not happen,” Delany said Wednesday during a 30-minute session with reporters at the Bowl Championship Series meetings.
Delany, taking a break from his self-imposed “silent phase,” said Big Ten expansion remains on the deliberate path it laid out in December, even though Delany’s fellow commissioners are eager for news that will affect the entire landscape of college football.
“Whether it takes six months, 12 months or 18 months, hopefully we’ll do it in a way that feels comfortable,” Delany said. “You’re not trying to find somebody you want to spend a year with. You’re trying to find out with whom you are going to be for the next 25-50 years.”
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/delany-sheds-little-light-on-big-ten-expansion.html
LikeLike
If they have made their final decision, then why is the original 12 plus month timing restated and why did Delany say they are no where near ready to talk formally to candidate schools?
Perhaps at the request of some of the targets. Here’s one possibility:
If enough B12 schools can find homes in other conferences, could they vote to disband the B12 and nullify the departure penalties? I assume it would take at least 9 votes. That might explain how the B10+ could have decided on 5 targets but also want to slow down the process to at least past July 1st, by giving the SEC, P10, and Texas time to make alternate plans. That might cost the B10+ a year’s worth of enhanced revenue, but increase the amount NE and MO are willing to pay as a “buy-in” some B10+ bigwigs have said would be required.
The SEC commish’s comments suggests they’ll look hard at expansion if the B10+ goes to 16 and Texas would surely be a target. Even if Texas wants to turn down the SEC, unless a +1 game is added the B16 and SE16 most years would threaten to freeze out other conferences from the faux nat’l title game. Hence that could force Texas to seriously consider either the SEC or P16/P20 Alliance.
Since the BEast has all those bball schools and half the football schools aren’t attractive targets for the SEC or ACC, I don’t think Syr, Rut, or Pitt could get out of their departure penalties.
Let’s say TX, aTm, TTech, and OU go to the SEC. If the P10 will take CO, KS, and ISU along with Utah, that gets us to 9 B12 schools leaving. Unlikely that the P10 would do that, UNLESS they can lure ND. The Irish might bring in enough money to make expansion to 16 feasible, and perhaps they compromise and take UNLV or NM as the final add.
Or perhaps TX, aTm, TTech, OU, CO and KS go to the P16, while the SEC grabs VTech, FSU, TCU, and Ok St or even Baylor. That gets to 9. There’s even a scenario where an ACC that wants to get to 16 without lower standards grabs Baylor (along with Cin, CT, SMU or Tulane.)
Right now none of those seem anywhere close to likely, but I could see NE and MO wanting to buy time if there is a possibility. If massive realignment and the collapse of the B12 is a decent possibility, why would they leave right away when waiting a few months might save several million $?
LikeLike
“came to a final decision regarding target school(s) for expansion”
Tell me if I’m wrong, but can’t we read this as saying ‘we have a list of five or maybe we have a list of fifteen, but no decisions have been made’. In other words, this comment is content free.
LikeLike
I also think that the continued tough talk and throwing down the gauntlet by the SEC commish will re-galvanize Delany’s steely resolve and push him over the top. I am not surprised by the comments by the SEC. This could be just what the Big Ten needed to move forward with a sense of urgency.
LikeLike
Rick,
point being, as i said before, once pandora’s box is open.. all bets are off. This should end the debate as to wether the SEC will expand if the Big 10 does. As I stated earlier, things are dynamic and not static! To say the SEC will stand pat at 12 would be wishful thinking!
here is the link..
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13266293/whenever-big-ten-expands-college-football-will-feel-trickledown-effect
Now comes an interesting dynamic. As Delaney said 12 to 18 months – who would be in the best position to take advantage of a shorter timeline? I have to agree with most of the posters that delaney moving quickly was a plus.. the hurry up and wait may not be the best strategy as people may react quicker while they still feel in charge..
LikeLike
Duff: I know about this link. You asked me for the link on the SEC commish comments and I posted it for you. It was posted earlier by Mark as well.
LikeLike
duffman Says:
April 21, 2010 at 10:41 pm | Reply
Rick..
can you link the SEC commish comment?
thanks
Rick Says:
April 21, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Sure, Mike posted this earlier from Dennis Dodd:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13266293/whenever-big-ten-expands-college-football-will-feel-trickledown-effect
LikeLike
rick,
ha ha to be honest, with 500+ responses on this blog it is getting harder to keep track.. i noticed it after i went back and reread earlier posts!
with this much traffic it is getting harder to keep track of all the thoughts.. something has to happen fairly soon or all our heads will explode from TMI!
🙂
LikeLike
Let me ask a stupid question.
The Pac 10 has made noise about expanding.
I think a lot of people, including me, have been assuming that it would be pretty easy for the Pac 10 to poach a couple of schools, if not more, from the Big XII if they so chose to pursue those schools.
Why can’t it be the other way around?
Aren’t both conferences relatively equal right now in terms of revenue and revenue potential? Other than a perceived higher level of academics and a perceived higher level of stability, is there really THAT much of an advantage being in the Pac 10, two-to-three time zones behind the rest of the country, as opposed to being in a more centrally-located conference with Texas, Texas A&M and OU? (Presuming NU is Big 10-bound for this example.)
Are there any Pac 10 schools (say, Arizona and ASU) who might have reason to be unhappy in the Pac 10 and could be picked off for the right price?
Instinctively, I know the answer is almost certainly “no,” but you have to think that the Big XII is looking at contingency plans beyond merely promoting a couple of MWC schools.
LikeLike
This is certainly an interesting twist. I would definitely argue the academic prestige angle (though both conferences have the same number of AAU members, 7). I do not think that the Arizona schools would like to stop being associated with the California schools.
I would also bring up the amount of sheer time the schools have been together. The conference has been unchanged in almost 40 years. I realize the irony in that angle considering that almost every expansion scenario involves breaking up the old Big Eight in some way, but I think the schools there are upset enough about the current balance of power much more so than anyone in the Pac-10.
If you want some Big XII contingency plans, check out a Big East board some time. They have lots of “interesting” ideas.
LikeLike
looking at the Pac 10, there are the “haves” and the “have nots” so maybe there could be grumbling from the lesser children. you have to remember that the old PCC imploded and out of those ashes came the Pac 10..
LikeLike
I’ve been imagining a scenario where Texas may be happier joining a 16 team PAC Ten if their division, and then travel to most games, is Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Texas, A&M, and by default Kansas State and Iowa State. KSU and ISU are the only BCS schools left that are not in a state already covered by a school in the new PAC 16.
The population of California gives the original PAC 8 division the power to balance Texas and the northern schools keep playing USC and UCLA on an annual basis to help with recruiting.
I’d like to see the Big Ten grab Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and I don’t care if they go East or not, but if they do any two of the 4 Big East schools.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State seem like SEC types.
The Big 12 disintegrates, but all of the schools have new BCS homes except for Texas Tech and Baylor. Maybe The Mountain West to replace Utah.
LikeLike
Hopkins:
Not stupid at all. I asked Frank, and I think he’s working on something, about what happens to everybody else if the Big 10 goes to 16, which would really screw things up, which is why I’m still not convinced that they would do that…But I’ve been wrong before.
My guess is Texas wants to control things in the Big 12 and is going to do everything they can to keep that conference together. Just my take and after listening to all the posters here and following Barking Carnival and see how Bill Powers sees things, Texas has enough clout to hold some kind of Big 12 conference together…
That said, the Pac 10 is stable and they have several strong markets, and a lot of weak markets. While Texas to the Pac 10 makes sense, do you really think USC has any desire to play in the Big 12? And the Arizonas certainly don’t want to go there, either. The hurdle for the Pac 10 is who do they get that will come without “baggage”. I have a feeling Texas will have LOTS of baggage. And TPTB in the Pac 10 probably want nothing to do with a Pac 16 that looks a lot like today’s Big 12 with more unequal revenue sharing. So, now you need to find 6 universities for the Pac 10 that pass Wolverine PHD’s “Snobbery Test” and somehow get the Pac 10 to agree to all of them….
Not gonna happen. At least, not any time soon…
LikeLike
Which is why I think you may very well see a “merger” between those 2 conferences.
LikeLike
When the ND rumors were first fanned by Swarbrick, my original comment was that it is in ND’s best interest for the Big Ten to do nothing, limiting the increasing gap between the conference and ND as well as potentially having the fallback position of joining the conference. I conjectured that his comments are a way to help ensure that outcome, as leaving open the possibility of ND joining would discourage any action by the conference. Given the new report that ND has not been “in the mix”, this line of thought seems accurate.
OTOH I am also coming to the conclusion that all of the “leaks” are outright lies. Unless Jim Delany or a President has their name on it, I’m going to generally assume the reporter is talking to their invisible friend. That’s really the only consistent explanation.
Another lesson I’ve taken from this week is that the Big Ten seems to be on the verge of a third stage in conference evolution (even Delany admitted the possibility of multiple schools). The first stage was for scheduling and standards convenience. The second stage (starting in 1990) was creating the best tv-ready arrangement. The third stage is about acquiring content to fill a cable channel (“Think like a cable channel executive”). This is the reason why 16 is very reasonable. The old model says that’s splitting the pie 16 ways, but the new model says that just drives more viewers to the channel for everyone.
LikeLike
@M,
LOL, you have learned how to be a sports reporter. Invisible friend sources are “real” to them.
I think you are right with the ‘content to fill a cable channel’ take. It is the wave of the future and most of them already know it.
With FOX News Corp as a partner in the BTN, and controlling the regional FOX Sports channels… has anyone else noticed that they have divested themselves from the BCS coverage and not entered any contracts for regular tv coverage.
Remember before FOX tv network was created, Rupert Murdoch had dummy companies buy up the (at that time) independent tv stations or whatever was for sale in NFL… specifically NFC home football markets. He bought them very cheaply, moved them all to FOX affiliates, then bought the rights to the NFC games…. moved NFC football to FOX and MADE A TON OF $$$$$$.
LikeLike
This is why I think in the end (decades from now), we’ll have 3 massive conferences ranging from 18-22 schools (most likely 20 each, but not sure) that will cover all the populated states in this country between them.
LikeLike
I was curious Patrick, where did you get your sources for all these things? As far as research goes, this suggests Texas doesn’t bring as much to the table, although what it does bring is still substantial.
Click to access research2008.pdf
LikeLike
Art, that is the 2008 report, and the one I initially used. There were some issues with that report, I felt, with some universities medical research being split into its own category.
I used the data from the National Science Foundation / Division of Science Resources Statistics.
Here is the full report.. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/nsf10311.pdf
Data I used was between pages 46 and 62.
Interesting Report.
LikeLike
I do really appreciate this information. The link I’ve been using to look at research uses data from ’06 and ’07, which is quite old. I thought the jump for Texas from just under 500 million research dollars to over a billion seemed a little high. Here’s my question, are we sure that all of the University of Texases will be included in the CIC umbrella? Are all of the University of Wisconsins and Michigans included right now? I really have no idea. I know the Federal listing listed all UofMs together, probably because UomM-Flint and Dearborn are relatively unsubstantial.
LikeLike
PS – I had trouble deciding whether to add the MD Medical Center to the University of Texas, but they do fall under that umbrella so I did decide to include it…..especially when many other schools just included their medical data inside the university data. IE. Johns Hopkins.
LikeLike
Thank you for combining Texas and Johns Hopkins in one post. That makes my day. (And I’m very easily satisfied, as one can see.)
LikeLike
So Art, do you import or export?
LikeLike
I do dabble in importing/exporting, but usually I’m just a pretend architect. Have you seen the newest addition to the Guggenheim?
LikeLike
All this is nice and all, but what happens to Rice? That’s all I really care about. 😉
LikeLike
If the cable network idea takes hold across the football landscape, then you could see a rebirth of regional conferences.
Cable stations will find space for the power conferences to have their networks, leading to the biggest schools to join geographically big conferences. However, they won’t make space for many little conferences, if they show many at all.
This could drive the non-BCS conferences to redraw themselves geographically. Getting all schools in one region in one conference won’t get lead to much national attention, but it could get them a small network that’s on cable everywhere in the area if they keep the cost relatively small. Filling viewing hours also leads them to a larger conference
So, as an idea of what might happen (looking at wikipedia’s list of all college football Bowl subdivision schools):
I’ll guess UT, A&M, and TTech goes to the Pac 10.
TCU and Houston gets together with some Big 12 & Big East leftovers to make another national conference.
Perhaps the remaining schools in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama then band together for a 16 team conference:
West:
New Mexico
New Mexico State
Baylor
UNT
Rice
SMU
UTEP
UTSA*
East:
Tulsa
LA Tech
LA Lafayette
LA Monroe
Tulane
Southern Miss
South Alabama*
Troy
*indicates schools supposedly adding Football programs that will end up in the Bowl subdivision.
These schools won’t make anywhere near what the schools in the big conferences will make, but they may get a cable station on in most places of the states they cover, giving them enough money to fund their athletic programs. Of course, travel costs will be reduced with this setup.
LikeLike
“However, they won’t make space for many little conferences, if they show many at all.”
That should be “they won’t make space for many little conferences, if they show any at all.”
LikeLike
Why does the Big Ten think that any school can deliver the NYC market? Nobody in NY gives a crap about the Big Ten or any of its cornfield schools. The only solution that makes any sense is to put so much money on the table that Notre Dame cannot refuse. I also suggest that Nebraska be recruited and Penn State dropped because nobody in PA cares about the Big Ten either.
LikeLike
Alway’s good to get a moron’s point of view…..
LikeLike
Reading the tea leaves on Big 10 expansion…….
I have been following expansion with a different lens. As a graduate student who studies higher education, it is clear that since the “added value money wise” is so close for most of these schools that the PRESIDENTS will add the best academic institutions (AAU only) they can AND institutions that are peers and face the same ACADEMIC challenges and advantages they do.
Remember the most important rule of thumb in life. The eye test. The Big 10 is comprised of FLAGSHIP STATE institutions (with the exception of Northwestern and eventually Syracuse). What that means on my end?
If you are a prospective graduate student in that state and want to go to the best IN STATE school to get a PhD you have 1 or 2 choices in most states (only considering those who play division 1 football).
For example. If you live in New York and want to get a PhD in sociology and you remove non division 1 football options then you go to Syracuse. The same litmus test can be used for EVERY current Big 10 school and also for future members.
Also ND is clearly out of play with the Big East taking a more proactive stance and leaving the door open for a catholic league if things really fall apart.
Texas and Maryland were already “approached” behind back channels and declined to be included in the REVIEW process to avoid public outcry.
I don’t have any inside sources, but I do have a pipeline to what PRESIDENTS are thinking. They consult with AD’s but they make this decision.
The Big 10 will go to 16. That is a definite.
The 7 candidates for 5 slots are:
Kansas
Rutgers
Syracuse
Nebraska
Missouri
Pittsburgh
Connecticut
My educated guess.
Pittsburgh and Connecticut will not get an invite and divisions will look like this.
Iowa Purdue
Kansas Indiana
Illinois Ohio St.
Missouri Rutgers
Nebraska Syracuse
Wisconsin Michigan
Minnesota Michigan St.
Northwestern Pennsylvania St.
This keeps divisions tight and coincidentally time zones (although this is not really a big issue).
Next up to bat.
The Pac 10 will now be able to make a play for the leftovers. While the Pac 10 seems entrenched in keeping their academic standards high, they have been more open to taking schools that show promise.
Texas is now in play and would rather move to the Pac 10 than rebuild the Big 12 with MWC or CUSA scraps.
Again, from a PRESIDENT’S point of view this is what will take place for the Pac 10.
The 8 candidates for 6 slots are:
Utah
Utah St.
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Colorado
Colorado St.
Brigham Young
The final Pac 16 will look like this:
Oregon Utah
Oregon St. Arizona
Stanford Arizona St.
California Texas
Washington Texas A&M
Washington St. Texas Tech
Southern California Colorado
California-Los Angeles Colorado St.
Yes. Colorado St. and Texas Tech.
Here is why.
1) Given the remaining options (BYU and Utah St.) Texas Tech is literally the “best of the rest” because BYU will not be seriously considered. On many metrics TTU is an emerging RESEARCH institution.
2) A little known secret. Colorado St. is one of the better schools in the country and merely suffers from an image problem. RESEARCH wise it is outstanding and will eventually gain access to the AAU.
Best part about this is the “original Pac 8” get to stay together and that is a HUGE plus for getting to 16.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts, but the question I will pose again here is: what happens to Kansas?
Is Kansas really left to fend for itself in the MWC?
That’s why I like a 4×16 model, composed of existing BCS schools minus USF (and one other if ND plays ball), if the massive realignment happens.
LikeLike
Hopkins.
I do have Kansas in the new Big 15 and don’t see them getting left behind
LikeLike
OK, didn’t see that originally. Didn’t even look at the Big 10 list, honestly, since few seem to be contemplating a Jayhawk move to the Big 10.
LikeLike
Good post but I disagree with two items:
I don’t see the presidents taking Kansas over Pitt, the latter is an academic powerhouse compared to KS. The AD’s might want the Jayhawks over the Panthers to make for easier divisions, but with Pitt spending 3 times as much as KS on research and placing much higher on all the academic rankings, they will be difficult to pass over. The placement problem can be overcome by the annoying pod concept, or dividing east west between the IL and IN state line while placing either NW in the east or Purdue in the west. Those division ideas can work if you allow each school one protected annual cross-conference game, such as NW-IL or PU-IN. I bet it’ll be NW to the east, since IL gets rival MO added to the west.
Nice to see someone else picking up on the undervaluing of TTech’s potential and CO St, however IMHO it is more likely that Texas will also insist on bringing OU instead of CSU or Utah. That keeps all of TX’s rivals in conference and gives them one more local school in the division and thus reduces travel. I expect TX to play a competing SEC offer against the P10 to get the best deal and an SEC West of TX, TT, aTm, OU, LSU, AR, MSU, and Ole MS is about as compact as the current B12 South. While OU might well prefer the SEC and go on their own, I could see their president and BOR preferring upgrading their academic reputation by joining the P10 and pursuing AAU membership.
We’ll see.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now.
I agree. Leaving Pitt behind will be difficult. They are indeed a more productive research school than Kansas and others.
It is a tough call, but to me they still don’t pass the litmus test I spelled out earlier.
Let me put it this way.
Pitt is a great school, but no one in academia would choose to go their for a PhD over Penn St. It just doesn’t happen. They don’t have the academic pull in the job market that other schools have. This is not an opinion but fact.
Go to any academic department at Pitt for the most part you will find that faculty there received their degrees from prominent research institutions in the big 10, ivy league, etc..
http://www.sociology.pitt.edu/people/
Rarely do you find a highly sought after PhD graduate from Pitt at a another top tier research school. It can happen. But it is rare.
Pitt is a wonderful school. But so is Rochester and a host of others.
The key here is honestly academic snobbery.
The PRESIDENTS will not add a school they wouldnt even want to hire faculty members from.
I just dont see UT making any demands on behalf of OU. They will end up in the SEC and UT would probably prefer it that way. Again, an AD would prefer to have OU in the same conference.
A PRESIDENT would not……
LikeLike
It seems to me that academic snobbery is very important, but athletic snobbery is as well, and on that front, CSU-to-the-Pac-10 doesn’t pass the smell test.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn: Agreed. If we’re sitting here poo-pooing the idea of Syracuse or UConn in the Big Ten, I don’t think you can say CSU passes the smell test for the Pac10.
LikeLike
You are right.
CSU doesn’t.
But if the remaining pool to choose from is….
Utah St. and Brigham Young.
Then Colorado St. looks like the best AVAILABLE option.
LikeLike
Wait a second: you’re saying that Texas would probably PREFER to be in the SEC?!?
If you’re making that assertion, I’m calling BS on everything else you anonymously claim to have inside information on.
LikeLike
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer. When I said they I meant OU…
From a presidential standpoint UT would actually rather leave OU behind.
Repost
“I just dont see UT making any demands on behalf of OU. They will end up in the SEC and UT would probably prefer it that way. Again, an AD would prefer to have OU in the same conference.”
A PRESIDENT would not……
LikeLike
@Wolverine
Thanks for clarifying, but the “They” in your sentence “They will end up in the SEC” cannot be clearly determined — do you think Texas or Oklahoma will “end up in the SEC”?
LikeLike
I mean OU and OSU will eventually end up in the SEC.
LikeLike
OK, I retract my prior indignation!
LikeLike
in the new Big 15
Genius snark. I’ve got to steal that!
The PRESIDENTS will not add a school they wouldnt even want to hire faculty members from.
I just dont see UT making any demands on behalf of OU. They will end up in the SEC and UT would probably prefer it that way. Again, an AD would prefer to have OU in the same conference.
Other factors may override that thesis in this case. Having wandered through the wilderness of mediocrity for over a decade before Mack Brown arrived, UT is being very careful to maximize the ranking of their football team. The program will always have great value, but the $$$ boost from returning to Top 5 status is both major and tenuous. OU (or aTm) to the SEC risks the Sooners gaining a big recruiting advantage, but staying in conference keeps them under the same rules and UT can better monitor them. Expansion is a greater threat to the cash cow that UT football’s Top 5 status provides than it is to the B10+ power schools. Hence some of the relevant factors and their weights may be different for UT.
OTOH, Powers has been pushing hard for the legislature to aid TTech and UHou’s attainment of Tier One status and eventual AAU membership, so perhaps he’d push for TT, aTm, and UH to move with UT. Though I’m skeptical the P10 would agree to UHou. Plus while he’d like for the state to replicate the success of CA’s university system, only 2 of the CA schools compete in BCS AQ conferences, so who knows.
Or maybe his starting price for the P10 is TX, TT, aTm, UH, and OU. Everything is negotiable…
LikeLike
I don’t see how Powers pushing for UH to receive AAU status would translate into a “take us, take UH” position on realignment. Again, that just doesn’t pass the smell test.
LikeLike
Actually I really think the new statewide initiative for UT, TAMU, TTU, and UH will have an impact here.
At the very least the state of Texas will try to make sure TAMU, UT, and TTU are in the same conference, and that UH gets into another conference with full BCS status.
This is why I am very certain the media ploy by the Pac 10 about “we don’t need expansion, and we can have a championship game without 12 teams” crap is about the internal discussions that have already been taken place.
I really do think that UT is/was in negotiations with the Pac 10 and they want to bring all 3 schools with them.
In the end they will hold firm for at least UT, TAMU, and TTU in the Pac 16.
LikeLike
Again, that just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Stop sniffing your finger…:^)
Well, its been talked about among local Texas sportswriters for a while that UT might want to reorganize the south division with one or more of UH, TCU, and SMU if a shakeup occurred. OU and OK St. would move north and an annual cross-conference game would be protected. But I included ‘perhaps’ and the example that CA’s system only has 2 BCS AQ conference schools for a reason.
LikeLike
This is why I am very certain the media ploy by the Pac 10 about “we don’t need expansion, and we can have a championship game without 12 teams” crap is about the internal discussions that have already been taken place.
What do you think are the chances that we could see a P10+B(12-2) alliance instead of a P16? P10 and B(12-2) would each be divisions that really function as separate conferences, play a round robin schedule and then have each division winner meet in a conference champion game. That would allow the P10 to keep their scheduling, rivalries, and in theory high standards, while TX gets more flex in which schools fill out its side, less travel, and greater influence in conference (division) matters. Perhaps add a 10th cross-conference game if the big conferences can get the NCAA to go to a 13-game season.
Would dilute revenue, but even with the shared championship game it would be an improvement over the status quo. 20 teams would provide more content for a conference cable channel start up.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!:
Well, its been talked about among local Texas sportswriters for a while that UT might want to reorganize the south division with one or more of UH, TCU, and SMU if a shakeup occurred.
I’m with those who think that the Big XII would look outside its borders to add a Utah and/or BYU if it lost two schools to the Big 10 but otherwise saw no attrition. However, if the conference were to look within the state for a replacement school, TCU is head-and-shoulders above UH. Even if there is a play to elevate the state of UH academics, its athletics profile is way too low. It’s been over a couple of decades since Phi Slamma Jamma and hanging 90+ on SMU.
One example is the stadium. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m reasonably certain it would be the smallest among BCS schools (and the Cougars have trouble selling it out as it is). They could play at Reliant, and that might work for when Texas comes to town, but for most games, Reliant will look as the Superdome does for Tulane games — a sea of empty seats occasionally interrupted by a handful of fans.
And PS – leave me finger out of it! 🙂
LikeLike
Quoting in case this ends up somewhere odd…
“One example is the stadium. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I’m reasonably certain it would be the smallest among BCS schools (and the Cougars have trouble selling it out as it is). They could play at Reliant, and that might work for when Texas comes to town, but for most games, Reliant will look as the Superdome does for Tulane games — a sea of empty seats occasionally interrupted by a handful of fans.”
I really doubt Robertson stadium would be the smallest in the BCS. Plus UH has hired consultants to study expansion and renovation of both Robertson and Hofheinz Pavilion (basketball). They drew good crowds last year, especially when BCS teams like Texas Tech came to town. As much as I hate them as a cross-town rival, UH is trying hard to put the pieces in place for a move upwards. There is potential there. Whether they can achieve that potential is the real question. When I saw them in two consecutive Cotton Bowls and three Final Fours back at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s I thought they had arrived. I believe if they had made the B12 instead of Baylor they would have been at least as well positioned as TTU.
LikeLike
IF OU goes to the SEC, it is not a sure thing that OU would improve its recruiting foothold in Texas (See Arkansas).
Texas does not really care if UH achieves Tier 1 status or not with regard to athletics. Texas does not want anyone except themselves and aTm to be in a BCS conference. Wherever they go, they will not bring a UH or TCU with them. And if the Big 12 gets poached, Texas will not allow another school from Texas to join the Big 12. They will go get Utah/BYU/CSU.
LikeLike
I think your litmus test for any school can vary widely between different departments. For example in Pennsylvania, Penn State has the advantage for most engineering disciplines, but Pitt has the advantage in medicine and pharmacy. Pitt is a titan in philosophy just as Penn State is for meteorology.
If it comes down to Pitt or Kansas for the 16th spot, I just don’t see how a university President would rather be associated with Kansas.
LikeLike
These comments generalizing the relative value of Pitt vs. PSU (for example) PhDs (and by extension the value of the research programs) are bunk. Pitt research is highly competitive in various fields. As for faculty coming from other top schools, that is true of any top tier school. Are you saying a Pitt PhD can’t get a job at a good school? Pitt is probably the best research school (outside of Texas and perhaps UMD) of the candidates mentioned here. Rutgers is close behind.
If research power is a highly-weighted criteria for membership, Pitt will benefit. Perhaps enough to overcome their poor media market situation.
LikeLike
I don’t think adding 5 without ND is a given.
In that scenerio, there is a very good chance (I would say a liklihood)that the Big 10 would add 3. And very possibly, just 1 (and await developments).
LikeLike
It seems hard to fathom.
But the reality is the Big 10 doesn’t need Notre Dame to make money.
I think that ship has and will sail.
LikeLike
You state that the presidents will view academics and research as most important, and will look first and foremost to state schools, then you predict Syracuse is in over Pitt and U Conn…..odd
As to CSU, I’ve been there and it looks like a VERY cool place to go to school…a really neat college town and gorgeous scenery….but calling it one of the best schools in the country? Yes, if you’re talking about top 150 or so…..
LikeLike
Yes indeed.
As I stated in my reply to another poster.
Uconn PhD grads are not getting hired as faculty (always exceptions) at Big 10 schools. Period.
Syracuse grads do.
And the academic snobbery piece is being overlooked.
There is something about pedigree here that most everyone is overlooking. PRESIDENTS dont.
LikeLike
@WolverinePhD – Very interesting view. You talked about Pitt being a very good school but necessarily an academic star. A lot of people here have pointed out that the difference in the research expenditures between Syracuse and Pitt, which may point to Syracuse not being academically viable by comparison. Is this really the case and how much does sheer research money play into the perception of the academic worth of a school? Is Syracuse really that much different than Pitt in terms of perception? I know that Pitt has a medical school, which can skew the numbers greatly.
LikeLike
Frank.
Research output in terms of dollars is always a plus and a good metric and something that is important. But I would say it is EQUALLY as important as…..academic reputation among peer institutions. So in essence, where are your PhD graduates getting hired?
This is where Pitt doesn’t compare to Syracuse.
I can assure you that you will find PhD graduates from Syracuse are more likely (always exceptions) to get faculty positions in higher ranked schools than Pitt.
So regardless of research output in dollars. Reputation and respect within the academy is a qualitative measure, but I can assure this will be a factor in expansion. Especially given the minor differences in added revenue that schools other than Texas would bring.
LikeLike
I think Wolve PHD went to SYracuse. His Pitt-Syracuse comparison sounds like nonsense.
LikeLike
@Frank
Syracuse is a good research school but its strength tends not to be in the areas that get a lot of research funding (computer science, hard sciences, engineering, medical). The Big Ten schools are generally very strong in these areas.
I have no problem with the idea that many Syracuse PhDs do well in fields. So the academic reputation of Syracuse is greater than the research dollars would indicate.
That said, thinking like a president, strong social science is nice but it’s not where the funding is. If we are talking about the academic/research business of Tier I schools, Pitt is much stronger than Syracuse.
LikeLike
Wolverine, you have a very good insight on this (Even if you went/go to Michigan.) LOL. Based on your evaluation of the information it appears then that the final spot may come down to either Connecticut or Kansas. Do you find that PhD grads from Kansas are being hired as faculty at other Big 10 schools in large numbers? Do you have any indication on what the prevailing thinking is about Connecticut? (I live in Connecticut and would love to see them in the Big 10, although it does appear to be a long shot). Thanks again for your insight.
LikeLike
BuckeyeNut.
I loathe and respect your fine institution.
Great question. I would say that Uconn and Kansas are fairly equal on that measure, with Kansas holding a slight edge.
Then you add that Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska would lock down that “region” and make that division far more interesting…..
Kansas gets the edge over Connecticut, but I think it would be close.
LikeLike
If you are right and Nebraska and Missouri are in, and the final decision is between Kansas and UConn, then I could see the Tigers and Huskers both pushing for Kansas. Missouri and Kansas are bitter rivals and Kansas and Nebraska have played each other for 110+ years. If Kansas politicians get in the way, hello Huskies.
LikeLike
KU or UConn is no debate at all. KU is AAU, UConn is not. KU is one of the four top college men’s basketball programs of all time. UConn is one of the two most dominant women’s basketball programs. I think AAU and improving BTN’s inventory of men’s basketball games trumps UConn’s strengths (including its following in NYC) by a wide margin.
LikeLike
KU or UConn is no debate at all. KU is AAU, UConn is not. KU is one of the four top college men’s basketball programs of all time…I think AAU and improving BTN’s inventory of men’s basketball games trumps UConn’s strengths (including its following in NYC) by a wide margin.
Are you sure? UConn’s men’s bball has 2 national championships and 6 Elite Eight appearances in the last dozen years. That’s probably in the top 10 of performances over that stretch, and likely to stay that way.
LikeLike
I respect UConn quite a lot, but KU as a basketball school is really in a class with Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke (the four “winningest” schools all-time), or at most, those four plus UCLA and Indiana (the six schools with the most NCAA tournament titles). That’s a history UConn can’t match. I also consider non-AAU schools to be non-starters. That’s why I don’t see any debate between KU and UConn.
LikeLike
This blog has turned into a daily event for me and I’d like to thank Frank, Patrick, et al, for their insights and opinions. The sports radio shows have apparently found this as well since I hear many afternoons opinions which I first read the night before on this blog.
I don’t know how much play this has gotten nationally yet but the ku athletic department is under federal investigation for a basketball ticket scandal. The FBI is involved and already one associate AD and the head of their athletic scholarship group have resigned their positions. One of the suppositions is that they may very well identify Lew Perkins (current ku AD who came to ku from UConn) as also involved in this as it involves the distribution and apparent selling of the same NCAA Tournament tickets as well as basketball season tickets multiple times – over a period of years.
As ku has continually run afoul of the NCAA (most major sanctions of any NCAA institution), what, if any impact do you feel this may have in their desirability when viewed as a possible invitee to the Big 10?
LikeLike
@TigerInKC I’m surprised to hear that KU has had the most major NCAA sanctions. I thought it would have been Oklahoma or a SEC school.
LikeLike
sorry to point this out..
but i am a basketball guy..
in basketball the Big 4 are..
UK, IU, UNC, and KU in that order..
all 4 are linked to each other for good or bad going back to the beginning. Most important is that all 4 travel well, and as LARGE PUBLIC Institutions can continue to produce a greater number of fans over a LONG span of time..
UCLA was a shooting star burning brightly for about a decade with a coach from indiana. not much before or since
Duke so far is a one hit wonder – no offense to coach k, but all 4 titles have come on his watch..
MSU, UConn, SU, etc are next but without the title count (at least they travel better than duke)..
I am not trying to be insulting but I look at a key metric between coaches and programs. Top programs have multiple NC under multiple coaches. A good second metric is how many FF have been played under multiple coaches over many decades. IU has 5 NC from 2 coaches and davis took his team to the NC game, MSU has 2 NC from 2 different coaches, UK has 7 NC from 4 coaches.
BTW for the folks who keep bashing OSU they have 2 NC’s to tOSU’s 1 NC. In defense of tOSU basketball, my personal feeling is a 2nd NC is long overdue for the buckeyes.
@Mike..
I have argued it for some time.. but some schools are blessed.. and some are not..
UCLA: Several of Wooden’s former players have spoken of making more money at UCLA than the NBA pros in the area were making.. yet all 10 titles are intact.
IU: got busted for TEXTING!
DUKE: Corey Maggette admitted under oath to taking 2,000.. all 4 titles intact.
MEMPHIS: Rose is cleared by the NCAA to play, then well after the fact they change their mind and strip the wins.
These are just examples, I feel sure it goes on across the nation. It just seems like some coaches/programs get unequal treatment.
LikeLike
@TigerInKC
Actually KU is tied for #9 on the list for all time NCAA major infractions with 6. The top teams are SMU and Arizona State with 8.
http://blog.al.com/bn/2008/03/sec_no_2_for_most_ncaa_infract.html
LikeLike
Wolverine PHD,
Elaborate some more on this whole “Academic Snobbery” thing and let us into the thinking of academia when it comes to something like this. In other words, given the choices:
Two equal candidates, identical resumes, one from Pitt and one from Syracuse. Syracuse gets the nod?
What about Syracuse – Maryland?
Rutgers – Pitt?
I guess what I’m asking (and maybe you’ve already answered above as I review your first entry) is the snobbery and “who you know” really going to drive this thing more than the $$$$ from the BTN? Also, I am not sure your read on the Pac 10 is right…I just don’t see Stanford and Cal letting Texas AND A&M into the Pac 10.
Just my humble opinion…
LikeLike
Great question.
In terms of snobbery (faculty hires)
1) Syracuse vs. Maryland.
Maryland wins that battle.
2)Rutgers vs. Pitt
Rutgers wins that battle.
3) Rutgers vs. Pitt
Rutgers wins that battle.
Any others?
I respect your opinion. But since UT/TAMU were offered years ago and it all went down hill when they asked the Pac 10 to include Baylor and TTU (thanks to Ann Richards).
The problem this time around is not whether Stanford or Cal would vote for UT/TAMU. It is whether they will vote for UT/TAMU/TTU.
LikeLike
@WolverinePHD:
“Pitt is a great school, but no one in academia would choose to go their for a PhD over Penn St. It just doesn’t happen. They don’t have the academic pull in the job market that other schools have. This is not an opinion but fact.”
You’ve just made the Penn Staters out there love you.
I am curious about Nebraska. You say elsewhere they are a “lock” for the B10 if UND is out of the way. Where does Nebraska rank in terms of academic snobbery, to, say, Penn State?
P.S. – this is for bragging rights with my wife (Husker alum)!
LikeLike
Again, I think PHd’s views are nonsense. Pitt has roughly 10000 grad students sompared to Syracuse’ 5000, is rated 2 spots higher in US News, and has 10 times as much research $.
LikeLike
Mushroomgod… why do you hate Syracuse so much? Since when does quantity ever matter more than quality? Do you buy your suits at Walmart? Do you take your dates out to McD’s?
LikeLike
I don’t hate Syracuse.
The man claims Syracuse is superior to Pitt academically.
I ask, how so?
From “The Best 368 Colleges”, 2009 Ed.
Syracuse undergrad enrollment: 11794
50% SAT range
Reading 540-650
Math 570-680
50% ACT range 24-29
42% top 10% of class, 70% top 25% of class
Pitt:
16798 undergrads
570-670 and 580-670
ACT 24-30
48% top 10%
81% top 25%
So Pitt enrolls 5000 more undergrads of the same or slightly higher quality than Syracuse, plus Pitt has 5000 more grad students, 10 times the research $, and twice the endowment……
Now how can anyone seriously argue that Syracuse is a better school than Pitt?
LikeLike
I believe he is talking subjective reputation. Not sure this is a winnable argument for either side.
LikeLike
Are you saying you know for a FACT that MD was approached, and they asked not to be included in the original 15? If so, was that because they weren’t interested, period, in the Big 10, or just didn’t want the bad pub up front?
LikeLike
I dont know for a fact, but unconfirmed yes.
Feelers are put out to gauge interest and Maryland declined to be part of the remainder of the process.
They stated they have no desire to leave the ACC and asked to not be included in any public conjecture by Big 10 representatives.
If not, Maryland would be in the mix.
LikeLike
If Maryland senses the SEC is going to pick off some ACC schools, the folks in College Park will change their tune regarding the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@ Wolverine PHD
No offense: But what credentials do you have and whom might you know? I’m curious as to how you can be so certain that it will be 16 schools and Pitt is automatically out of the picture when, as you state, Presidents value research $$$$ and research investment.
Anyway, interesting take. But I’m still sticking to the 14 before 16 due to several reasons, not the least of which is getting all these university presidents to make a consensus decision on one school is going to be similar to passing health care reform and getting them to agree to any 3, not to mention 5, would take years….
LikeLike
“I don’t have any inside sources, but I do have a pipeline to what PRESIDENTS are thinking.”
Does this mean you don’t have inside sources to Presidents or you don’t have inside sources at the Big 10 offices? To me, this is impacts the credibility issue. If you don’t have ANY inside sources, then I can’t see how you have any pipeline to what any president is thinking. No offense.
LikeLike
My credentials are quite significant and if pressed I am more than happy to discuss them with Frank.
15 years of experience in higher education as an administrator and faculty member at large research schools.
I am not here to defend my sources.
I dont have a source directly involved in the Big 10 expansion, but I have direct and daily contact with many administrators at Big 10 schools.
I will keep passing on what I know and you can reject or accept anything you like. But I do have extensive expertise in this area.
FWIW
LikeLike
Wolverine,
Given your contacts and what you know; what chances do you give Nebraska getting an invite? I know the information about the benefits for their inclusion has been greatly discussed here; but what have you heard?
LikeLike
With Notre Dame seemingly out of the picture.
I would consider Nebraska a lock.
LikeLike
Wolverine PHD,
Okay, I accept your resume – FWIW. So why do you think Delaney threw the wet blanket on the expansion orgy after being the guy to get everybody all worked up in the first place?
And if we are going to 16 (I’m still skeptical – 14 makes more sense and is more manageable) what evidence or discussions that you’ve been part of can you share with us to confirm? I mean, I like Patrick’s information here, but I also know the Big 10 and like I said, getting all of these institutions to accept one new university, let alone 5, well, I’m just really curious as to how all that will get worked out.
LikeLike
Great questions.
Delaney scuttled everything publicly because what they have done thus far is private.
1) Studied the financial ramifications of expansion and possible candidates.
2) Candidates they will target have been identified and vetted.
3) Informal high level talks have already taken place about the group of candidates the council has decided to target. Essentially gauging the interest of the potential targets.
That is what a “silent phase” is all about. Notice how all the potential presidents of these candidates and AD’s have been quiet as of late. Sure they answered questions when asked, but thats it.
4) Next steps. Continue informal discussions and report back to council.
5) Then formally engage in discussions. That will be public. But by then they already know who is coming aboard.
14 is certainly still possible, and yes coming to a consensus about candidates is tough.
But the network changes everything and without the network they would only expand by 1 school. The network makes 14 definite and 16 highly likely.
The only evidence I can offer you is that if they stay at 14 many in the council are concerned that the ACC or Pac 10 would poach 2 schools that they would consider down the line so why not act now and solidify the conference for the long term.
My bet is 16.
LikeLike
Re 16 vs 14 (WolverinePhD)
Another interesting post.
Question: Who then are schools 15-16 that the Big 10 Presidents are concerned that the ACC or Pac 10 might target?
And who are schools 12-14 that they feel are priority adds?
Also have you heard any speculation the ACC is actually doing something beyond watching events unfold?
LikeLike
Re expansion (WolverinePhD)
Thanks for your interesting posts.
Many posts stress the research component and ability of a school to contribute to the CIC, which would imply large graduate enrollments and many faculty specialties.
If I understand your view, the President’s are also concerned by academic quality and reputation.
SU is the only BCS school in NY and Pitt may be 2d to PSU in PA, yet might the Presidents not compare Pitt to SU? What would the perception be from a Presidents view given Pitt’s large research activity?
LikeLike
Again Pitt is VERY strong from research standpoint and is a stellar school.
That being said Syracuse has a better reputation within the academy for training faculty members.
Having large research $$$ and preparing faculty to excel at other highly ranked research institutions are two different measures.
Colorado St. does nearly 200 million in research, but Ohio State isn’t lining up to hire their PhD grads.
LikeLike
I just stumbled across this nonsense. “Syracuse has a better reputation within the academy for training faculty members” [than Pitt]. WolverinePhD you bring no honor to your namesake with this generalization.
I can’t believe you are buying this drivel.
Which discipline, which academy? Who are you saying would recognize this distinction? Which tier of schools? At one level, faculty would never, ever recognize the distinction you are attempting to make: Sociology Dept at the Univ. of Chicago, for example, would consider a hire from two programs, Harvard and Chicago. Pitt vs. Syracuse is a distinction that makes no difference. On the other hand, IPFW (Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne), for example, views a doctoral candidate from Pitt or Syracuse as the best can
candidate to walk on campus in a decade.
There is no generalizable halo effect for SU over Pitt. This is crazy. In a narrow discipline sure.
Ok, I’ll play MIT vs. Caltech, Harvard vs. Stanford. Penn vs. Chicago. Don’t bother to answer; it is a trick question. The answer is “it depends on the field”
LikeLike
While BTN money will be the driving force for expansion, I do think the discussions here tend to be framed a little too much by the lens of Delany and not enough by the lens of the academic decision-makers. The Big Ten has a very distinct institutional profile – enormous, heavily-funded, well-regarded, public research universities. 9 of the 11 Big Ten teams (ie, the vast majority) fit *all* of the following criteria:
1) public
2) secular
3) very large: 30,000+ students (average public Big Ten school has over 43,000 students)
4) AAU membership
5) USNWR Top 75 national university
6) ARWU (Academic Ranking World Universities) Top 70 American universities
7) $300+ million annual research expenditure (using 2006 data)
Northwestern (private, size) and Indiana (smaller research budget) are the two Big Ten outliers. The Big Ten presidents may not want to add more than one or two more outliers, which could dilute the Big Ten identity. More importantly, those institutions may not bring a lot of research money to the table.
Only 7 other BCS schools exactly fit the Big Ten profile outlined above: Cal, UCLA, Washington, Texas, Texas A&M, Florida, Maryland.
If you relax the profile by tossing out the public requirement and allowing “smaller” schools with 20,000+ students, then a few more schools fit the bill: Pitt, USC, North Carolina, Georgia Tech.
If you then relax the profile a bit further and allow a school to miss one of the listed descriptions, a few more schools work: Duke / Stanford / Vandy (size), Georgia (not AAU), Rutgers ($281M research), Colorado ($250M).
Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, and the Texas schools (not happening) all pretty much meet the Big Ten academic profile and should be relatively easy sells to the Big Ten powers-that-be. After those, however, things get questionable.
Possibly the school presidents are demanding a compromise — like give us a strong academic school for every athletic revenue school. Adding Nebraska might necessitate adding Rutgers and/or Pitt.
Notre Dame, Boston College and Syracuse may have strong undergraduate programs, but they are poor academic fits for the Big Ten — small enrollments (20,000 or less) and small research budgets (half that of the smallest in the Big Ten). These are not Big Ten peer institutions. The Big Ten presidents may have said okay to Notre Dame back when they were the end-all-be-all of college athletic revenue, but times have changed. Now they’re a good-get rather than a must-have.
Nebraska, Missouri, and UConn all occupy a wishy-washy land of decent flagship universities. None are terrible, but none meet the standards of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Wow, that post is good enough that I could have written it.
My only quibble is that, if Rutgers doesn’t fit the Big 10 profile, it sure doesn’t miss by much. Tons of research $, 35000 students (and 60000 total on 3 campuses, all pretty close to each other), in the 60s in US News ratings….that’s why I think Rutgers and Pitt are locks, and only 1/2 of Neb and Mo get in, at least in a 3 team expansion.
LikeLike
I would add that although NW doesn’t quite fit the profile, it has tons of research $, a medical center, and 10000 grad students. It’s kind of a mix of Um and ND.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think this is the most reasoned post about likely expansion yet. You have to assume TPTB are approaching this decision from this perspective of reasonable fit. Disagree on the out of hand dismission of TX schools, however.
LikeLike
Indiana is an outlier with a research budget under $300 million? According to the NSF, Indiana’s research budget was well over $300 million. It was $411,939,000 in 2008. (check page 87, rank #39) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/nsf10311.pdf
Maybe you mean Iowa, which was $293,564,000 in 2008. But even they aren’t really an outlier. They were over $300 million the three previous years. 2008 was an exception.
LikeLike
The differences in research numbers are largely to do with the varying degrees of independence medical centers have from with their primary university. I don’t know which medical schools would have collaboration through the CIC and which would not.
Michigan and Ohio State — their medical schools are a part of their main campuses.
Penn State and UConn — their medical centers are separate from the main campus but still under the thumb of the university.
Texas — the medical schools are decentralized and fairly (entirely?) autonomous. I know UT-Austin has tried (still trying) to start up their own medical school but received resistance from the other medical branches. If UT-Austin joined the Big Ten would Northwestern have collaboration with UT-Southwestern medical school through the CIC?
Colorado — the medical center merged with UC-Denver campus a few years ago. If UC-Boulder joined the Big Ten would UC-Denver share resources with the CIC? I didn’t include Colorado’s medical center in my numbers, but perhaps I should have. Either way, Colorado is a very well-regarded research institution.
Indiana — I missed IUPUI. messed up my numbers.
LikeLike
Jokewood: I’ll also quibble with your research listed for Rutgers–it’s been over 300 million since 2005 ($323 million in 2008) and Colorado is $535 million (2008). You have them as less than half this number. (See same source as listed above.)
LikeLike
Re expansion candidates (Jokewood)
Interesting post.
You note Texas schools seem unlikely at this time. You might have added Maryland also seems unlikely at this time. You note Missouri, Nebraska and UConn in your opinion are “wishy washy” in terms of academic quality.
You do note that Pitt meets the Big 10 profile but do not note they add little in the way of new markets.
In sum it appears you believe of the most likely candidates, RU is the only school that seems to meet the Big 10 profile and adds a new market.
Thanks for your interesting post.
LikeLike
To me, Rutgers is a slam dunk…
1. Recruiting
The Big Ten needs new recruiting territories. New Jersey high school players in last 5 years of NFL draft — Anthony Davis (1st round), Kyle Wilson (1st), Devin McCourty (1st), Eugene Monroe (1st), BJ Raji (1st), Knowshon Moreno (1st), Brian Cushing (1st), Donald Brown (1st), Kenny Britt (1st), Joe Flacco (1st), Greg Olsen (1st), Tambas Hali (1st), Dwayne Jarrett (2nd), Turk McBride (2nd), Anthony Fasano (2nd), Shonn Greene (3rd)…
2. Academically, it’s a match.
3. Non-athletic recruiting.
The BTN enables Big Ten schools to advertise themselves to suburban New Jersey high school kids. Schools like Michigan and Northwestern want these kids.
4. BTN / Location
Whether Delany pushes hard for NYC and/or Texas, it’s smart to at least drop the Big Ten footprint right outside NYC. High upside with little downside. You can increase rates in Philly and get a lot of New Jersey cable. Maybe you get part of NYC.
LikeLike
Thanks for reminding me of this. Sometimes I get so football focused that I can’t see the big picture. While Rutgers historically isn’t a big dog in football, they fit about every other profile the Big 10 is looking for.
Considering Tagliabue’s disparaging comments about Rutgers this week, I bet it’s a done deal that Rutgers is in.
I’m fine with that…but that means we really need some football heavy hitters to balance them.
LikeLike
Jokewood:
Well said. I only wish Rutgers had more appealing teams.
LikeLike
Jake: I agree, but one thing Rutgers must do is improve their sports other than football. Last time I looked they were in the mid-90s (as was Pitt) in the Director’s Cup standings—that’s 40 spots lower than the last Big 10 team.
LikeLike
I agree with you, but I think you´re missing a fundamental idea here: expansion is going to occur – the money involved is too great to pass up. Yet, none of these candidates perfectly fits the bill, at least today. But how will they look tomorrow? Or 25 years down the line? The idea here is not to find partners with a shared past but to find ones with a common direction and hope for the future. Penn St has been a success in the Big 10 not because of its resume before it entered but because of its directions since it has entered.
That said, I think each of us is going to have to accept – as well as the presidents – that any expansion candidate will more closely approximate Iowa than Michigan in terms of its research, as of today. However, the hope is that by joining the Big 10 and expanding their resources, these new additions could improve their profiles over time. I believe this goes into what Delany meant by looking 20-25 years down the line. At this point, none of these schools is a perfect fit. The idea – and I imagine this is what is happening now – is to find presidents, researchers, students, alumni etc. who, under the right circumstances, would be committed toward this kind of goal. So what you´re looking for here is potential.
For example, when we compare Syracuse to Pitt. We have private vs. public, 5,000 graduate students vs. 10,000 graduate students, and $50 million vs. $500 million R&D. As of today, I think it´s pretty obvious that the latter, Pitt, more closely approximates a Big 10 university. But where will it be in 25 years? What are their priorities and what are their goals? I think this is where you study demographics, interview TPTB and report back to the COC with your results. If you can predict that, with the Big 10´s support, one or more of these marginal candidates can rise up to eventually fit the Big 10 profile, then I think that makes them a good candidate.
We´re at the point now where you see how badly individual universities want this. I think Notre Dame will fall short in this regard, Syracuse might as well. Is either of these two schools willing to change its profile to accommodate more research? As for the rest of the Big East schools, you see weaker programs either academically or athletically. What kind of commitment do they have toward improvement? And with the Big 12 schools, you are talking about a move from from a conference more lax in its research to a one that relies on the cooperation and capabilities of its peers. Are Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri up to the task?
If I had to guess, I would imagine this is the cause for delay. Delany and the presidents met, shared their initial findings, and came up with a list of candidates to explore more closely. None of us on here can answer these questions, and it´s going to take time for the Big 10 to address them, as well. If I had to guess, I think ¨potential¨, in the Big 10´s sense, more closely aligns to the large, research schools – which bodes well for the Big 12 North. But the question now is where do these schools go from here?
LikeLike
Rutgers meets all of the above requirements (the $300MM research threshold is a bit arbitrary) if you include the med school research at UMDNJ (about $250 MM). UMDNJ is also in New Brunswick and research there has many connections with departments in Rutgers, just like any university with a more integrated administrative arrangement. FWIW, the legal connection between universities and associated medical institutions is very complicated and varied, so when we talk about total research funding for a university here, we should bear that in mind. This is important because for any of the schools on the expansion list, if they have an integrated medical school it accounts for for than half of the research funding.
LikeLike
That is true but in comparing apples to apples the RU Medical research is not part of the University. They are very connected but not a fair comparison to lump that number into the overall research money figures when comparing to other expansion candidates. Even without the medical numbers the RU research dollars are very competitive to other candidates.
LikeLike
Agree with you on Colorado State. CU + CSU would be a comfortable fit for the Pac 10 since it is, like the rest of the league, a matched pair, making travel easier.
Texas Tech would never — ever — get a “yes” vote from Stanford. The culture of a school whose main cheer is the “guns up” gesture would make Stanford (and probably Berkeley) gag.
LikeLike
WolverinePhD:
I’d agree with much of what you say. Assuming Maryland and Texas are out, I think the schools you mention are the best candidates–Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn.
I agree UConn has some weaknesses academically, and not being an AAU member and on the lower end of research–I don’t think they would be invited. Their only real saving grace would be their market, if it’s perceived as “New York”.
While I agree with your point on academic snobbery, I think you’re awfully tough on Pitt, particularly compared to the other candidate schools. The prestige of a school is an awfully nebulous concept. So let’s try to look at it objectively.
Of the remaining candidate schools, Pitt is ranked highest (#39) of the group by ARWU. (Rutgers is 40, Nebraska is in the 78-99 range, Kansas and Missouri are 100-134, and Syracuse is dead last 135-162.
USNews also has Pitt highest (#56) of the group. Syracuse is second in our group (at 58), Rutgers is 66, Kansas and Nebraska are tied at 96 and Missouri comes in last at #102.
If you prefer other ranking systems, that’s fine. I’m guessing Pitt won’t be at the bottom of our group in many of them.
Pitt is also #1 of the candidate schools in research (just under $600 million in 2008) and is ranked #6 in the nation in NIH funding. Again, that’s top of our candidate schools. As a member of the CIC, Pitt would bring more direct benefit to the current Big Ten than would any of the other candidate schools, particularly Syracuse.
Pitt is particularly well known in medicine. (It’s where Salk invented the polio vaccine, for instance and where the MRI was invented.)
So what field(s) are you talking about when you say a degree from Pitt is considered lacking compared to the other candidate schools? Do you have anything tangible to support your view? Personally, I would question whether most in the sciences would consider Kansas or Missouri a more prestigious school than Pitt.
In my view, the only knock against Pitt is that it’s in Penn State’s shadow TV market.
(BTW, I am not a Pitt alum or supporter.)
LikeLike
Facts is facts. For the reasons jokewood outlined above, I believe Rutgers and Pitt are locks in a 3 team expansion. IMO, the Big 10 will only take 1/2 of Mo and Neb. And, because U Conn, Syracuse, and KU don’t quite meet the academic/research/profile outlined above, the Big 10 won’t go to 16.
LikeLike
I would think that, since the dollar figures are so similiar, the presidents will fit Pitt in there some where (most likely at the expense of Kansas, maybe at the expense of Syracuse), since in research quality, only Rutgers is close amongst the expansion candidates.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/21/big.ten.expansion/ (Link from Patrick above)
So, Frank, wanna become the nation’s premier blogger on SEC expansion? I think the job’s open!
So if we take the words of Mike Slive at face value and believe that there would be a good chance that the SEC would respond in kind if the Big 10 were to expand to 16 (and let’s assume a standard NU/Mizzou/RU/Pitt/SU for this, since ND doesn’t seem to want to play ball), what’s the SEC’s strategy for expansion?
Is it content to gobble up the scraps of the Big XII and Big East, or would it attempt to poach members of another conference, the ACC, which could still be standing when all is said and done?
Would it follow the Big 10 model of looking to expand its geographic footprint, or would it look to consolidate its holdings within its existing footprint?
Those two questions are actually different ways of saying the almost same thing. If the SEC did ignore current ACC members, it would naturally be expanding its footprint, either to the west (OU, OSU, A&M [but not Texas!]) or to the north (WVU, maybe Louisville).
If the SEC decided that current ACC members are fair game, it could look to consolidate its holdings in Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Tech) and South Carolina (Clemson).
Or, it could look at poaching ACC schools which would also expand its geographic footprint — schools like UNC and VT. It’s tough for me to see either one of those schools moving to the SEC. Would a basketball school like UNC really abandon the SEC and rivals like Duke and NCSU? And though VT might be the best possible target for the SEC among existing ACC schools (having lived in DC for years, I think VT actually delivers that market just as much as Maryland, if not more so), it strikes me that the same political realities which got VT into the ACC in the first place (UVa being forced to advocate for VT’s inclusion) will also serve as the handcuffs which keep them in place in the ACC, even if they wanted to move to the SEC.
If I were to make an instinctive guess, without doing any of the voluminous research Frank The SEC Tank will eventually do, I would imagine that an “expand the footprint” model would make as much sense for the SEC as it does for the Big 10. Why add GT when you already have Atlanta? Why add FSU and Miami when you already have the state’s premier university? Why add Clemson when you already have a historically underachieving school from the Palmetto State?
Go west. Get A&M and lock up better access into Texas markets. Get a historical power with ratings power like OU (and kid brother OSU for Mississippi State to play with). Grab WVU.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Hah! If this takes another 12-18 months, we do need to speculate on something else, right? The thing with the SEC is that there aren’t very many obvious choices outside of the Texas/Texas A&M pairing and the North Carolina ACC schools (all of which would have serious reservations about joining the SEC with respect to academics). I compleely agree with you – sure, the SEC could add schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson and Georgia Tech, but what’s the point if the conference already owns all of those markets anyway? Maybe the SEC would be willing to grab Oklahoma with a very slight possibility of West Virginia, but those aren’t measurable increases to that conference’s footprint.
Now, maybe more intra-state matchups would be fine for the SEC (i.e. getting the Miami/FSU/Florida triumverate under the conference banner) because they’re dependent more on national TV ratings as opposed to a conference network, but call me extremely skeptical that the ACC is supposedly in danger. Remember what we’ve talked about with respect to the university presidents – the ACC has very high academic standards with its own research consortium, so it is similar to the Big Ten in being an academic/athletic conference as opposed to a pure sports conference. If Texas is going to have problems with the academics of the SEC, then UNC and UVA would rather eat a pile of horse dung than take the increased SEC TV money. The Big Ten has the benefit of adjacent populous territories in the Northeast that aren’t really owned by any conference, so there are some natural expansion targets. It also has the lure of its academic standing, so any school that might be a little queasy about leaving behind traditional rivals (i.e. Nebraska) likely wouldn’t care because of the academic upgrade. The Big Ten offers BOTH greater athletic revenue and higher academic prestige. In contrast, the SEC has its region completely locked down but doesn’t have many attractive targets that are outside of the states of North Carolina and Texas. The big fish in those states (Texas and UNC) might see an athletic upgrade in the SEC, yet it would also be a clear academic downgrade, so that’s far from a no-brainer for those schools.
LikeLike
Frank–maybe, but I’d be nervous if I was the ACC commish.
One interesting question–would Florida ever be interested in going to the ACC? In US News’ ratings, Flo. is #47. Next highest in the SEC is GA at #58. Then Auburn at #88. Meanwhile, you’ve got Duke at 10, Va at 24, UNC at 28, WF at 28, BC at 34, GT at 35, Miami at 50, MD at 53, Clemson at 61, VT at 71, , NC State at 88.
I’m not much for talk of “preemtive strikes”, but the ACC has some experience in that regard…..Florida would be a football power in any league, and about as much $ as anyone…..probably won’t happen because of $ involved and loss of recruiting advantage, but not beyond the realm of possibility….
LikeLike
Isn’t this where the Big 10 shoots itself in the foot if it takes Maryland? Once you get the ACC blood in the water, the SEC sharks will move in. (Nice analogy, eh?)
I do think that if the ACC just sits back and lets this all play out, it ends up a loser.
Let’s say the Big Ten takes Rutgers, UConn, and Pitt. If the ACC does not add any Big East schools… this makes the Big East have to do something… it’s not quite dead yet. So… it will add East Carolina, Memphis, Central Florida. Maybe it goes crazy and takes Houston, Florida International, Temple, and Buffalo.
Now you compare the leagues:
ACC: Virginia Tech
Big East: West Virginia
ACC: Florida St.
Big East: South Florida (who won last year?)
ACC: Miami
Big East: Cincinnati (who has been to a BCS bowl more recently?)
Beyond that, the ACC kills the Big East unless Syracuse and L-ville turn it around faster. And I am inclined to think that the change in the composition of the Big East would help that process more than anything else. If Cincy and WVU can make BCS bowls playing a tougher conference schedule… they are more likely to go undefeated a la the MWC schools.
A reconstituted Big East may be good enough to keep a BCS bid. And there may be a sympathy factor again. Instead of dropping Big East, just add MWC.
Meanwhile, the Big East swath will reach from Texas through New York, and include Florida.
The ACC has separation from the Big East, but there will be years where the down ACC is worse than the Big East in some people eyes. And this will gradually weaken the perception of the ACC football-wise.
LikeLike
@Frank:
The more I think about Slive’s words, the less I think they’re intended to demonstrate SEC’s intentions in the face of Big 10 expansion to 16 and more of a warning shot across the bow to Delaney, saying, in effect, “do you really want all that blood on your hands?”
Again, my uneducated and speculative guess is that the SEC is quite happy the way things are right now. The SEC could tolerate one extra team going to the Big 10 — hell, they might like seeing the Big 10 teams also facing the additional hurdle of a conference championship game.
As you point out, unless the SEC starts cannibalizing ACC members, a possibility both you and I dismiss as unlikely, the options are quite as plentiful as they are for the Big 10 — though good combinations do exist.
So maybe Silve wants to start shining the spotlight on Delaney and the Big 10 for “killing college football as we know it” before the Big 10 gets too aggressive.
LikeLike
I have heard rumors that Clemson and Gerogia Tech covet a spot in the SEC. Now it doesn’t add any markets to the SEC, but the ACC might not be as stable as we are making it sound.
LikeLike
Mike..
i have been arguing this all along, and keep getting shot down. I am reading what Slive says and keep thinking it could be a war..
suppose Big 10 poaches Maryland and UK
SEC gets UNC, NC State, Clemson, Ga Tech, and FSU..
no more ACC as we know it today
FOR THE CHEAP SEATS!!
academics at UF, UGA, and Vandy in the sec EAST could well attract ACC academic schools, saying they can not sounds snobbish and will not play well and will degrade B 10 posting credibility. Why give another conference a chance to make the Big 10 look bad! It sounds like sour grapes, and then nobody wins!
just saying.. more flies with honey than vinegar..
LikeLike
I, personally, don’t see the Carolina schools leaving and they would be the only ones outside of Miami (IMHO) that they would want. What I think might happen, is if the Big Ten takes Nebraska there may be a fight between the SEC and the PAC 10 for the Big 12 leftovers (TAMU esp. if Texas goes independent, Oklahoma, Kansas/Missouri, Texas Tech).
LikeLike
I live 80 miles from the Kentucky border. Too many Kentuckians live in southern Indiana. I know all about Kentuckians. UK has and will have no interest in joining the Big 10. Kentucky is 100% a southern culture.
LikeLike
shroomgod..
go back to the earlier blogs..
a) UK wants to be a top 20 research school in 20 years..
b) their president is a kentucky boy with impeccable business and research background (MIT and IBM).
c) they just raised a billion to further this goal.
I live within the “diamond” Indy, Cin, Lou, and Lex. and have been to many games that involve UK, I see your point.. but long term kentucky wealth is in Louisville and Northern KY (Cincinnati). No matter what the “fans” want.. The president and board makes the call. if this small group wants UK to be a research institution, it will happen no matter what the “fans” think. The corporate partners for UK in louisville and cincinnati want an educated work force in their corporate headquarters. Just an observation.
LikeLike
It’s an obvious no for UNC and VT. The Virginia legislature went to a lot of trouble getting VT in the ACC. They would not look kindly to VT leaving VA behind to go to the SEC.
IMO, GT is also unlikely. GT’s academic standards are too high for it to ever become a football power in the SEC (or ACC for that matter. I don’t think GT would be much interested in the SEC, and vice versa.
Which leaves OK, TX, TX A&M, Clemson, FSU, Miami as potential targets, and WVU and UL as fall back options.
Obviously VWU would jump at the chance to go to the SEC…I wonder about the histoey there—-WV was carved out of richer VA during the CW—is there a culture fit there? Yes, I know the war’s over……….
LikeLike
@ mushroomgod
Don’t be so sure about VT. When UVA got them into the ACC, I thought the reason why was that the legislature in VT wanted to make sure the Hokies wouldn’t be in a bad situation when the Big East died. And the BEFC nearly did in 2003.
The SEC is a very good conference, but one that UVA would want no part of. I don’t think anyone in Virginia will stop the Hokies going there.
GT already left on bad terms. UNC may go. Sure, the football team will get killed, but the basketball team gets Kentucky every year, one huge Duke game OOC (and I don’t know how great Duke will be Coack K) and a decent expanded SEC slate. If nothing else, the Heels will be surrounded by other southern flagship state in the SEC, instead of the growing number of northern schools seeking shelter there after the BEFC breaks up.
LikeLike
I may be wrong on this part, but from what I know of VT (which admittedly comes from mostly UVA students), they LOVE that they finally got into the “country club” of the ACC, a goal they had wanted for many years. I do not think they are looking to leave.
I also think that UNC views on the SEC are much the same as UVA, which I would repeat if not in polite company. As I’ve said before, I cannot envision any of the VA, MD, or NC ACC schools going anywhere. If the SEC takes from the ACC, it will be Clemson (definitely) or one of the Florida schools. I realize that these choices don’t expand their markets much so they may not want them. I suppose they could have BC, but I’m not sure why they would want them either.
LikeLike
but not Texas!
You can write until you’re blue in the face about how TX will never join the SEC, but the SEC is certainly an option the Longhorns are looking at. Several reasons:
First, if nothing else, basic due diligence requires TX consider the SEC if multiple 16-team super conferences form.
Second, this isn’t 15 years ago, much has changed. The SEC doesn’t take partial qualifiers, their academics has improved, and in fact the SEC basically mirrors the B12 from top to bottom in both research expenditures and various academic rankings. Some excellent schools at the top, a majority in the middle, and a few further down.
Third, there is no guarantee that joining the P10 will come close to the same payout that joining the SEC would. The P10 lags in fan support, ratings, and revenues. Would adding Texas + 5 others produce enough synergy to satisfy the Longhorns’ needs? That’s what they are studying. Remember, all of TX’s options involve compromises, there is no perfect solution.
Fourth, if both aTm and OU insist on going to the SEC and one can’t be talked out of it, TX will have no choice but to go with them. The Longhorns aren’t going to join a power conference and its inherently tougher schedule while also having two of its ‘must play’ annual rivalries eat up its non-conference schedule.
Fifth, TX’s prez has talked about not wanting the excessive travel joining the B10 would entail. Joining the P16, even as an east division with the AZ schools, would involve the most travel of TX’s 3 remaining options (P16, SEC, B12 reload.) In contrast TX, aTm, TT, and OU to the SEC west minus AL and AU would be about as compact as the current B12 South.
Now my bet is that the P14/16/20 is TX’s first choice and most likely destination. It would be an easier path to a conference championship, would allow uneven revenue sharing, TX and USC would probably be the biggest voices on conference matters, LA and the Rose Bowl is far better for multiple visits than smelly puke-stained New Orleans (safer, too) and they’ll probably get a favorable report on the potential of starting a P16 cable network similar to the BTN. But it isn’t a given, and IF both the B10+ and SEC decide to go to 16, I’d now place the odds as roughly 50% P16, 40% SEC, and 10% other (B12 reload.) Convincing either OU or aTm to head west is the key.
LikeLike
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the notions that the University of Texas will ignore the SEC’s academic reputation and that the University of Oklahoma will somehow control the destiny of the University of Texas.
We do agree that, as of today, some sort of move west seems to be the likeliest option.
LikeLike
Let’s assume for a second that the Big 10 doesn’t go 16 right away and takes the baby step to 14. The SEC would “maybe” think about trying to increase their footprint to 14, but they would be thinking the exact same way the Big 10 is thinking now. How much more revenue does that give us? Therefore, should the first goal be: get our own deal with a television/cable network off the ground first so we know what the current product potential is? I’m not so sure the SEC is thinking of putting the cart before the horse (going to 14 or 16) before they would seriously try to get a network off the ground.
All that being said, I always felt the two most likely candidates for the SEC were Clemson and, to a lesser extent, the Wramblin’ Wreck. Seems like a natural fit, but again, thinking like a fan and not necessarily thinking about how that would increase my overall revenue. The U and FSU makes sense, but would Florida – really – want to share the state of Florida with FSU or the U?
LikeLike
I think this is the struggle the Big 10 will have. If they take anyone but Notre Dame, it causes a slight shift in the dynamics.
If you take Nebraska, that makes the Big 12 do something small, like say adding TCU. It might make the Pac-10 or SEC swoop in on the Big 12 and cause a free for all that ends up with a strong Pac-10 and a 14 or 16 team SEC. Now the SEC is positioned to move ahead of the Big 10 unless it does something… but what is that something? Take more Big 12 schools? Shift to the Big East?
If you take just Pitt, that might cause the same issue with the Big East, ACC, etc. Chain reaction where other conferences explode and the Big 10 is left at 12 or to pick from the leftover scraps. Example: Big 10 takes just Pitt to get to 12. ACC swoops in and steals UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse, and WVU. Big 12 gets divided by SEC (Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St) and PAC-10 (Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Colorado St.) This forces the Big 10 to take Kansas and Missouri, perhaps some pressure to take Kansas St. and Iowa St. from the Legislatures of those states (not sure why they would have leverage though). Now the Big 10 is solely midwestern and capped in growth.
So this justifies the logic of adding 3 teams. That way, the Big 10 is not at 12 when the chain reaction starts and there is competition for schools. However, this causes MORE chain reaction. So the Big 10 is better protected, but it is that much more likely that the landscape changes.
So… why not just get to 16 and beat everyone to the punch? You get to pick the top 5 teams while you have all the leverage and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe the SEC figures out a way to even things up. Maybe the PAC 10 figures out a way to even things up. But the Big 10 is acting, rather than reacting.
Yet… this wisdom is counter-balanced by the fact that logical expansion includes no home runs.
This is really so fascinating.
LikeLike
Why not just go to 16?
Couple of reasons:
1. 16 causes the most disruption to the current cohesivenedd of the league; and
2. 16, as a pratical matter, forecloses the possibility of TX or ND changing their mind down the road.
LikeLike
Right.
But if they add 3, the odds are that there is a shift in the dynamic which pushes Texas somewhere else anyway. Take Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas and see if Texas follows them or goes elsewhere. And if it comes down to SEC, Big 10, or Pac 10 fighting for Texas, now Texas has both the reason to move (broken Big 12) and the leverage (we can go independent and rake in money or choose from 1 of 3 conferences).
This is why this is not as simple as it sounds.
LikeLike
HH,
this it the point I have been arguing for the past 3 of Franks blogs!!
the SEC big 4 Gets would be Tx/TxAM, UNC and maybe Maryland if it does not wind up in the big 10..
This UL and WVU to the SEC makes no sense..
Ga Tech (while a great get), Clemson, and FSU/Miami would just add to states that the SEC already dominates!! If you use the expanding footprint model, you go after UNC, UVA, Maryland, and Texas
LikeLike
imo, the SEC has zero chance of getting UNC, VA., or Maryland.
LikeLike
@duffman,:
No, it’s not the same.
Your analysis continually ignores the academic side of the equation. There’s no chance in hell that UNC and UVa and, yes, Texas (sorry, playoffs now!) would move to that conference.
LikeLike
HH,
people told me the same thing when i started my first corporation, yet here I am. my specialty seems to be beating the odds. I am not saying UNC and UT to the SEC is probable, but I think there is more of a chance than people are willing to cede.
i have been in business a VERY long time, and I have seen much that people told me would never happen come to pass. I am just not willing to say NEVER right now. I know some folks higher in the food chain, and when they say NEVER I will listen, but so far they have said very little.
As i said before business makes strange bedfellows, and while I agree STRONGLY there is an academic element here, the big motivator is cold hard cash.
As said before, if money was not important the Big 10 would stop at 12. The ONLY reason to go past 12 is money, and if you can not see this you need to take off your rose colored glasses.
Silve has already fired the warning shot across Delaney’s bow! which is what I predicted early on and everybody said I was wrong then. I am a fan of IU football (yes I know this requires a great deal of optimism) but my logical mind says that no matter what happens in this expansion IU will not move to the top and stay there. I am pragmatic and a bit of a realist to put faith in the tooth fairy, but I do think human nature is fairly predictable.
That said, I am old enough to know that just because I may not want UNC to go to the SEC will not mean anything. We are about to enter a war, and I see the Big 10 and the SEC coming out on top NO matter what anybody else does. the Pac 10 will finish 3rd, and everybody else will run a distant pace behind them.
In short keep your mind open because we have not heard the Fat Lady sing yet!
LikeLike
duff, are you a Peegs or a Decker man?
LikeLike
shroom,
neither.. I never followed blogging or recruiting except for Frank here.. and my life has never been spent reading “off season” articles in the paper. When the expansion stuff was going on back in the early 90’s I was working so I missed the discussion.
life has too much to do in the day to day.. that said I have no interest in fantasy sports either (maybe I am just an old giffer). I am not the guy who lives and breathes day to day in the “micro” world. Frank’s blog has hooked me because it is dealing with “macro” events. In addition, people here have put much thought into their discussion.
a) touts in sports are equal to me, be it horse racing or basketball. they receive income by trying to keep you interested. long term they do not put food on your table.
b) i am the guy in the stands cheering, but when the game is over you go back to doing what you do for a living (It helps that my banker is an IU grad, so we can lament the games – but we don’t talk about it much after the fact).
All that said I am a “fair play” guy as your friends, family, and kids may attend your “rivals” school. I am not willing to let sports interfere with those close to me.
When you turn off the TV after the game is over there is still work, family, and community to occupy the majority of your time..
LikeLike
Another thought I just had: the two 800-lbs gorillas in the room (Big 10/SEC) are contiguous conferences, yet there seems to be only one school — Texas (or maybe A&M as well) which would remotely be of interest to both conferences. There’s virtually no overlap in their potential expansion targets, and thus less opportunities for bidding wars . . . which makes all of this only slightly less interesting.
LikeLike
If the big Texas schools go elsewhere, some of the Big 10 north candidates might get a look from the SEC. If the SEC finds 2 schools to join their East division, they would probably prefer Oklahoma + Missouri to Oklahoma + Oklahoma State or Oklahoma + Houston. Even Kansas or Nebraska might get a chance, though these schools can’t be called southern.
Of course, the SEC seems to be waiting for the Big 10 to make the first move, so Missouri and Nebraska will likely be already taken.
LikeLike
Since my opinion changes with each of Frank’s weekly posts, I thought I would give you an update.
I think that whether expansion is to 12,14 or 16, then I want either ND or Nebraska or no one. I really don’t care who the other team(s) would be, although I prefer Pitt or Maryland over Syrcause, UConn or Rutgers. I am ambvialent about Missouri or Kansas.
One thought, since the super conferences need at least 61 votes to retain control, how much thought is there to ending up with 5 conferences of 14?
If the Big Ten just took Nebraska and 2 eastern teams, and the Pac 10 took Utah, Colorado, Texas and A and M, wouldn’t there be enough teams from the MWC and Big East to flesh out the current Big 12, ACC and SEC?
Just wondering. Keep up the good work Frank…and Patrick.
LikeLike
PSD..
if my argument for a Big 3 come to fact, you would have 48 teams with 80% market penetration. at which time they break up and form their own BCS.. 61 votes goes out the window
actually I am working on a new world order in CFB, and will email it to frank and patrick to flesh out some numbers, but from what I am looking at now.. I see a VERY clear picture of a probable future..
LikeLike
I hope it involves 64 teams and not 48. Three of the six current major sports conferences LIQUIDATING isn’t just seismic change; that would be college athletics armageddon. Don’t go there. There are two weak sisters right now–the Big East and the Big 12. The Big 12 moreso because of its youth and geography and internal strife than it’s actual football inferiority. There will be enough assets from a dismantled Big East to keep the ACC afloat. Sure, they may be the weakest of the four super-conferences at the end of the day, but they’ll still be plenty strong enough to survive.
Don’t go to 48, duff. Step away from the ledge.
LikeLike
they all survive!!
just not in a way we are used to right now..
you will have the big 3 ….
and a little 3 + that will have to fight it out to get a shot at the big 3..
as i have said all along some form of the ACC, BE, etc teams will survive.. just not in their current form.. sorta like Army, Navy, Harvard, Yale, and ND (yes the last one was a bit of a joke before people put on their flamethrowing equipment) 😉 are still viable, but not like they were years ago.. the playing field is about to change..
I am happy that the Big 10 will be in the # 1 or # 2 spot in the end.. I am just saying the gulf will widen between the 48 and the rest..
Several years ago I said the NCAA would go to 128 and everybody had a real good laugh, and yet here we are on the verge of 96 (coming by degrees in the next 3 – 5 years) and it is not so funny now. As a fan I hate what I see coming, but it does not mean you or I will be able to stop it.
A big premise in all this is getting your team in. Say the NCAA goes to 96 in the near future, will it be that we will see a bigger slice of the bids go the mid and small teams? I hear this but I do not believe it. I think it will allow the top conferences to get even MORE of their teams in the dance.
Say the Big 16 is playing basketball in a 96 team field. They will guarantee more of their teams get in for two reasons.
a) they get a bigger slice of the pie
b) they have more content available to sell to the public that contains a Big 16 team in action.
As I said before, the beauty of the SEC was not in going to 12 to get a conference championship game. The real “forward thinking” was to use this to pretty much assure that it would be an SEC team in the NC game. Love them (the SEC) or hate them, you have to respect what they did by changing the playing field in their favor.
If delany is going down the road I get it. I also believe he already has the folks behind closed doors on board. Once he hits 13, we are in a new world. He will be insuring that the Big 16 will get 2 + 1 in the MAJOR bowls EVERY year (with possibly more). The SEC 16 + Pac10Big12 16 will follow suit. and everybody else will be fighting for a 1 + 1? slot every year with little ability to match the BIG 3 in getting more of the pie. Football is a capital intensive sport that does not reward the weak.
Personally if delaney pulls this off it will be pretty cool, but as a fan I do not think it will be good for the sport that I grew up with. I am older, the football I know will fade away, like the game my dad played is now only old B/W photos. Things change and evolve and I feel pretty sure if my dad were alive today he would see just how much it has changed. I feel quite sure that the game I know would be a bit foreign to him but it would all be totally normal to me.
in the last 20 years I have seen families with kids replaced by corporate seats. Naming rights go to corporations instead of people or ideas. The rise of required “donations” and overpriced food and parking with monopolistic overtones. the younger you are the more normal this will seem as you were not around to see it done a different way.
People behind glass at a live event is surreal to me, and yet it has happened. People texting while the game is going on and not getting to know the people around them is surreal as well, and yet here we are. A day will come where you say Bo or Woody or Jo Pa and people will get a puzzled look on their face. My youth of Bobby, Joe B, Digger, and Denny has already been replaced by Roy and Coach K (thank god for Izzo to keep the Big 10 alive in basketball, and if Crean can it done to bring the Big 10 back to where it surpasses UNC vs Duke – yeah we all have dreams, this is one of mine).
The basic fact in all this is that things change, wether we like it or not. I will still be a basketball homer when the dust settles, and I am no where near the ledge..
If it feels better think 48 + 😉
ps.. I hate the thought of 48 + but it will come..
LikeLike
One thought, since the super conferences need at least 61 votes to retain control, how much thought is there to ending up with 5 conferences of 14?
That’s a very valid option, or even 6 at 14 or 5 at 16, 3 at 16 plus 2 at 12, etc. 14 makes for easier conference scheduling. Lots of things are still potentially in play. In fact I think it very unlikely that the ultimate end result will be 4 conferences of 16 each pulling out of the NCAA to form their own group.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is Big 10 better by adding ND or trying to accelerate their decline? - HawkeyeNation Forum
I don’t think it is a coincidence that the expansion talks are heating up in just as non-BCS schools are gaining football prowess. The key element in the whole expansion process that hasn’t really been discussed is the BCS Bowl system and absence of a playoff. I think this is driving the conference expansion decisions as much as anything.
Currently the payouts and road to BCS games and National Championships are dramatically screwed towards BCS conferences, as we all know. Delany’s name is often mentioned as one of, if not the, most important player pulling the strings behind the BCS scene. The Big Ten expansion can’t piss off anyone/any conference enough for Delany to lose his influence and force a change in the BCS system.
In basketball, the NCAA tourney proceeds are huge, but a large portion goes to funding other NCAA sports championships. This means compared to football relatively little goes back to the BCS conference schools. Add the even distribution, unlike the BCS and an all-inclusive playoff becomes terrible for the BCS schools. A playoff all renders “Super Conferences” largely irrelevant. TV contracts, media coverage, presumption of superiority of BCS Conferences all fades with a playoff.
The expansion of the Big Ten that would push expansion of a few others is less a competition and more a consolidation of power among the key BCS Conferences.
LikeLike
Alex UD..
DING DING.. your last sentence is what I am seeing with the BIG 3 argument.. and the next age of media and college football..
LikeLike
Another issue to consider if it turns out we’re heading to a Conference Realignment Armageddon:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/04/21/mwc.bcs.meetings.ap/index.html?eref=sircrc
Nothing really new in that article other than a confidence-boosting report from the MWC commissioner to conference members reporting that the conference is on a good path to receiving an automatic BCS berth, beginning in 2012.
If massive realignment occurs, I’ve argued that there would be incentives in place, in a theoretical 4×16 realignment, to limit inclusion to existing BCS players.
But if the MWC really were on a path to BCS membership, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of existing BCS schools to cherry-pick three or four MWC schools, incorporate them into the new BCS conference structure somehow, and kill the MWC’s chances of BCS inclusion? The numbers start getting a bit shaky — getting 69 schools to fit into 64 slots is considerably harder than getting 65 to fit, but if that’s the price to shut Orren Hatch up, it might be worth it.
LikeLike
Are we really sure that all of the 5 expansion candidates mentioned in the initial Chicago Tribune add value to the Big10. Not so sure how this may change the dynamics of the numbers from Patrick and Frank. Maybe we are overstating some values. One thing is for sure, there is a lot of conjecture from the media and I think they don’t know jack just like us. When Penn State was added no one knew until the last minute.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0422-big-ten-expansion–20100421,0,3292846.story
“Delany also claimed that an analysis prepared for the league by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company did not conclude that any of the five schools analyzed — Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers — would add value to the league, as the Tribune reported last month.
Delany said that the firm “created some evaluative tools” to help the Big Ten understand the value of its television packages and revenue streams.”
LikeLike
Re conjections based on media (Prophetstruth)
“Delany also claimed that an analysis prepared for the league by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company did not conclude that any of the five schools analyzed — Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers — would add value to the league, as the Tribune reported last month.”
_________________
Interesting how slight mistatements in articles lead to assumptions lead to conclusions that may not be valid.
LikeLike
Exactly – you succinctly wrote what I was trying to convey.
LikeLike
WOAH!!!! Thank you for posting this article! This clears up a ton about the expansion!
“the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company did not conclude that any of the five schools analyzed — Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers — would add value to the league, as the Tribune reported last month.
Delany said that [b]the firm “created some evaluative tools” to help the Big Ten understand the value of its television packages and revenue streams.[/b]
The firm was helping the Big Ten understand how much more it could make by adding programing. I don’t think the overall question was does University A earn more money for the Big Ten…. it was does adding any team and increasing programs to the Big Ten Network add to the BTN bottom line. A secondary question was probably would the values / direction of these 5 schools fit with the Big Ten’s current menmbers. Sounds to me like Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, and Missouri made the cut…. ND didn’t…. maybe Nebraska is a replacement for ND… maybe Nebraska was #1 all along and they are trying to seperate the other 5, who knows? But out of that article, I took away that it was more of a television study to discover the BTN earning potential than a study of specific universities.
LikeLike
patrick,
take it one step further..
start looking at who is NOT on this list..
Nebraska, Texas, A&M, Maryland, etc..
If they do not work out you already have what the back ups look like..
LikeLike
@duffman,
Good point. Was there truly a need to study Texas or Texas A&M to see if they would work as a fit?
LikeLike
“Delany also claimed that an analysis prepared for the league by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company did not conclude that any of the five schools analyzed — Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers — would add value to the league, as the Tribune reported last month.”
Perhaps the key words above are “any of the five”. Maybe the report concluded that all five together would add value to the league but certainly not any one of them (outside of ND, of course)?
LikeLike
Re analysis by Blair (omnicarrier)
“Delany also claimed that an analysis prepared for the league by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company did not conclude that any of the five schools analyzed — Missouri, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers — would add value to the league, as the Tribune reported last month.
Delany said that the firm “created some evaluative tools” to help the Big Ten understand the value of its television packages and revenue streams.”
————————
As I understand the article, the analysis was NOT designed to determine profitability of specific schools, perhaps given so many unknownable variables.
Instead the analysis was to create “evaluative tools” designed to evaluate TV packages and revenue streams and compare the range of value that might be added by various candidates and perhaps even to benchmark them against ND even if ND is not considered a likely expansion candidate.
LikeLike
Frank (and everyone else too), what do you make of this article saying the Big East is going to get proactive?
http://www.nj.com/rutgers/index.ssf/2010/04/big_east_prepared_for_fight_if.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nj.com
Could this mean that the Big East has been informed of the changes coming and are not formulating a plan to deal with what’s coming?
On a Big East forum, recommended by Frank, they seem to think with Paul Tagliabue on board as a consultant, they can get Miami, Maryland and BC back in the BEast, a Big East Network and similar money as the Big10. I don’t see it happening.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=432177
LikeLike
@prophetstruth – NFW would Miami, Maryland and BC would touch the BE with a million foot pole. Less stability, less money and less academic prestige aren’t exactly great selling points. Note that Paul Tagliabue is the Chairman of the Board at Georgetown, so he has a vested interest in keeping the BE’s hybrid together (or at least protecting the Catholic members).
LikeLike
With the Providence basketball mafia currently running the Big East, their idea of proactive is probably asking Tagliabue to build up Georgetown’s football program so they can be a replacement for any of the current football teams that leave.
LikeLike
… and Villanova won the Nat’l Championship last year, right?… ;)))
by the way, Providence “currently” running the Big East… they’ve always run the Big East– in fact, it was their brainchild and their creation– give them some credit at least… geesh… they’ve pushed all the right buttons for thirty years…
LikeLike
Is Penn State in the Big Ten right now if the Big East pushed the right buttons over the last 30 years? Does the ACC raid get handled so badly?
Yes, the Big East was a great success as a basketball conference, and it started with Gavitt in Providence 30 years ago.
After Gavitt, it has been the equivalent of appointing the Fredo branch of the family to run things.
LikeLike
What’s with the references between Providence, mafia, Fredo, family, intertwined with (Tranghese) and (Marinatto)?
The Big East is the best basketball conference in the country. In football, they have an automatic bid. Half the schools have students bodies under 10k.
LikeLike
@prophetstruth – That first link was great! The picture of Paul Tagliabue with his right hand balled up in a fist and an angry scowl on his face was worth it for that alone. Maybe he’s preparing to pop someone good? Don’t mess with the Big East! Reminds me of the Hanson Brothers from Slapshot.
LikeLike
A sidebar regarding academics – Georgia Tech was just invited to the AAU (which was one school that I was always surprised to see that it wasn’t a member). This article goes into the worth of AAU membership and the invitation process:
http://chronicle.com/article/As-AAU-Admits-Georgia-Tech-to/65200/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
LikeLike
Frank..
The more I look at this it makes sense.. and I know I am about to piss some folks off but I think there is a bias or as some have said “academic snobbishment” with the AAU. On the simplest level it goes back to an earlier post where I spoke of like vs like. Consider the heisman (to keep this sports related) and who wins and it seems like two things pop out.
a) a bias to like vs like
a) a bias to follow what is already established
I do not want to start a debate on who is the greatest and I am allowing that the following schools USC, tOSU, and Alabama all produce top football teams. I was surprised to learn earlier this year that Bama winning the Heisman was their FIRST!. USC has SEVEN and tOSU has SEVEN. I am not here to argue that Alabama should have more, as history has come and gone and it would do no good. Frankly IU has not won one (and if they do it might be one of the signs of the end of the world) so I might be a little less biased, but it does make me wonder. IU is Ferris Bueller getting getting the computer instead of the car for the home gamers.
The early days of football probably was east coast biased (like follows like) and alot of folks covered Harvard vs Yale. I am not saying this was intentional but if I am a sportscaster in NYC, I am gonna probably see Harvard / Yale live and in person but may only read about some team in the deep south – see Alabama or some team in the far west that takes 3 days by train to see live. I am not claiming prejudice, just lack of mobility. Unwittingly tho I am establishing bias, wether intended or not.
As I also am a follower of horses and have noticed a bias in picking Derby horses from the east and west coast year after year. Then people are shocked when some horse from Florida or Arkansas (Unbridled & Lil E Tee) wins at long odds. Now I was in Florida watching Unbridled run that winter and when the horse hit Churchill at around 10 – 1 I was well rewarded for the media bias. Same with Lil E Tee, who had a wonderful owner with a life history in the sport upsetting the wonder horse Arazi when they met in Churchill. Lets just say I won some serious coin by not listening to the east / west coast media at the time.
Back to football, and the passing of time. Over the past century the Big 3 NYC, Chicago, and LA grew and prospered and lo and behold many of the Heisman winners are players fairly close to one of these 3 cities, and the Rose Bowl becomes the media darling as well. [ In an earlier blog Frank, myself and others pointed to the fact that elderly female family members who had no football comprehension ALWAYS still watch the Rose Bowl Parade]. Again, not placing blame on the media folks in the past.. but notice the Heisman winners from the Big 10 and USC. Again, IU is not getting one, but they are still winding up in the conference so who really cares.
But then along comes this blog and points out the flaws and bias in all our thinking because there is Ga Tech now, as the elephant in the room. I am willing to bet that not ONE blogger can say with a straight face that Ga Tech does not have the academic chops. I will also point out that not one poster on here would not give the boys in Atlanta their props when it come to research. Are they Bama in research? (and both getting love after all these years within months of each other is a bit ironic). More to the point, the early members of the AAU were East and Upper Midwest schools (California has come on strong in recent decades as the west coast has prospered greatly in the past century). this got me thinking about the bigger picture.
a) are big 10 blogging here being “perceived” as academic snobbery by the readers across the country?
b) is there a bias to include those we feel safer around “our comfort zone” in projecting what we think to the rest of the country?
I have some fairly close in-laws who grew up in NC and VA and went to UVA and UNC who have relocated for work / business to Louisville and Cincinnati. Granted they have given me grief over the past years on the “success” or lack thereof of IU basketball. Granted this is not a broad sample, and may have some bias. I posed the question of the ACC to the Big 10 or SEC and was a bit surprised. They seemed to favor the SEC! Now given the fact that several played scholarship sports (FB &BB) at their respective schools in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s – I am adding some bias.. What I draw from this is that they are older successful business owners who “donate” heavily to their alma maters and what they think may have more effect than what some 30 year old thinks or says. NOTE: in fairness, given the chance they would rather be independent.. but they may not have that chance in the future.
Like it or not, money talks and older people generally have more green than younger people. it is not that they are smarter or better, it just means they have had more time to accumulate it. Like it or not folks in their 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s will have the greatest say it what happens going forward until they die off and are replaced by a new generation of 50 – 60 – 70 year old folks.
if delaney becomes Darth Vader and the Big 10 becomes the Evil Empire in the next 12 – 18 months in the media. I say that now might not be the time to “bash” schools that at some point may join you! Again, maybe I am older but the smart move is to create ‘allies’ right now instead of ‘enemies’ at least until we actually know how this will all play out.
5 years ago I would have been on the bandwagon of OSU being inferior to be in the Big 10, but I must confess that they might not be bad long term. I keep looking at a Big 12 sweep to the Big 10 that includes T,A&M,OK,OSU, and Nebraska and it is growing on me. So why be so “snobby” to OK and OSU at this point when we do not have to be. Man up and be happy if it brings in T,A&M, and The Big Red!
a) this probably cripples the Pac 10 permanently going forward
b) this limits SEC expansion to the east only
Going forward I am going to take the AAU with a grain of bias (No I am not saying academics do not matter) with the following thought. Past history does not indicate future performance.
Just think of some county bumpkins that offered Harvard a HUGE pot of gold but were turned down when Harvard looked down their nose. These folks took their pot of gold and started a new school in their home state and named it STANFORD! Just something to think about.
LikeLike
@Duffman,
¨Going forward I am going to take the AAU with a grain of bias (No I am not saying academics do not matter) with the following thought. Past history does not indicate future performance.¨
I think this is the key, and the same point can be related across the board to athletics. The distinction you have to make though is between unfounded hope and rational projection.
The next task for the Big 10 is to research in depth each of these candidates and find out what direction they´re going and what kind of support the conference would have from university administrators and state legislators.
For example, it is one thing for Missouri´s governor to announce, from an academic standpoint, that he´d welcome a move to the Big 10 but a whole other thing for him to commit the state, over the long term, to greater funding and access to the resources it needs to be competitive. To me, this is the key: not where any of these schools rank in the US News or BCS rankings today but the commitment and potential they show toward the future.
LikeLike
And now a sports sidebar – the NCAA Tournament will expand to 68 teams with 4 play-in games (instead of 96). Common sense prevails for once!!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307
LikeLike
Great news!
And a preview of the #1 gripe during the 2011 tournament: “Dammit, my team’s game is on TruTV, and I don’t have that in HD. Why are they trying to screw my school so badly?”
LikeLike
Followed by the #2 gripe.
“How did School A’s 7-9 conference record get deemed superior to School B’s 7-9 conference record???”
LikeLike
Who would have been the extra three teams this year? Were any of them sub-.500 in conference play?
LikeLike
Pingback: Which team joining the Big 10 helps Iowa out the most. - Page 2 - HawkeyeNation Forum
Despite the post by MichiganPHd regarding Texas, I still think that Texas is a target. Maybe Notre Dame is still in the mix. After-all,their AD keeps saying they would prefer to remain independent and will try like hell to stay that way. I kind of read this as preparing the faithful for the inevitable. Maybe this next 6-12 months is the campaign for their constituency.
I say this about Texas because of what former Penn State President Bryce Jordan said:
“I thought all along that the Big Ten would add a 12th school after Penn State’s entry, and that would lessen the geographic issue. There was even some talk of adding my own alma mater, the University of Texas. The conference could divide north and south into six teams.”
http://live.psu.edu/story/13566
http://www.sesquicentennial.psu.edu/2005_jordan/
Maybe that was the beginning of the long-term planning process to bring Texas into the fold later.
LikeLike
Here’s another crazy, but slightly possible, option:
Texas forms the Bigger 12, but lures ND. Say the P10 with its unanimous vote can’t agree on a package of teams TX wants. SEC wants and will get VT and FSU (or FSU and Miami, or any other valuable 2 school combo) and only wants UT and aTm or UT and OU (too many SEC schools balked at changing the divisions.) TX wants to be king of its own hill, doesn’t think the ACC and P10 will get to 16 schools, believes that there will continue to be 4 or more BCS bowls and a plus one title game afterwards, and has reports showing their local cable sports network startup would be successful (or perhaps has a partnership with the P10 and/or ACC.) In this case a virtual B12 might be viable.
Would be set up on a Southwest Airlines discount model, relatively poor for most schools with uneven revenue sharing but at least an entry level league for schools desperate to be in a BCS AQ conference. ND, OU, TX, aTm, and perhaps BYU would capture most revenue and have the votes to keep this system. Could have a Texas division of TX, TT, aTm, Baylor, TCU, UH and a north division of OU, OK St, BYU, CSU, KS and ND (or perhaps Navy instead of CSU or KS if the B10+ took the latter.)
The lure for ND would be a 7-game conference schedule that would allow them the scheduling flexibility of 2 or 3 more OOC games than the 16-school conferences could. 5 division games, 1 guaranteed annual cross-conference game (to preserve TX-OU) and 1 cross-conference game rotating the other 5 teams. Gives ND 1 or 2 games every year in the Texas recruiting grounds and 5 OOC to accommodate annual games against Michigan, USC, and Navy plus 2 more to work with (perhaps alternate MSU/Purdue/Standford and the 5th a permanent home game against a rotation of buy-offs.) If Navy is in conference, that’s even more enticing.
To those who point to the SWC breakup and say Texas couldn’t support that many teams, the SWC died 15 years ago when there were 8 Texas schools and just 19 million residents. Today it would 6 schools for 24+ million and adding a million every 2.5 years. Replacing NE, MO, CO, KSU, and ISU with TCU, BYU, ND, UH, and Navy or CSU actually increases the B12’s schedule strength.
But a big stumbling block would be getting the BCS AQ. The traditional process is multi-year, and keeping the B12’s would require keeping undesirable teams. Seems like a long shot to applying for and getting a waiver for start up qualification.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of ifs. The Big 12 doesn’t offer any monetary advantage to ND right now, and won’t be able to for three years.
Why on Earth would the Big 12 divest Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Kansas State, and Iowa State in favor of Houston, TCU, BYU, Colorado State and ND? Outside of ND, those choices would be a step backward. You lose huge alumni bases, saturate Texas markets you already control and add inferior football programs.
LikeLike
Why on Earth would the Big 12 divest Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Kansas State, and Iowa State in favor of Houston, TCU, BYU, Colorado State and ND?
They wouldn’t. The hypothetical was based on the P10 and B10+ raiding Co, NE, MO, maybe KS, and simply presenting a little discussed option that TX might have. What would make it feasible is the uneven revenue sharing, even more than present, that would give power programs like TX, OU, aTm, and ND another possibility. The lower schools would be revenue poor but at least be in a BCS AQ conference and all the name recognition, prestige, and resulting donor $’s that brings.
Here’s a wackier one. TX talks about going independent, which I think is nuts. But what if the independence was actually forming a conference of Texas state D1 schools to promote these system schools? Start with UT, aTm, UH, and TT. In an average year 3 of the 4 are ranked in the top 25 at some point of the season. Then go with N. TX and UTEP, the other FBS schools. Finally add UT-Arlington and UT-San Antonio, two of the D1 FCS schools with FBS ambitions.
Of course that is a weak schedule, but allows 5 OOC games to bulk that up, preferably playing a top 25 team from each of the B16, Pwhatever, and SEC (OU for UT.) Perhaps even a 4th OOC top 25 to account for down years. People complain about the big schools in most conferences sneaking by with relatively weak schedules, so perhaps playing a weaker but shorter conference schedule plus 3 to 4 tough OOC games could impress pollsters and computers. A UT that plays TT, aTm, UH, OU, USC, IA, and Clemson in the same year is going to rank high in the BCS, regardless of the other stiffs on the schedule. That’s about the same as, oh, say: Charleston Southern, Troy, Tenn, KY, LSU, AR, MS St, UGA, Vandy, S. Car, FL Int’l, and FL St.
Another huge flaw: no AQ. But that’s no different than going independent.
OTOH, Longhorn Sports Network becomes Lone Star Sports Network, with multiple more content and a great marketing platform for the state system schools (including the non-conference ones.) The state wants to retain more of its kids, and this could be a way to get the legislature to foot more of the channel start up costs.
Highly unlikely. but in the 1 in 1000 chance this happens, I’ll be an internet visionary!
LikeLike
@ Playoffs Now!
Not possible.
No way ND *and* the Texas schools turn down the Big Ten to join some SWC/MWC hybrid. The just about the only way to force ND into a conference is if we were down to 4 sixteen team superconferences and ND can’t make a schedule. This model is predicated on having at least 5 BCS conferences. Also, all of what Gopher86 says.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now–
If ND is thinking outside the box and opts to stay out of the Big Ten, but then decides that some sort of affiliation is necessary, I would agree with you that some sort of marriage with Texas is possible, and there are two reasons why:
1) Texas seems comfortable with the notion that it’s looking out for #1. It demands — and gets — an outsized share of Big XII revenue for example. In this respect, Texas already has a quasi-independent mindset.
2) I’ve not seen this mentioned anywhere, but I think that long-term, especially given the way demographics in this country are headed, ND is very serious — especially as a Catholic institution — in branding itself as the university of choice for bright Hispanics. I think this was partly why they chose San Antonio for this past season’s “neutral” site game. In this respect, formally marrying up with Texas and essentially formalizing its presence there makes sense.
LikeLike
I think that long-term, especially given the way demographics in this country are headed, ND is very serious — especially as a Catholic institution — in branding itself as the university of choice for bright Hispanics.
That seems like a lucrative strategy. Even if it results in just a small percentage increase among Hispanics, the base is large. Plus many 1st and some 2nd-generation children are the first to attend a major university and thus aren’t directed towards schools as a legacy.
LikeLike
This would, in my opinion, be a very good way for Notre Dame to market itself. While the number of Catholics in the US has been relatively steady, the numbers would be sliding if it were not for the influx of Hispanic Catholics.
However, if this is Notre Dame’s intent, they have a ways to go. As I pointed out earlier, Notre Dame actually has fewer Hispanics than the national average, despite the fact that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen this idea mentioned before. If the aforementioned superconferences actually form and quit the NCAA, would they possibly expand their football schedule? A team from a 16 school conference split into two 8 school divisions could play everyone in its division (7 games) and half or more of the schools in the other division (4 or 5 games depending if a balanced home/away schedule is desired) for a total of 11/12 conference games. This would help preserve conference cohesion and greatly expand a conference’s football inventory. If member schools were allowed 3 non conference games, that’s a 14/15 game schedule with the possibility for 9 home games per school. How would this change the economics involved in expansion?
LikeLike
Andy Staples is reporting via twitter that the BCS is going to reveal its formula for non-automatic qualifier conferences to gain automatic qualifier status.
‘The BCS has released the formula for how a non-AQ conference becomes an AQ conference. Will post a story shortly.’
It should have an effect on how the Mountain West and Pac Ten play their cards. It may have some implifications for the Big East down the road, as well.
LikeLike
@Gopher86
Finally, I have something more directly relevant to my interests to fixate on. Here’s a blog that handles the math. Looks like the MWC is doing okay in two out of three categories and needs a little help in the third:
http://www.byucougs.com/2010/04/official-bcs-conference-standings.html?showComment=1272035065391_AIe9_BHaonRvhWKQGcYO1ly8j1x_95VdCmIlu2hDhwRKjynNlh9awhQCy3tsxMqgVenNKqIIDZKc011_Vhc2i-RA0qeV7YhYoZTR7ExhjLklSBC8Z0xiZS6kPW7Eav3V-fPUGfEPNawszyXuaF0jgVE6Sdg81-MUx-zcjKsUC4jEJQtQ3zJGK8j3o3Vt8p8YMn5X7tc8FrUUAL_KSE64RUj2R4PhTdOmQCu1u64mDo3LwqvVAZiiYPU#c4303043495415675526
LikeLike
Or here, if you’re into the whole brevity thing:
http://www.byucougs.com/
LikeLike
Pingback: Could the Big 10 and Big East Team Up? - HawkeyeNation Forum
Tom Shatel calls his “sources” who say Nebraska is in the mix (Yesterday he said Nebraska wasn’t being considered).
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100422/BIGRED01/100429826
LikeLike
This is kind of funny, actually. Nebraska is out, Nebraska is in, everything he hears is disinformation. Nonetheless, Shatel is busy writing away, all the while admitting that he doesn’t know whether anything he is writing has any validity whatsoever.
LikeLike
This isn’t suprising for Shatel or the Omaha World Herald. Many of us thought he was way off base (and maybe hoping) on the initial story.
LikeLike
Utah AD makes non-denial about contacted by Pac-10.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/utes/index.php?p=14647&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
All of the talk about the Pac-10 going to 16 is utter and complete garbage. This is the conference that turned down Texas not that long ago. The idea that 6 schools exist that could remotely pass muster have no basis in any form of reality. I am fairly certain that even A&M, a school which almost any other conference would love to have, has little chance of receiving approval from the People’s Republic of Berkeley due to its designation as a senior military college (i.e. like Virginia Military Institute or The Citadel). It just is not happening.
LikeLike
Maybe if Texas really wants in to the Pac 10, it may have to bring along Rice (!) if A&M and Tech (“guns up”) and Baylor (Waco, conservative, sectarian) are unacceptable to Berkeley and Stanford (and maybe UCLA and U of W). I suspect that if the Pac 10 feels the need to keep on as a going concern, and Larry Scott makes the case forcefully enough, maybe Stanford et al. could be persuaded to swallow A&M as the cost of bringing in the Texas powerhouse. But Stanford is probably impervious to all this, considering that its endowment is huge and athletic revenue an afterthought.
LikeLike
Please, leave Rice out of the BCS discussions. We’re more likely to go to D3 than an AQ conference.
LikeLike
Frank;
Just a few comments to make.
1. Not a whole lot new here. The advertising component of revenue from the BTN has been an assumption driving expansion all along. Why treat it as news?
2. If expansion goes east, the big prize is the New York City TV market and your guest assumes that Rutgers and/or Syracuse can deliver it. This is a HUGE stretch. H-U-G-E!!! When it comes to football eyeballs, which is where the $$$ is, NYC is and has always been an NFL town. Syracuse and Rutgers football draw yawns from NYC.
3. The REAL magnet for NYC football eyeballs is Notre Dame. I believe he vastly overstates Syracuse & Rutgers potential contribution while vastly understating Notre Dame’s. Notre Dame will draw more NYC eyeballs than either Syracuse or Rutgers, but, more importantly, will also greatly expand the national audience. And it’s the national audience that makes N.D. so attractive. NBC recognized this years ago with their exclusive N.D. contract.
4. Likewise, Pitt’s contribution is questionable. What Pennsylvania eyeballs will Pitt deliver that aren’t already deliverd by PSU? The difference is minimal. Pitt’s size puts it roughly on a par with Northwestern and Iowa. This is one of the defects in your guest’s analysis.
Alsace Man
LikeLike
Alsace Man,
I think even more of the value in adding teams is the added games (FB & BB). Even more than advertising.
I assumed Syracuse with and without NYC. I assumed Rutgers with NYC because it is in the NYC tv market. If Rutgers can’t deliver their home market they are completely useless. I didn’t want to artificially add the HUGE NYC market to Notre Dame, it seems disingenious. If I ran the numbers again, and had more long term data I would use national tv ratings from the schools also.
According to the national tv ratings for games, you are correct Syracuse and Rutgers get terrible ratings, but Pitt and Nebraska get better ratings than Notre Dame. Here is the chart.. http://media.pennlive.com/davidjones/photo/bigten-1gif-cafc3a6ce509bd0a.gif for Notre Dame you can google ND tv ratings… that data is easily availbable.
Syracuse & UConn might deliver Basketball tv sets from NYC though and that can’t be ignored. Thanks for the comments.
LikeLike
Patrick.
If LIVE events are the true cash cows, why is basketball not more of a driving force with expansion?
LikeLike
Many more viewers for football. It’s just ratings.
That said… adding a major slate of basketball games, while not rating as high as football, will bring in more viewers than Big Ten Tonight or a replay of Purdue’s spring football game.
LikeLike
as a basketball fan, my observation..
a) with the NCAA and conference tourneys .. it dilutes the regular season games. You can lose your regular season conference, and still play your way into the NCAA tourney by winning your conference tourney (if it is an automatic bid slot).
b) early non conference schedule must compete with pro and college football overlap. Choosing between end of season drama and early season “meh” is pretty simple.
c) football has fewer games, so more MUST watch games. Say you are tOSU you need EVERY regular season win you can get for a NC shot. In CB, you can skip the exhibition games and the early season “creme puffs” and not miss anything. Add in a 30 game season, and you can skip a few “meh” games and still be OK come tourney time. So less MUST SEE TV…
LikeLike
@alsace
As I’ve stated else-where, I don’t believe the value of those schools, in relation to the ABC/ESPN tv contract, is to “be able to deliver the NYC DMC”. Their value in this context is to provide the local area markets for when OTHER big name programs come to town. Rutgers doesn’t deliver NYC. When PSU, OSU, UoM, etc come to Rutgers, THAT delivers the NYC area (or at least a portion significant enough to entice ABC/ESPN) for that week. The problem is ABC/ESPN only wants to pay for those couple games, but the “Rutgers” of the world take a full share of any tv contract. However, if a conference has its own dedicated tv channel it can not only make up the difference, but also add on top of it via the local ad revenue generated by local sports events.
LikeLike
@alsace – You are correct that ND is the #1 favorite college football team for NYC, and is certainly Top 5 in the nation. This will add many viewers to the NATIONAL TV contracts. But it won’t add NYC to the BTN since, at best, only two of their football games are going to be shown on the BTN.
The Big Ten already has the #2 favorite college football team for NYC, PSU. And again, due to the Nits NATIONAL popularity, they also are only likely to get on the BTN two times, with the rest shown on ABC/ESPN.
The #3 and #4 favorite college football teams are Rutgers and Syracuse. It is very likely 5, 6, or even more of each of those college’s games will make the BTN.
IMHO, the best strategy to get the BTN on at full-price in the NYC market for the cable providers is to target ND, SU, and RU so they have all four. But in reality, PSU, SU, and RU will probably be enough.
As I understand it DirecTV, DISH, and Verizon FioS have national contracts with the Big Ten. So since the BTN is a “state model” not a DMA model – which some posters here seem to forget – New York state subscribers using those providers will automatically go to full price (whatever that full price was negotiated with these ADS providers) should Syracuse be added to the Big Ten and the same is true of New Jersey subscribers, should Rutgers be added to the Big Ten.
However, the split between wired cable and ADS providers in the NYC DMA is 87/13 in favor of cable – the national average is 69/31. So it is Cablevision and Time Warner who the Big Ten will need to convince to add the BTN to basic cable in the NYC market to even have a chance to make expansion to 14 or 16 profitable. Four games in a short 15 week period is not going to excite either to fork over $0.70 a month per subscriber.
One of the reasons why ESPNU got added to Time Warner in the states of New York and New Jersey was precisely because ESPN started putting the bulk of SU and RU games on that channel.
If the league intends to expand beyond 12, it needs one big name team if going to 14 and probably 2 if going to 16. But to make it financially feasible to go beyond 12, it will need many new BTN subscribers that to make it financially possible. So the Big Ten either needs to look southwest to the state of Texas or east to the states of New York and New Jersey. Right now the focus appears eastward.
Personally I hope that they simply add Mizzou and call it a day.
LikeLike
I grew up in Connecticut and always heard the NYC market for CFB was as follows:
1. ND
2. PSU
3. Syracuse / Rutgers
4. Michigan / Miami.
After that, its a crapshoot. I agree that Syracuse and Rutgers are critical to the BTN in NYC, and with PSU, as well as to a lesser extent UM, and then national names such as Nebraska or OSU, would be enough.
I think the most likely outcome right now if ND is out is Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Nebraska and Missouri. Big 10 will take teams from two conference as it then can’t be accused of completely killing one conference.
LikeLike
Re NY market (Justin)
Truth is despite all the number experts and confident statements no one can really make realistic predictions for a simple reason.
If SU and RU were in a conference with PSU and other major Big 10 schools, you are creating a historically unique situation.
First because PSU has been largely absent from playing eastern teams for perhaps 20 some years; second because RU has improved their program greatly in the last 7 years and SU is in process of returning to being competitive after reaching its nadir these last several years.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess the dynamics of regional interest in NY-NJ would over a period of time change drastically to follow the new contiguous “Northeast” conference of PSU, RU, SU.
At that point, the Big East would only have Pitt and UConn unless they are part of the expansion and the ACC would only have BC unless they added teams cited above that were left out.
The key question for the Big 10 is which of the 4 northeast teams do they want and which do they want to leave behind for the ACC.
The best theoretical strategy is of course to add Texas and ND. Somehow I would be surprised if the Big 10 wants to keep sitting around waiting for those teams.
LikeLike
Wow, so while the B10+ was thinking about adding some schools, the B12 apparently added the NFL draft. 5 of 6 picks so far.
LikeLike
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA….
*wipes tears from eyes and milk nose from computer screen*
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21659/swarbrick-notre-dame-will-monitor-our-environment
Swarbrick keeps talking.
LikeLike
The more I think about this, the more I think RU, Pitt, and Neb is the obvious way to go. 2 schools for the nerds, 1 for the jocks.
1 football powerhouse, 1 all-time top 20 football program, and 1 football program with “potential”. Although Rutgers football has historically sucked, I think the odds that it turns out to be an IU or Minnesota in the Big 10 are long. There is too much football talent in NJ.
As an IU fan, I’m not thrilled with the basketball implications of this option, but it is what it is……
I don’t think the Big 10 will go with RU, Missouri, and Neb. because that would be adding 2 teams which would be rated at the bottom of the Big 10 academically. I think that will be a step too far for the presidents. Had ND also been willing to join, that would have provided a little more academic “cover” for Mo and Neb.
I hate to say Mo is probably out, ’cause I’ve always liked it as a candidate. However, I just don’t see how RU, Pitt, and Mo is “sexy” enough at this point.
LikeLike
God: I agree that RU and Pitt will not be a Minn and IU on the football field. Given their record versus BT over the last 10 years I suspect they will end up being consistently tier 2 with Wisc, Iowa, MSU. Some years tier 3 with Minn, NW, Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue. I also would include Missouri in with RU and Pitt as tier 2. Syracuse within 2-3 years will be in this group tier 2 too. I do think that like the EPL, tier 2 and 3 will have movers up and down each year but Wisc, NSU, Iowa, Pitt, Rutgers, Missouri, Syracuse will more often than not fall in tier 2 each year
Nebraska on the other hand will be tier 1 and will make the Big 3 into the Big 4. There record over the last 10 years versus the Big Ten bears that out.
The overall competitiveness of the conference will be raised not diluted downward.
LikeLike
I’m going to say something nice about Syracuse……I agree it’s likely they’ll get back to being a top 20-25 football program before long.
That being said, they’ll have to do something within 15 years or so about the dark, dingy, musty, aging Carrier Dome to remain viable.
LikeLike
Jerry,
As a cuse fan I can only hope they get back on track too. I honestly think Marrone has them on track and that this upcoming season will be a breakthrough for the program.
That said I completely agree about the Carrier Dome. Our current AD has actually made lots of minor upgrades over the last few years, but I think the administration is just trying to milk the last 10-15years out of the Carrier Dome before building a new stadium.
The AD has dropped some interested comments lately about possibly turning the dome into a “retractable roof stadium” but I personally think that wont happen until it is completely rebuilt.
LikeLike
Personally, I’d be fine with the Carrier Dome so long as Syracuse plays one home conference game a year in Buffalo and another in the Meadowlands. Say their home games against Michigan, PSU, and OSU in Buffalo, and 1 against the other original 8 Big10 teams in the Meadowlands.
LikeLike
@Richard – “Personally, I’d be fine with the Carrier Dome so long as Syracuse plays one home conference game a year in Buffalo and another in the Meadowlands.”
The Meadowlands will happen (we already are playing USC and ND there), but I don’t see anything happening in Buffalo.
LikeLike
Maybe not now, but if the Bills move all or part of their schedule to Toronto, there’s a vacancy there to take advantage of.
LikeLike
Someone made a very astute observation somewhere above, the subtlety of which escaped me until I read this article….
Delaney said something to the effect of ‘we are looking for teams that are going to be good fits for the next 20-25 years”….
At the time I wondered why he didn’t say “next 75-100” years. I passed it off as him just saying we don’t know what the long-term future holds….but I agree with the poster above that it was more likely a message directed at ND. I think he was saying, in effect, “join us, or we might add 5 schools, and you’ll regret it 20 years from now…”.
In turn, I think the ND AD is sending 2 messages. By leaking word that ND would even partner up with the other catholic schools before joining the Big 10, he is saying “there’s no way in hell I can sell this to my lunatic fanbase right now”. On the other hand, by saying he is “monitoring events”, he’s telling Delaney “Don’t add Syracuse, KU, or U Conn, we just might be along in another 5 years or so. Go with 3 and we’ll see what happens”.
LikeLike
Shrooms:
I appreciate what you’re saying, but personally, I think the powers that be at Notre Dame can pick up a phone and be a lot more direct than to give hidden messages that are open to interpretation.
And second, I cannot see the Big Ten not doing what is in the interests of the Big Ten (inviting teams to bring in lots more cash now and for the foreseeable future) in the hope that maybe, someday, Notre Dame might join.
I know a lot of people really want Notre Dame to join the Big Ten, but I just don’t see Notre Dame as being that essential for what the Big Ten wants to do. And it comes with an awful lot of baggage–not only for the Big Ten, but for those running Notre Dame.
LikeLike
@ Scott S
Who wants ND in the Big Ten (besides ND Grad students)? Seriously? We know Big Ten Fans hate us. ND fans want no part of any conference in football, particularly the Big Ten because we know they hate us.
Who keeps wanting us to pair up?
LikeLike
A lot of people seem to like the pairing of ND and the BT. Sport writers, fans… even many who write on this website. I’d imagine even many of the academics at ND can see an advantage.
As for the BT hating ND, I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly don’t hate ND. There’s actually much to admire about the school. However, for the most part, I’m just indifferent. For instance, I don’t particularly care who wins when ND plays Utah or Western Michigan next year any more than I care what Clemson’s record is next year or whether BYU wins a game against Wyoming. It just doesn’t affect me in any way.
I do find a lot of the statements domers make to justify their position to be be nonsensical. (As I’ve pointed out previously.) And I do find a lot of their statements to be overly boastful and unnecessarily insulting to others, but I think it’s a result of this “It’s us against them”, “David vs. Goliath”, “Everyone’s out to get us”, “Everyone hates us”, little brother mentality that seems to be drummed into Notre Dame students.
LikeLike
I don’t think Big10 Fans hate ND. I have no feelings other than as a rivalry type thing. I root against them, Duke, Florida, and USC equally because I’m not a fan. That doesn’t mean hate. I rib my ND friends and that’s about it.
I respect ND. Almost all Big10 fans do. Do you honestly believe the Big10 would want you in our Family if we didn’t have a sibling rivalry with ND and truly like you.
We think ND is a great academic and athletic University that if they were a member of the Big10 I and most other Big10 fans would root for ND. As an Iowa fan I still foot for conference brothers Illinois, Northwestern, Penn State, Wisconsin and Minnesota except when I mad they beat us.
Maybe ND should remain an only child because they don;t understand family.
LikeLike
@FLP: I’ll bite. I do think some BigTen fans “hate” ND. But for the same reasons fans from other teams often hate ND. That is, for feeling ND gets preferential treatment based on glory years long since past, all the more aggravated by a stereotype of smugness by ND fans.
Do all Big Ten fans feel this way? No, but I know some do. Much like I’m sure not all ND fans have a smug sense of superiority, but some do.
That said, I think the majority of Big Ten “hate” comes from the fact you have three decent rivalries going with our conference members already in Michigan, MSU, and Purdue, and some people see a (quasi) hypocrisy in touting your independence with one foot in the conference door. ND fans obviously feel differently. I imagine the fans of those three schools think of you along the same lines Ohio State fans think of Penn State. That is, a desire to win against, and a grudging respect for, what’s perceived to be a big-time opponent even in down years. Ultimately, being in the Big Ten would be the same. Passionate fan bases with respect for ND but a desire for their team to win.
I can’t imagine that feeling is any different for USC, Stanford, etc. that frequents the ND schedule. I’m not sure why ND fans would think it should be different. Except perhaps because once ND plays USC they go home, while ND shares a state with Purdue and has to deal with them all the time.
LikeLike
You’re right Scott, the ND AD isn’t speaking directly to JD….but he is feeling the need to keep opening his fat Domer mouth about the process. If his “no” was really a “hell no” he wouldn’t have to yap about “monitoring” the situation. The only thing that makes sense to me is that he’s trying to influence the course of the expansion, #s wise, as I can’t imagine he would do a 180 at this point and accept an invite.
LikeLike
Pingback: A history Lesson: The case against a 16 team Super-Conference « The Pole's Position
What do you guys make of the recent news out of the Big East? Specifically, what do you make of these recent comments by Paul Tagliabue, Big East Commish and Big East Associate Commish:
Big East Associate Commish: “we wish we could disclose what is happening right now, however in short time we will some and it will be ground breaking”.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=432340
Paul Tagliabue: Tagliabue, who played basketball at Georgetown, admits that he is a bit of a novice when it comes to the nuances of college sports. But he had some stern words for how the Big Ten is handling its potential expansion. “It’s very disruptive to everyone outside of the Big Ten,” Tagliabue said in a phone interview on Thursday. “Everything outside the Big Ten is held in artificial suspension. The Big Ten looks at a bunch of choices and everyone else has to deal with the depreciating value and a ton of negativity. I hope there’s a better way. Otherwise it’s going to have a terrible negative effect on everyone other than the schools in the Big Ten.”
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/tagliabue-has-stern-words-for-big-ten/
Big East Commish: “I don’t think they know,” Marinatto said. “I think that’s why Jim is saying this is a very long and elongated process.
“The first night he called me on this, he said it’s a study. He said, ‘John, we don’t know yet. We’ve already done this three times over the past 20 years. This will be the fourth time.”’
http://sundaygazettemail.com/Sports/201004221023
In the article above, the Big East Commish has sought the advice of JD. Does anyone else think that they have been informed and this is talk preparing for the inevitable?
On another note, I am not sure what’s up with some of the comments on the blog. I feel a lot of Big10 vile hatred that is more than rivalry. I don’t remember this type of vile behavior when the ACC invited teams from the Big East.
LikeLike
Does anyone else think that fertile recruiting areas will play a significant role in who the Big10 selects.
I was shocked to see that NY state had only 28 Div-I football athletes last year. By comparison, TX had over 400! NE – 6, NJ – 59, MO – 24, CT – 12.
http://www.maxpreps.com/football-signing-day/football/home.htm
LikeLike
Barnhart on SEC expansion. Just conjecture without a lot of thought. SMU and TCU to the Big 12 for a total of 6 Texas schools to “further lock down the Dallas market.” I assure you, the market is fully locked down without those two schools.
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/04/23/would-the-sec-look-to-the-acc-in-expansion/?cxntfid=blogs_barnhart_college_football
LikeLike
I wish he would’ve explained why BYU or Utah (or even Boise St. or TCU for that matter) wouldn’t be his top picks for the Big 12 replacement teams.
The other thing I like about his scenario is that it doesn’t presume the “NEED” for all conferences to go to 16. I’ve lamented all along that I can’t envision a way for the PAC10 to expand. He says–they won’t. The parallelism between a b-ball strong/football weak ACC at 1o teams and the PAC10 staying put makes a lot of sense.
It doesn’t make sense that the Big 12 stays put at 12 though. Why would only the SEC and Big 10 be interested in going to 16? The same factors that motivate the Big10/SEC would motivate everyone else.
Not a bad scenario he’s invented, but I don’t see the Big 12 as being as stable as he makes out to be.
LikeLike
No one’s considered it, but yes, the Big12 _could_ expand to 16. Say they lose Mizzou & Nebraska and replace them with 6 of Utah/BYU/TCU/Houston/Memphis/Louisville/Cincy.
Say they take both Texas schools but not Louisville (smallest city/state of the bunch). The Big16 South would be in just Texas & Oklahoma while the North would stretch from Utah to Cincinnati. Texas would like the travel distance. Tough to see much money made, though, so for this to appeal to Texas, they’d probably have to take in a huge chunk of the TV revenue.
I think it’s more likely that the remainder of the Big12 merges with the Pac10.
LikeLike
Another stab at ranking the candidates.
I took the list of projected revenue in the original post and tried to combine it with the numbers in the NSF research report listed above. To make things simpler, I normed each number to the average for that parameter, that is, if a school’s projected revenue is twice the average of the schools on the list they got a 2.00. I then took the two numbers and combined them 60/40 in favor of research (hey, I have to at least attempt to think like a president). The results:
1.93 Texas
1.64 Pittsburgh
1.31 Maryland
1.28 Rutgers WITH NYC
0.96 Nebraska
0.92 Missouri
0.86 Kansas
0.83 Connecticut
0.77 Iowa State
0.60 Notre Dame
0.47 Boston College
0.43 Syracuse
I’m not sure this tells us anything we didn’t already know. But hey, it was worth a shot.
Pitt certainly comes out higher than I would have thought a few months ago when I fell into the trap of reading this blog. And ND has fallen a lot in my estimation.
LikeLike
I don’t want Notre Dame in the new Big 10, but any method that puts Iowa State over Notre Dame has to be questioned.
While I’m commenting, my biggest concern about expansion is watering down the product that makes the Big 10 so popular, a la the ACC.
We love the Big 10 because it is made up of (1) large midwestern universities full of die-hard fans, and (2) great regional rivalries. I’m afraid that adding UConn or Rutgers or Syracuse will severely reduce the attractiveness of the Big 10 as a product. Pitt makes sense as a rival for PSU. That kind of rivalry is what makes the Big 10 great (think UM vs. MSU). For these reasons, I would much favor an expansion that looks more towards the west.
My dream conference would be this:
EAST (Eastern Time Zone)
Penn St.
Pitt
Ohio St.
Michigan
Michigan St.
Purdue
Indiana
WEST (Central Time Zone)
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Nebraska
This alignment would still feel like the Big 10.
LikeLike
Added bonus of my proposal is that it would still leave room to add Notre Dame to the east and Texas to the west.
LikeLike
Added Bonus: Paul’s 14-team proposal would cover ten states thus giving the conference the excuse to continue to call themselves the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The problem is you lose your leverage to gain Texas if Texas wants A&M.
The optimal “end game” (probably years from now) is to have Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska added as well as 2 others.
But if we add Pitt and Missouri at the beginning, then we have to convince Texas to come in alone so we still have space for Notre Dame.
I think you’d first invite Nebraska alone this year to go to a Big Ten (12).
Then, you try to bring in Texas/A&M or Notre Dame/Pitt or Notre Dame/Missouri.
Finally you bring in whichever pair you didn’t earlier (if the Texas pair, then bring in one of the Notre Dame/Missouri pairings).
The key to locking down all 3 of Texas/Nebraska/Notre Dame seems to be destabilizing the situation by breaking up the Big 12 by targeting Nebraska and then going for Notre Dame and Texas each with their own pairing (Pitt/Missouri for Notre Dame or A&M for Texas).
Once you go to a Big 14 without Texas and Notre Dame, it seems very difficult to me to get both. The Big 10 needs an inside straight to land all three, we can’t throw the extra 2 slots too early…
LikeLike
We’re not going to get ND (and that’s probably for the better). The Big10 would be quite happy to add Texas & TAMU to an existing 14 school conference. I daresay, when you add in the research aspect, Texas+TAMU brings more to the Big10 than Texas+ND.
LikeLike
“We’re not going to get ND (and that’s probably for the better).”
There’s a better shot of the Big Ten getting ND than Texas.
Think about it. ND admin wants in, alums don’t. Texas alums are ok with Big Ten but admins aren’t.
Texas admins want an academic conference that they will have control over, or at worse co-control over. That’s the Pac-10 where they will share power with USC.
LikeLike
@ Omnicarrier
I’m not so sure. I think the opposition to the Big Ten runs a little deeper at the administrative level than I initially anticipated. Especially if the Big Ten is insistent that any joining school must purchase their equity in the BTN from the other conference members at a price they name. In 1999, the faculty was divided for it. The administration is very different now than it was back then. I also think they were insulted by Delaney’s bully tactics.
Probably more than anything, ND is balking at the buy-in, the backlash, and I think they may be more tied to those Big East Catholic schools than I initially anticipated. That, or they think the Big East is going to come out of this with minimal losses.
LikeLike
http://www.neworleans.com/sports/sports-blogs/ed-daniels/377198-conference-expansion-dominos-could-fall-for-lsu-tulane.html#nola377198.htm
“A source close to the process said that if the Big 10 takes just one school, it is likely to take the University of Missouri.”
“Said the source, ‘If I were Nebraska, I would be very nervous.’”
The rest of the atricle is mostly speculation. Apparently SEC guys still think Texas would ever be part of the SEC. However, this does point to a doomsay senerio for Nebraska. Big Ten takes 4 Big East with Missouri, Oklahoma goes to the SEC, and Texas and TAMU go PAC 10. Nebraska is then left to headline the Mountain West?
LikeLike
That boy sure got raked over the coals….for what I think is a plausible, although highly unlikely, scenerio. Don’t mess with Nebraska.
LikeLike
From the article:
“If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, they will ask for 2 guaranteed spots in the BCS.”
Um, no, sorry, thanks for asking.
LikeLike
For all intents and purposes a 16 team Big Ten will have 2 automatic bids. The league has gotten an at-large bid almost every year with only 11 teams and 5 more teams will lead to more opportunities for teams to have only 0 or 1 loss in conference.
They might ask for a 3rd at large. That conversation would probably go as you describe.
LikeLike
Was the source Governor Jay Nixon?
LikeLike
The only plausible scenario I can see for a Missouri-only invite by the Big Ten is if the Big Ten went to Nebraska and said, “how ’bout it?” and Big Red said, “well, maybe, but we’d need special treatment/unequal revenue share similar to what we now have in the Big 12.”
If UNL is not willing to be an equal partner in the Big Ten I could see where the Big Ten would drop them from consideration.
LikeLike
I really don’t think Nebraska will ask for special treatment. I can’t think of any special treatment other than unequal revenue sharing Nebraska (or Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma) get today. Speaking of that, if you look at the history of the Big 12 and the way TV money is distributed you can see the big four (NU, UT, TAMU, OU) might not be asking for special treatment, per se, but use the formula to encourage teams to play TV ready non-conference games. The big four have a history of playing good teams in non-conference play (adds TV value) meanwhile, the rest of the Big 12 doesn’t. Bill Snyder invented the cup cake schedule, Mangino and Leatch (other coaches to a lesser extent) embraced it (yes I know every school schedules cup cakes but count the BCS teams on the schedules on the big 4 versus the rest of the league the last 16 years). There is a ton of games played the first five weeks of season that amount to nothing more than glorified practices that add nothing to the league.
LikeLike
Um, yeah, that guy didn’t exactly think things through. I suppose Mizzou _could_ be the only school if the Big10 went to 12 (though I still say Rutgers would be most likely), but it’s hard to imagine the Big10 taking 4 Big East teams over Nebraska.
LikeLike
PAC 10 Expansion Notes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/22/sports/la-sp-0423-bcs-dufresne-20100423/2
>>
Pacific 10 Commissioner Larry Scott said his conference will make a decision on expansion before the end of the year.
Pac-10 expansion is not imminent and does not seem to be tied to what happens with the Big Ten.
Scott is sticking to the league’s “Noah’s Ark strategy” of bringing in schools by pairs.
<<
LikeLike
So the PAC-10 wants to take rivals? What does this indicate?
As near as I can figure, there are three schools that the PAC would put at the top of the expansion lists: Texas, Colorado, and Utah, and probably in that order. The article goes on to quote Scott saying that rivalries are in the conference’s DNA.
None of these schools are rivals, indicating that the PAC-10 is not looking to add 2 of those three. All of these schools have a second (or more) FBS school in their respective states. Texas has serious rival TAMU. Utah has serious rival BYU. Colorado has sorta-rival (last I heard) Colorado State.
Of that group, it’s no contest. BYU is out for religious reasons. CSU is out for athletic reasons. TAMU with its large cadet contingent makes for an unlikely candidate, but I think Texas’ pull is enough to make this an easy choice for a PAC-12.
But why make a statement like that?
Admittedly, I don’t know Scott from Adam. But given his position I figure he’s pretty sharp. I’ve been thinking that Texas will sit this round of expansion out, until it can get its TV house in order. With Texas sitting out, I figured that the PAC-10, who does kinda need to move their expansion along for TV rights negotiation purposes, would take the low hanging fruit of Colorado and Utah. This ‘rivals’ comment leads me to think the Pac-10 is confident they can get TX/TAMU this time around.
Why would the PAC-10 think that? I propose that they have credible sources telling them the Big Ten is looking to make a substanial raid on the BXII, and that if the Big 10 goes 16 the SEC will follow. They also don’t believe the Horns are going to either conference.
I think the PAC-10 believes that Texas will proceed under the assumption that the BXII is dying. By taking even 3 from the BXII-N, the B10 will gut a lot of the depth of the conference. Further, if the Big-10+6 is looking to get a second BCS autobid, that would give the SEC a reason to expand to keep up to sixteen (damn the expense, if the Big Ten gets 2 guaranteed, the SEC fans will demand the same). I can’t imagine the SEC not going after Oklahoma. If the MWC achieves their goal of also getting an autobid, y’all are right and dominos will tumble everywhere.
A BXII with no Nebraska or Oklahoma and down to 8 or so teams looks a lot like the SWC. TX knows better than stick around for that. I think they’ll be able to get a good enough deal to make it worth their while to head west.
I’m probably reading too much into this. Then again, isn’t that what we do here? My guess is that Mizzou, Nebraska, and Kansas or ISU will get the nods.
Gotta love a place where a probably off-hand comment by the PAC-10 provides ammunition for argument on who’s going to be invited to the Big-10.
LikeLike
You really have to think of Texas as the prettiest girl in the room. She knows she is. She knows all the boys want her. She really has no reason to say anything. All she has to do is listen and see who sweetens the pot the most.
I think a lot of the posturing you’re seeing out of the SEC and Pac-10 commissioners are basically warnings to the Big 10 to not rock the boat too much. For if they do make an agressive move at the Big 12, the SEC and the Pac 10 are more than willing to start a bidding war for Texas.
Here’s how I see it playing out: The Big 10 is going to continue to ‘research’ and interview candidates until a year from now. After the Pac 10 is done with their new TV contract (next year), the Big 10 will strike. Taking NU, MU and KU would cripple the Big 12 going into their tv contract negotiations (three years from now). They would lose Nebraska football, KU basketball, the KC market and three large alumni bases. This would result in a terrible new contract no matter what three universities they attempt to replace them with.
This creates a situation where: the Pac 10 is locked into a decent (but not great) contract. The Big 10 now has a better revenue share than this past year due to the new properties. The Big 12 has a worse contract than previously (certainly the gap will widen between them and the Pac 10 and the Big 10).
So Texas now has to decide between less revenue in a weak Big 12, moderate revenue in the Pac 10, great revenue in the Big 10 or risking a lot by going independent.
I’m not saying the Big 10 will get them, but they’ve leveraged themselves into a better position by waiting until after the Pac 10 is locked in. The other commissioners see this and they know they can’t do anything about it. All the weaker leagues can do is belly-ache about the Big 10 being bullies, and all the strong leagues can do is say that they’ll match the Big 10 in the arms race (which they can’t).
Either way, by opening up the Big 12, they can feel out Texas a bit and then still decide on a few Big East schools. It’s pretty much a win-win for them.
LikeLike
Gopher88
“they’ll match the Big 10 in the arms race (which they can’t).”
I am old enough to remember Tom Lehrer and his wit in the classic “Who’s Next? Lyrics..
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
I do not share your predictions, as football in the SEC is not far behind death and taxes. In fact it has been noted that should the SEC pre empt the Big 10 and Pac 10 and pick up Tx,A&M,OU, and OSU it would seal up a conference that only a merger between the B 10 and P 10 could match.
In the BIG 4 (CA, TX, NYC, and FL) of population the SEC would have 2 (TX & FL) – USC has CA, and nobody really has NYC with a multi headed NFL fanbase. I am not alone as this has been mentioned by multiple folks on multiple sites. There are many variables to pan out, but my point is not to give the opposing team “bulletin board” material.
If you want the pretty girl, you can be sure she will not have you on her dance card if all she see is a big ego. I might take the reverse psychology approach and let her tell you how pretty she is. If you are the one she winds up with in the end, does it really matter if you let her monopolize the early conversation?
Of course you could use the flirt with her best friend approach as well.. but in the end, she should desire you more than you desire her.
LikeLike
“Of course you could use the flirt with her best friend approach as well.. but in the end, she should desire you more than you desire her.”
Using that approach, the SEC should start talking to A&M any day now. Of course, it’s more of a little sister than a friend, but close enough.
LikeLike
Ain’t no way in HE double hockey sticks ISU will make it into the big10.
I don’t think the PAC10 is trying to send the Big10 a message. Maybe the SEC is saying something but the PAC10 and BIG10 are like brother and sister.
I honestly believe the PAC10 and BIG10 are working in tandem. I am convinced of it. Too many close relationships.
Jim Delaney’s protege Kevin Weiberg is the COO of the Pac10. Prior to that he was on the Executive Team for the Big10 Network. And prior to that he was the commissioner of the Big12. Before going there he was Jim Delaney’s 2nd in command.
These people talk. They know each other. I go from being on the executive team for the BIG10 Network to the PAC10. I don’t buy that’s happenstance. Maybe this is a planned quasi 2nd channel for the Big10 Network and the way to make the Pac10 network happen is via investments from FOX, Big10 Network and the Pac10. I contend it’s no coincidence Kevin Weiberg is 2nd in command (on paper) in the Pac10.
I think these guys sat around, at least Jim and Kevin, and came up with a plan that includes the PAC10, and this plan is in motion. They already had an idea of who they want. They work doing this stuff for a living. Jim Delaney has said they studied this 3 other times in the past. Would you really need to do another extensive study or simply set benchmarks for the schools interested in applying who may need improvements? Maybe Nebraska had to improve academic research and this the reason for investment in a 1 billion research development campus. I read an article that West Virgina inquired back in the 90’s about what they would need to do to gain Big10 membership. Maybe the studies are to evaluate the benchmarks.
Maybe the Big10 playing games against Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers were part of market studies to see what the interest level would be for games versus mid tier and lower tier big10 teams. I know Iowa played Syracuse in a great game and also played Pittsburgh. I think Illinois played Rutgers and I think Syracuse. I can’t think of the other.
LikeLike
To me, the Pac-10 appears more and more like it will not expand. Between this announcement and the “We’re looking to have a title game without expansion”, I think they took one look at the landscape and realized that there weren’t any good options. I agree that of the pairs, Texas and A&M is the best option, but they aren’t a sure thing to get accepted and it’s not definite that they would want to go.
Either way, the Pac-10 also has a more definite deadline of this summer if they want to expand before their new tv deal. We should find out about that soon (as opposed to the 8-14 months remaining in the exploratory phase of the B10 saga).
And yes, this is just the place to read too much into things.
LikeLike
@ Gopher86
Your logic is sound. That’s why I’m doubting it’ll happen like that =) The other thing is, every season the Big and PAC Ten fail to expand, they’re leaving money on the table. What must be done should be done quickly.
Prophetstruth:
I included Iowa State not as a probable but as a possible. Assuming Conference Armageddon, the Big XII will be broken up for spare parts. The big prizes will be split between the B10, SEC, and PAC. Neither the SEC nor the PAC will want ISU. Considering geography, I’m not sure even the MWC would want them. If it looks like ISU’s likely landing spot will be CUSA, the Iowa government might pull a Virginia and use Iowa to ask for the Cyclones inclusion. If the Big Ten heads east and offers some schools the Western Big Ten head’s aren’t impressed by, they may push for the Cyclones inclusion and the rest of the B10 goes along to get it done. Unlikely? You bet. Impossible? You tell me.
You make a great point, Prophetstruth, about how the PAC and B10 have for so long been allies. I think if the B10 can’t have Texas, they’d prefer the PAC take ’em. Gotta admit the ‘horns are a good Rose Bowl representative. They may just have a plan to split the BXII (must… avoid… Poland… analogy…), leaving OU for the SEC since neither conference would find them academically or culturally acceptable.
Your idea’s about the BE – B10 games recently are intriguing. Maybe they don’t pass Occam’s Razor, but you may well be right.
M, I think the ACC asked for a conference championship game when they were at 11 teams in 2003ish, but the NCAA denied it. I think after USC’s recent shenanigans, they’ll demand 12 for the PAC as well.
LikeLike
I think Delany’s recent comments on the timeline were simply to reduce the media frenzy building up in the last few weeks and much has been decided.
My evidence, the comments of Paul Tagliabue in the last few days. A blurb from a NYT article “He added that the Big Ten’s plan to add universities in big markets like New Jersey and New York did not make sense because the product, in this case Rutgers football, was not desirable.”
Does this sound like a comment the Big East would make about a current and future conference member (especially when you would normally be using RU’s proximity to NYC to increase the value of the Big East TV contract, which will be renegotiated soon), or do they know they are losing this school and trying to put a spin on the loss?
LikeLike
Wow. I can’t believe he’d say that about a member of his conference.
If I was affiliated with Rutgers, I’d be pretty upset about that comment.
LikeLike
Let’s keep in mind Tags’ is a Georgetown alum hired by a Providence alum.
His real purpose is to devalue all of the Big East’s football schools so that no one will want them to protect the basketball schools.
Can’t wait to see what he says next about Pitt, SU, and UConn.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but I can’t imagine Rutgers officials being too thrilled at having been publicly “devalued” by someone the Big East brought it to protect their conference.
At this rate the Big Ten might not have to do anything but watch the Big East implode. Having your big-name officials put their feet in their mouths isn’t the best way to show solidarity in the face of aggression. 😛
LikeLike
“Having your big-name officials put their feet in their mouths isn’t the best way to show solidarity in the face of aggression. 😛 ”
Unfortunately, that is life in the Big East. It’s why everyone is looking for a parachute.
LikeLike
I cannot believe Tagliabue would disparage Rutgers.
However, Rutgers is the one BE schools whose fans seems genuinely excited to join the Big 10. It seems that Syracuse and Pitt fans understand its a move that is in the longterm interests of the school, but are nostalgic for the BE to survive (I don’t blame Cuse given its bball history there), but Rutgers’ fanbase seems to favor the Big 10 by a wide margin.
To be fair, I do think Syracuse and Pitt fans would prefer a Big 10 football schedule then the current Big East — especially if its includes the annual PSU game.
LikeLike
I am livid with Tags comments. Nuff said.
LikeLike
Re Tagliabue comments (Phil)
“He added that the Big Ten’s plan to add universities in big markets like New Jersey AND NEW YORK did not make sense because the product, in this case Rutgers football, was not desirable.
“One of the real challenges for the networks is to provide value, but you only provide value in markets where you provide traction,” he said. “Is Minnesota and Rutgers going to get a big rating on Long Island? Give me a break. Every game isn’t Michigan and Michigan State.”
————–
Sounds like he is talking about SU (in NY)as well as RU. He’s just not specifically insulting SU at least in the article.
LikeLike
The main specific assertion by Tagliabue, that Rutgers isn’t a big player in NYC, is absolutely correct. I don’t know why this is so hard accept by Big 10 people. Rutgers is a New Jersey school. Yes, it’s 40 miles from Manhattan, but FEW PEOPLE in NYC give a rat’s butt about Rutgers. FEW PEOPLE in NYC gave a care about the Devils’ Stanley Cup titles. The Yanks, Mets, Jets, and Giants, and Knicks and Rangers, are the big names in NYC. To the extent that anyone cares about college football in NYC or New England, Notre Dame is their team.
Rutgers was an Atlantic-10 team til relatively recently, and in many ways it’s still thought of as such.
LikeLike
@N.P.B
In some sense no one is arguing with the view that Rutgers might not have great drawing power in NYC. The amusing aspect is the “Why would you want take Rutgers? Rutgers sucks.” vibe from Tagliabue’s remarks.
Even Tranghese and Beebe weren’t stupid enough to say something like that.
LikeLike
Wow. He said that?
I’d take that as evidence that RU is a lock to go to the Big Ten. Sounds like sour grapes (and probably a shot at the RU AD). Rather intemperate remarks if one was working to keep RU as a loyal member — at least so far at their public face goes — while the expansion process is playing out.
Seriously — I take this as explicit evidence that the Big East knows or believes strongly that RU is already gone. Tranghese is no nubie at this level of business.
So our question is now who is part of the expansion with Rutgers?
LikeLike
As Phil intimated, one might imagine that Tagliabue would only make that sort of statement if he knew Rutgers was not long for that conference.
LikeLike
Exluding ND and Texas , there are 7 legitimate, realistic candidates for the Big 10.
1. Missouri
2. Nebraska
3. Syracuse
4. Pitt
5. Rutgers
6. Uconn
7. Kansas
How would you rank the seven school in terms of their level of excitement to join the Big 10? My guess.
1. Missouri – Tiger fans hate the Big 12, and, fairly or not, believe they have been getting the short end of the stick in the Big 12. They also love the perceived academic bump from the CIC. MU fans also have two natural rivalries already in the Big 10 in Illinois and Iowa, so they would fit in geographically. I’d venture 90% of Missouri fans favor the Big 10.
2. Rutgers – RU fans have been pining for a Big 10 invite for years. Many RU fans ideally want RU as part of a 12 team conference because it would lead to annual, season ending game with PSU — the school they most want to emulate on the football field. RU also has struggled to draw fans in the BE, never made the NCAA in b-ball since joining the conference — and thus has no fond memories of the bball league. I would guess 85-90% Rutgers fans favor the move.
Tie – Pitt, Syracuse, Nebraska – I think these schools, in a perfect world, wouldn’t want to jump to the Big 10. Those that favor a Big 10 invite do so from a pragmatic outlook that a failure to end up in the Big 10 could result in them left behind rather then a genuine enthusiasm from playing Big 10 teams. I’d say 75% of their fans favor a move to the Big 10, but only 35% of their fans prefer a move because they actually want to play in the Big 10. The biggest enticement to Cuse and Pitt is a chance to renew their rivalry with PSU in football.
Last – Kansas, Uconn – I don’t think these schools really have any interest in the conference. I’d say 50% of their fans would vote for the move, but again, the majority of their fans would make the move simply to survive then based on a desire to actually play in the Big 10.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about those schools’ level of excitement. I think they’d all accept an invite, with Missouri sounding almost desperate to do so.
I’m more interested in my level of excitement (and other fans) about the schools. I think the BT needs to worry more about on-the-field content. I think we need schools that field good teams more than a school that happnens to reside in a particular TV market.
If Wisconsin is off playing Rutgers and Syracuse in football, that just doesn’t hold any great interest for me. Bucky may as well be playing Northern Illinois. I’ll watch, but it’s not a must-see event.
To me, excitement in expansion means Nebraska and Texas for football. Notre Dame is the only other school that has any real football draw, and it’s the only reason their joining might have an upside for me. For basketball (which I don’t really overly care about, to be honest), that would be Kansas.
Regarding athletics, I’m kind of tepid about the rest of the candidates. The only thing that I’d care about at that point is financial feasibility (strengthening the BT overall) and academics (better schools with good research clearly preferred). Or maybe campuses that would be fun to visit. (Boulder, Austin, e.g.)
LikeLike
@Justin As a Kansas graduate, I think you’re way off base about KU’s interest. You haven’t heard many Kansas fans lobbying shamelessly for a spot (I’m looking at you Missouri), because our name hasn’t been getting mentioned as much.
Kansans consider themselves Midwesterners. A large portion of their out of state kids come from St. Louis, Chicago and Minneapolis (myself included). And most find jobs in those cities after graduation (myself included).
If you were to ask a Kansas fan if they associated themselves more with Texas or the Midwest, I’m fairly sure 80% would say the Midwest. The Big 8+4 sentiment still exists today.
As far as rivalries go, the only real ties we have are to MU, KSU and to a lessor extent, NU. If we were to join the Big 10 with NU and MU, and still scheduled KSU OOC, it’d be a no brainer.
Every KU fan I’ve talked to about this is for it once I explain the logic behind the move. The only caveat would be the slower brand of Big 10 basketball– that might not sit as well. 🙂
LikeLike
I think Delany is going to play for Texas (which means A&M comes to – they are actually a decent academic fit).
With Texas the BTN surges in value – Because of their locked in contract I do not think the SEC could pay Texas enough to entice them – they would never concede to the uneven split the B12 has given UT.
To help draw Texas I expect the weight of the new additions to be B12 schools Nebraska with the final 2 invites to fall among Missouri, Kansas/Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers.
DESPITE location, I do not agree that Rutgers and Syracuse (or even UConn) give the BTN the most pull in NYC. The PSU/ND/Michigan/Ohio St/Texas/Nebraska alums living in NYC would be much more vocal in demanding the network. Also, with so much content, the #3 Big Ten game on any given weekend (not on CBS or ESPN) would almost always include a Big name team.
The contention of the person above who suggested that it is only 4 big games a year ignores the multitude of ‘second tier’ games that will be played on the channel. Also, the basketball menu would include dozens of games a year that would rival anything ESPN had on.
ND will be the interesting choice to me – they bring a huge TV following, but if they don’t get invited they could find themselves permanently behind in the revenue war. The Big Ten could invite Butler as the 16th team and see the Butler athletic budget top the Irish – leaving Notre Dame 4th in Indiana behind Butler, Purdue and IU.
LikeLike
Tim UM – What are the chances the Big Ten winds up with all three of ND, NE, and TX? If they could, I’d agree – go for it. Don’t see it happening myself. I’m surprised you didn’t throw in USC which is more popular (#9) in the city than either Texas or Nebraska (which neither make the Top 10 list).
Btw, the Big Ten already has PSU, UM, and OSU. Do you see the BTN on basic cable from either Cablevision or TWC now? Why do you think that is?
As for Texas and Nebraska having more pull in NYC, if that is the case why do neither show up in the city’s favorite college football teams? PSU is #2, Michigan is at #7 and Ohio State is at #10, but no Texas and no Nebraska. But there is Rutgers at #3, Syracuse at #4 and UConn at #6.
The 4 games of interest referred to above by me was in reference to ND and PSU games, the #1 and #2 favorite college football teams of NYC. As for the multitude of “second tier” games that are being played on it, again, do you see NYC patrons banging down the door to add the BTN for those second tier games now? Add RU and SU football games to the package and demand will exponentially increase because their games now will be between 7-8 exclusively shown only on the BTN.
“Also, the basketball menu would include dozens of games a year that would rival anything ESPN had on.”
Raise NYC interest in bb by the Big Ten adding who?
For bb NYC is Big East/ACC (or more accurately Duke-UNC rather than ACC) town. Big Ten doesn’t even factor in now. It might with the additions of three of SU, UConn, Pitt, and ND. But since that doesn’t appear to be what you are advocating for here, I’m not sure why you made this statement.
LikeLike
I’ll buy Syracuse and Rutgers as teams with huge football followings in NYC.
But I seriously question any study that finds Uconn has a bigger football following then Miami or Michigan.
Let’s be real. Uconn is a nascent football program with very few fans outside of CT. The idea they draw more fans in NYC then two huge powers is crazy and non-sensical.
LikeLike
@Justin – “I’ll buy Syracuse and Rutgers as teams with huge football followings in NYC.
But I seriously question any study that finds Uconn has a bigger football following then Miami or Michigan.”
The NYC DMA includes Fairfield County in CT.
UConn has as many alum in NYC as does PSU, which I believe has more alum in NYC DMA than the Wolverines do. Neither UConn nor PSU have as many alums in the NYC DMA as SU, we outpace them both in that area by 13K. Rutgers alum dwarf all of us, but then they have so many in northern New Jersey that is to be expected.
I didn’t list Miami, but I remember them being at #5 so they are ahead of UConn – although honestly I may have confused the UM’s and Michigan might have been #5 with Miami at #7 although in actuality the percentages that I saw for 5, 6, and 7, they might as well be grouped together as one number.
As for how quickly the Huskies are rising in popularity this shouldn’t be a surprise considering another newbie USF is already number 4 in the state of Florida.
So why would it be a surprise that NYC which includes a major county of CT, as many alums in the city as PSU has, a city that loves UConn men’s bb and which plays Rutgers and SU on an annual basis, played Army (#8) four years straight from 03-06 and is now getting series with both ND and Michigan, would quickly develop a following in NYC?
As a Syracuse fan this doesn’t please me either. I have no love for either UConn or Rutgers, but I’d rather go to the Big Ten with Rutgers than UConn because honestly one look at both athletic departments and I know the Huskies have a much higher potential for success than do the Scarlet Knights.
One’s AD office is solid gold and the other is as about inept as they come. Although Pernetti may change that around for THE State University of New Jersey. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Omni: I wouldn’t go so far as call the Rutgers AD office inept. Men’s Basketball has been a nightmare, true. The right hire there now is critical. However, the turnaround of the Football team over the last ten years, the National success of the Women’s BB program is well proven, the continuous success of the Men’s and Women’s Soccer program is proven, the Men’s Baseball team is very competitive, and the current resurgence of Wrestling is a great sign, and the expansion/upgrade of the Football stadium (done) and RAC (Basketball arena, beginning) are great signs of the proper management of the AD office. To say they are inept is a gross generalization (due in large part to Men’s Basketball). And yes Pernetti is a very sharp guy and I think their future direction and management is in very good hands.
LikeLike
Connecticut has many drawbacks that will prevent it from becoming anything more than a middle of the pack football team.
Unlike the state of New Jersey, CT does not produce a lot of prep football talent (I grew up in CT). Second, CT has a 45,000 seat stadium 45 minutes from their stadium, not a 60,000 on campus facility.
I think Edsall is a remarkable coach, but I feel the ceiling for RU’s program is higher given the amount of prep talent that NJ has.
I understand CT recruits out of state, but its going to be hard for CT to battle PSU, ND, OSU, UM, etc. for the elite talent in PA and NJ.
LikeLike
Justin: just a quick correction:
UConn stadium is 40,000 seat capacity, E. Hartford is at the most 30 mins from campus.
The elite talent in NJ is hammered hard by Rutgers, Pitt, ND, Florida, and PSU. OSU and Michigan are not big players for NJ talent these days. I am sure they want to be and may have been at one time, not now. I am sure they want back in and a NE BT expansion and BTN coverage will help tremendously.
LikeLike
MIKE UM,
I think Notre Dame and Rutgers are the only two sure things right now. I know this could be debated right and left…but I’ve read a ton on this and my gut feeling is pretty solid.
I could see this scenario happening in phases…not over the course of years, but over the course of the next 2 to 14 months.
I see Rutgers as being the first addition when expansion is announced.
That will disrupt the Big East enough to give ND the cover with alums they need. Maybe it won’t be announced until the very end…but ND will know it and the Big 10 will know it.
From there, I think Nebraska might be taken, with the prime intention of disrupting the Big 12’s equilibrium.
If Texas/TexasAM explore their options and find that taking spots 15 and 16 in the Big 10 are their best bet, then I think they’ll complete the deal. If they find a better option, then the Big 10 will either A) wait a few years for the financial juggernaut to really soar or B) add Mizzou to the West and Pitt/Syracuse to the East.
LikeLike
The political structure of the PAC-10 precludes it from easily expanding. Any move requires all 10 members to agree. Any single member can exercise a veto. Consider Stanford: Ivy League pretensions and a $16 billion endowment make the few million extra earned from expansion chicken feed compared to protecting its reputation, keeping big donor alumni happy, etc. I doubt the Cardinal sees any schools west of the Mississippi worthy of association (bad enough it has to rub elbows with Wazzou). Further, does anyone think the hippies at Berkeley want to let the cowboys from Texas in? Or the Mormons?
And consider the history. The last time the PAC-10 expanded was 1978, when it added AZ and ASU. Since that time every major conference has undergone significant changes, the SWC disappeared, the Big East appeared (in football). The west coast and intermountain west have exploded in population (making even a rotten program like New Mexico attractive: Albuquerque DMA #44, higher than Louisville, Buffalo, Jacksonville, OK City — not to mention the growth of Denver: #16 DMA). Yet the PAC-10 has not moved and is theoretically surrendering millions in revenue.
The one-school veto ensures that the PAC-10 will be the very last mover in any expansion. They are simply frozen by the voting structure of the league.
Conference commissioners lie more than Senators. Ignore their words, watch their actions.
LikeLike
While I agree there is a good chance the Pac 10 does nothing, there is a real chance it goes big. I’ve read a few articles in the past few months from West Coast journalists who’ve said administrators at several Pac 10 understand exactly how far they’re falling behind. They give the impression that they want to be proactive, though it’s still questionable whether they will actually be able to do it.
We may end up with nothing happening except a joint ACC/Pac 10 cable network, which would provide each conference with about half the revenue of a 16 team Big 10 conference. So they would catch up some to the Big 10, but still clearly be behind. They’d also wonder what happens if the ACC falls apart, or adds a bunch of Big East schools to go to 16 itself to form it’s own network.
But there is a chance that the Pac 10 schools get together and decide to invite 6 schools that are acceptable academically, working with Texas to come to an agreement. The financial value of Texas is obvious from the article we’re commenting on. You could get the Pac 10 Southwest division of : Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, Colorado, (Utah or New Mexico).
The only really questionable academic school added would be Tech, and it’s financial commitment to moving to tier 1 would be augmented by it’s move to the Pac 10. I don’t think this would move the Pac 10’s academic reputation up or down. The national tv contract would improve and their own cable network would be quite profitable (and they’d only split the money between 16 schools instead of 22). Still not quite to what the Big 10 will get, but the Pac 10 would be more financially secure than it would be in any other scenario.
LikeLike
I’m going to tear my hair out if anyone ever mentions Rice again. We’re not going to any AQ conference. No way, no how.
LikeLike
It makes sense for the PAC-10 to add on many levels. But the fact that one school can veto severely limits their ability to do anything.
Maybe out of all we could get a Super Snob Conference: Stanford, Duke, Cal, UVA, Michigan, North Caroline and …. RICE!
LikeLike
“I’m going to tear my hair out if anyone ever mentions Rice again. We’re not going to any AQ conference. No way, no how.”
I think it’s unlikely to happen, but I think there is a chance it goes to the Pac 10 if UT decides to join with 3 other Texas schools.
Why would the Pac 10 agree to let 4 Texas schools in?
-$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Texas markets, especially when they start their cable network.
Why would Texas want 3 other Texas schools with it?
-If we’re going to 9 conference games in football, UT will find opportunities to play locally limited, especially with the OU game becoming non-conference.
-They will be looking for some short trips for olympic sports and baseball.
-It might help state politics a bit.
-It maintains a firmly Texas-centric division, which helps keep down the Texas schools not invited.
Who would be the first 3 schools?
-Well, UT, A&M, and Texas Tech would be pushed through for political reasons (if they want to leave Tech behind, join the Big 10). After that, there’s a chance they might take UH because it will make them a closer ally in the legislature, but I don’t really think that will be important.
So, why not ______ for the 4th school?
–Baylor isn’t Rice academically, and it’s really not special athletically. Also, Waco doesn’t really give the schools the opportunity to connect with a large pocket of alumni and recruits.
–UT and A&M will both play non-conference games every year in Dallas for the time being (vs. Oklahoma and Arkansas), so they don’t really need more exposure there by playing TCU or SMU. Also, why would they want to help TCU’s program?
–As long as they are not worried about UH’s vote in the legislature, why would they help UH’s athletic program? UH was pretty good on the football field not too long ago and it might again trouble the other schools if they get into a big conference. Texas would also be squeezing Texas Tech’s academics into the Pac 10 on the basis of future increases in quality; it would be easier if they didn’t have to argue for UH as well.
So what would Rice offer?
-First of all, it’s academics would help keep the conference reputation high, which would appease Stanford and make all the other chancellor’s smile as well.
-Secondly, it gives the University of Texas regular trips in Houston. UT is close to San Antonio and plays annually in Dallas; Houston is the other major city it needs to visit regularly.
-Thirdly, having Rice in a major conference playing UT, A&M, and Tech every year helps keep attention away from UH.
-Fourthly, it may be the school that has the least potential to become a power in the future; this may make the other schools more comfortable bringing it along. Of course, Northwestern can be pretty good in the Big 10, so this isn’t a sure thing in the long term.
Now, Rice gets left out if UT decides to go to the Big 10 or SEC, or if UT is OK with only 3 state schools going to the Pac 10. Nevertheless, if UT wants 4 to go in, the Pac 10 might decide they’re OK with that.
LikeLike
“So what would Rice offer?”
Rice Stadium holds 72,000. The last sell-out was c1960.
LikeLike
Rutgers fans would miss a few of the rivalries with some of the eastern teams, but if a Big Ten invitation came most believe it should be accepted in seconds.
Want another sense of life in the Big East, here are some comments by the current genius from Providence running the conference—–
Marinatto has talked to and listened to Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany ever since he took over for Mike Tranghese as the Big East commissioner last summer. He has sought Delany’s council, even though the Big Ten could very well target several Big East schools in the Big Ten’s on-going expansion discussions. “Brilliant,” said Marinatto yesterday during a break in the BCS annual meetings “He’s like Gordon Getko and I feel like Bud Fox,” said Marinatto referring to the Michael Douglas -Charlie Sheen characters in the movie Wall Street. I learn so much talking to him, listening to him. He’ schooling me in the way I need to think in this business”
LikeLike
@Phil: Wow. Either this guy is pulling one hell of a rope-a-dope or Delany really is schooling him. It sounds like Delany’s getting ready to drink this guy’s milkshake.
LikeLike
Well if you read the Big East delusion..er expansion board, you will see some of the following gems.
1. Penn State fans really prefer to play West Virginia over Michigan and Ohio State.
2. Louisville is a huge college football draw in NYC because when both them and Rutgers were in the top 5 in 2006 the game drew big ratings.
3. PSU is going to abandon the Big 10 so they can share resources with academic powers such as Louisville and WVU.
LikeLike
To 1. – Not this Penn State alum and fan. I despise UM and tOSU but I’d hate to see PSU not play them.
To 2. – Louisville had one decent year, they were hyped to the heavens, and now people think they’re top tier material? I want some of what these folks are smokin’!
To 3. – Said before, will say again, PSU would be insane to leave the Big Ten to join a bunch of schools that didn’t want them in the first place. I am confident that PSU would prefer associating with the likes of Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, and Ohio State as part of the CIC rather than those “powers of academe” Louisville and WVU.
Can you post a link to the Big East board? Sounds like some good giggle reading.
LikeLike
Yes, it makes for good reading.
http://ncaabbs.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=637
LikeLike
84 Lion, you have it right. Anyone with any connection to PSU loves the Big 10. Anyone saying anything else is delusional. I would like to have Pitt as a conference rival but that’s about it.
LikeLike
Of course Marinatto is playing possum. Do you honestly believe he’d genuflect to the guy who’s looking to decimate his conference, without having a series of contingency plans already set. Marinatto is not going to give any secrets away, and with all the variables the Big 10 has constructed, why the heck should he tip his hand?
If anything, the Big 10 is being ridiculous here. How long does it take to make a decision on this? It’s not like Nebraska or Pitt or Rutgers are some new entities that they’re trying to understand and can’t get a full grasp of. The Big 10 has jerked each of these schools are so much– whichever schools aren’t selected are going to be completely livid.
LikeLike
@NPB: Do I believe he was being sincere? No. Do I believe he’s just masterminding some elaborate series of counterattacks that involves him publicly sucking up to Delany? Not really. Honestly I have a hard time seeing what exactly Marinatto *can* do in this instance.
I also have a hard time believing all of these schools being mentioned are having trouble sleeping at night due to anxiety. I doubt there’s as much tension on the highest levels involved as is being portrayed in the media. It’s a small pool, and these guys will talk to one another more frankly than they’d ever talk to a media person. So I don’t really see them being livid per se.
But, if in the end Rutgers isn’t invited, now the Big East is left with a conference member they just insulted publicly for no reason. By the guy Marinatto brought in to help defend the Big East no less.
LikeLike
Re timing of decision (N.P.B.)
It may be the Big 10 wants to keep the door open for another 6- 12 months to give a final chance to schools like Texas or ND or Maryland or whoever to indicate interest or lose the opportunity and then the Big 10 will move on.
Letting the uncertainly continue allows undecided schools and their fans and key decision makers to get used to their potential new options.
Its chaos for some conferences but may make sense for the Big 10 to make sure they have given key target schools every chance to make what would after all be a disruptive move if they join the Big 10.
LikeLike
What are those secrets?
Oh I forgot PSU secretly is going to ditch the revenue and academic prestige of the Big East so it can associate with schools such as Cincinnati, Louisville and USF.
LikeLike
More Dodd:
“Expansion variables that could spawn conference revolution”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13281024/expansion-variables-that-could-spawn-conference-revolution
Nothing we didn’t know already.
LikeLike
Let’s add 4.
None of these “5th” teams—KU, U Conn, Syracuse get me going. MD would, but they’re not coming.
Let’s go with RU. Pitt, Neb., Mo….go to 15 and still call it the Big 10…..
East Div:
Pitt
PSU
Rutgers
OSU
MSU
UM
NW
West Div:
IU
Pur
Ill
Miss
Iowa
Wis
Neb
Minn
LikeLike
Re Dodd article (Mike)
“Potential expansion candidates Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse and Connecticut all would be contiguous to current Big Ten states.”
LikeLike
Um, yeah. The guy isn’t terribly credible when he has Texas going to the SEC, the leftovers of the Big12 adding New Mexico (rather than merge with the Pac10) and the Big10 bypassing Nebraska for….UConn.
LikeLike
I think everyone’s gotten way too far ahead of themselves. I think the speculation has gotten out of hand. In the original post on this blog, the point was made that the benchmark was Penn State. The benchmark STILL is Penn State.
Only 3 possible candidates for a 12th spot can match the addition that Penn State made to the Big Ten. Those three were the top 3 in the original post: Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in that order. Those three have the fanbase (around the country/state) to really expand the Big 10 footprint in the same way that the addition of Penn State did (as well as the academic prestige AAU or otherwise to match the Big Ten universities). None of the other candidates, Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers/Missouri can be the 12th; do you guys really think a Missouri/Iowa/Minn./Wisc/Northwestern/Illinois grouping would look good as the Big Ten East? No, and the others suffer from the problem of not impacting the Big 10 as much as Penn State.
Now, if the Big Ten moves to 14, then the candidates must include 1 of the major 3 (Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska, as well as teams that expand the footprint in a way that makes sense). Delany knows that the future of the Big 10 and recruiting is the Big 12 region. Thus, the Big 14 would involve ideally Texas/Texas A&M (if Texas wants the second to be them)/Nebraska; a less ideal situation would be Texas/Texas A&M/Missouri or Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas; either way, one of the three must be Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska.
As for a Big 16, the only logical solution is to raid the Big 12 and take Texas/Texas A&M/Missouri/Nebraska/Kansas. You say that Delany wouldn’t raid the Big 12, but I will show that this Big 16 is the natural result due to a cascading effect.
The reason for this Big 16 scenario is that the Big 10 is not going to invite them all at the same time unless Texas requires a move to 14 or 16 as a way of getting them.
Let me explain, the first move is likely to be Nebraska. Nebraska leaving the Big 12 would break up the Big 12 because of the way they hold one of the 4 crucial votes for keeping revenue uneven. Thus, Delany is likely to move after Nebraska if Notre Dame again says no. Gaining Nebraska will force Texas to evaluate its future, and then the Big 10 can aim at Texas to form a Big 14/16.
Nebraska is the key to the future of the Big 10. All things point to Nebraska being Delany’s target because of the Big 12 structure which requires Nebraska to hold it all together (the Big 12 North could not be fixed if Nebraska leaves on top of the unequal revenue sharing issue).
Once Nebraska becomes #12, then the Big 10 could aim to get Texas to be the driver to a Big 14/16. That would enable the Big 10 to truly go to its future, the heartland.
Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers seems to be a smokescreen to me. None of them have the stature that the Penn State addition had to the Big 10.
LikeLike
….and you know this, how? I don’t think the benchmark is Penn State any more. The economics have changed.
LikeLike
Delany said in an earlier interview that the benchmark was penn state.
LikeLike
I agree with this post actually. This is my line of thinking at the moment. I hope they raid the big 12 instead of the big east.
Although seeing a pitt vs penn state matchup would be enticing to a lot of people, and I wouldn’t mind them being one of the 5 added in a 16 team conference.
I would like to see Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Pitt/Notre Dame if at all possible, but you can substitute those last two for big 12 schools as well.
I just don’t see Rutgers or Syracuse joining when Notre Dame could possibly bring the New York market by themselves, unless the companies demanded that Rutgers joined with Notre Dame to take New York. That would push Pitt out.
LikeLike
There is an alternative to the Big Ten raiding the Big East for northeastern teams (Syr, Rut, Pitt and UConn). The Big Ten, Big East, ACC and Notre Dame could form a 32 team cooperative “Northeast Football Alliance”. I would see it as divided into eight 4 team pods as follows:
Minn/Wis/NW/IA
ND/MI/MSU/Pur
Ind/IL/Louis/Cin
Syr/OSU/WV/Pitt
PSU/BC/UConn/Rut
Mary/VA/VT/Wake
NC/NCSt/Clem/Duke
USF/Mia/FSU/GT
The pods would be rotated yearly into four different 8-team divisions with a four team playoff between the division winners to determine the consortium championship. For all other sports other than football, current conference alignments would be preserved.
The advantages for the Big Ten would be hugely increased exposure in the recruiting areas of Florida and Georgia, a closer positive overall relationship with the ACC, Big East and Notre Dame and the possibility of using this new setup as a bridge to eventually shepherd Notre Dame into full Big Ten membership. It might also help bolster the ACC’s credibility as a football conference and help it stave off potential raids from the SEC in the south. The Big East would obviously prefer not to lose teams, so the alliance would help it. Notre Dame by sharing a pod with Purdue, MSU and Michigan would have strong built-in conference rivalries every year and truly national schedule even within its conference viewed over a number of years.
LikeLike
Delaney was on ESPN yesterday. The interviewers were trying to run him over the coals for destroying the Big East. Basically, he said that the conference isn’t going to force anyone to join who would prefer to remain in the Big East. He also emphasized that the conference might not expand at all.
After the interview, the commentators talked about how the Pac-10 is going to add Boise State and Fresno State. So yeah…
LikeLike
Sorry if this was already mentioned (I haven’t read all 1,000 comments), but is it possible that the Big 10 has a Plan A (New York) and a Plan B (Midwest) and that it is waiting on Notre Dame to be a necessary cog in the Plan A strategy (add ND, Rutgers, and Syracuse to really lock down NYC, with possibility of moving on to UConn and Pitt)? From what I’m hearing, it will take ND to ensure the best chance of success on TV in NYC. Without ND in the mix, the most attractive option would seem to going west with Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas (or maybe Pitt).
Bottom line: Rutgers and Syracuse without Notre Dame seems really weak. Nebraska, on the other hand, has some flash with or without ND. I am really pulling for Nebraska.
LikeLike
John Boeheim:
>>
“Boston College is in the A.C.C., and no one cares about it there,” Boeheim said of the former Big East program that joined the Atlantic Coast Conference in 2005. “They have hung on in football, but Miami and Florida State will get strong again and they’ll be an afterthought in football.
“I don’t think we’ll do well in the Big Ten. It’s possible, but I don’t think we’d do well at all. I just don’t see how Syracuse or Rutgers fits in with Iowa and Illinois.”
<<
LikeLike
How does Syracuse fit with South Florida and Marquette?
I find this argument hypocritical when Big East diehards contend no one will watch Big 10 games in NYC or NJ (odd if the State school of New Jersey is in the conference), yet the Big East had no problem adding schools in Milwaukee, Cincinnati and Chicago.
I mean, who wants to watch Providence vs. Seton Hall in Chicago? Well, the Big East thought someone did, which is why they added DePaul.
LikeLike
On a basic level, for hoops fans from the Midwest who want to see a teams guaranteed to score more than 49 points (I’m lookin’ at you Michigan… and Iowa… and Indiana… and Illinois… and Penn State…), they can watch the Big East.
The Big Ten plays some of the ugliest basketball in the country– and it isn’t even good defense keeping the scores low… it’s guys throwing up bricks, except for the occasional banked-in 3-pointer.
Also, what’s up with Minnesota hosting Brown, and Indiana hosting Bryant? You don’t see Providence bothering St Olaf or Oberlin– making them trek 1300 miles for a game in December…
LikeLike
“How does Syracuse fit with South Florida and Marquette?”
Every hoops school in the Big East is steeped in tradition and success over the last 30, 40, 50 years. Marquette and Al McGuire (NYC guy) was a national powerhouse– that’s how they fit in with Syracuse and the rest.
Only South Florida has no tradition, and Seton Hall is a little weak tradition-wise, but even they played in OT in a national title game.
LikeLike
also from the article:
“Jim” Boeheim said that players in recruiting hotbeds like New York, Philadelphia and Washington, the lifeblood markets for Big East universities, probably would not find playing in a Midwest-dominated league appealing.
“Say a couple schools go to the Big Ten,” Boeheim said. “Who’s to say a New York City kid would want to go there? There’s no logical reason for that kid to want to do that. But someone with a big ego in a football conference is taking over. I just don’t think it helps recruiting to be in the Big Ten.”
I agree with Boeheim.
LikeLike
I have never heard of the Altoona Mirror but here are some quotes from Paterno. Boise St to the PAC 10?
>>
“I think it’s gonna happen,” Paterno said Saturday of the Big Ten expanding. “I’d be surprised if it doesn’t.”
Paterno said if he had his way, the conference would add two schools from the east and another from the west to bring the conference to 14 teams.
“Is that the consensus of the presidents and athletic directors? I don’t know,” Paterno said.
“I would think they’re [The PAC 10] talking Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, maybe even Boise State,” Paterno said.
Paterno also sidestepped a question on whether he would like to see any expansion candidates being an AAU member and on a more specific timeframe for the Big Ten to add a team.
“We’re the new people on the block in the Big Ten, and in deference to the people who have been there, I’m reluctant to be critical of anyone,” Paterno said. “Particularly because, by the time we get expansion, I’ve only got 10 years left as head coach.”
<<
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/529223.html
LikeLike
LA Times quotes Paterno as well.
>>
But the Hall of Fame coach says he has a “gut feeling” the Pac-10 will expand first, and the Big Ten will have to grow, too, if that happens.
<<
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-fbc-big-ten-expansion-paterno,0,443073.story
LikeLike
“Particularly because, by the time we get expansion, I’ve only got 10 years left as head coach.”-JoePa
This is an awesome quote.
LikeLike
With all due respect to JoePa (who is one of my favorite Big 10 coaches), he’s extremely biased towards wanting the addition of 2 or even 3 of Pitt/Rutgers/Syracuse for the obvious reasons that those are their geographical rivals and it makes sense from his illustrious career to consider those to be the natural extensions of the Big 10.
But the Big 10 is looking at the NEXT 50 years, not the past 50. For the future, neither Rutgers nor Syracuse adds much to the Big 10 network and Pitt is a relatively weak addition.
If there must be an eastern addition, Pitt is the only one that I would see getting an invite, but it still seems as if Nebraska/Texas (or ND if they ever wise up) are the future of the Big 10. Looking east would be a huge mistake.
Furthermore, he mentions allowing the Pac-10 to gobble up Texas/Texas A&M; those are by far the biggest combo prize up for grabs here. If the Big 10 doesn’t do everything it can possibly think of to bring Texas/Texas A&M on board, then they’ve totally abdicated their responsibility in looking at the next 50 years.
Taking Nebraska sets off an chain of events that could lead to Texas/Texas A&M. I don’t think JoePa is thinking as much in the interest of the Big 10 as he is Penn State’s, which is his job. But still, objectively Penn State is the only school that the Big 10 needs east of Ohio.
LikeLike
I just don’t see the Big Ten allowing Texas to market its own Texas centric channel. According the to link I posted on 4/20, Texas is working on their own channel. The PAC 10 can add Texas and still make more money for the entire conference just off their ABC contract even if Texas has their own channel. Its not a concession I can see the Big Ten making.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but presumably Texas is making the “Longhorn Network” based off the assumption that it is in the Big 12 for the long haul.
The whole idea behind the Big 10 going after Texas is to expand the Big 10 Network, and the same would eventually be true for the Pac-10. The only way I think Texas gets its own network is if it stays in the Big 12 or goes independent. I don’t see the Pac-10 allowing them to have their own network either, since the Pac-10 is likely to want to make its own eventually.
All of this is speculative of course, but I really don’t see the Texas “making its own network” thing as a way of keeping all the ducks in a row in the Big 12 and of course because any Big 12 network would essentially be a Texas network anyways (with Denver and Missouri’s markets, but those don’t seem likely to be in play for much longer in the Big 12)…
LikeLike
UT is making the Longhorn network because it knows that any network that it is a part of will generate millions in Texas alone. Why split those millions with conference members? Its the very reason UT blocked the Big 12 network. Any network that Texas is a part of means massive outflows of Texas cash to other conference members.
LikeLike
Re expansion to Nebraska and Texas (Zeek)
Nebraska looks like good add.
What happens if Texas not interested as currently appears? Stay at 12?
Still interesting that Coach Paterno “would add 2 teams from east” in 3 school expansion.
You have perfect right to your views but there is no need to imply he’s backward looking or only concerned with PSU. I would guess he has had a lot of interesting conversations with a lot of well informed persons. He also has a right to his view. Maybe he has his own sources to gauge preferences of Texas. If Texas is interested, there is little doubt they will be a priority add.
LikeLike
Well I think a lot of people are getting too caught up in the rush to 14 or 16. Note that the Big 10 has looked at expansion no less than 3 times (every 5 years almost) since adding Penn State two decades ago, and every time people try to throw lists of 14 or 16 schools together without recognizing just how glacial the pace of expansion truly is. Due to the appearance of conference championship games and their successes as well as the Big 10 Network, expansion is far more likely this time, but 1 school is still the most likely outcome. I’d say that there’s probably a 40% odds that 1 team gets added, 20% that 3 teams get added, 10% that 5 teams get added, but a 30% chance that no teams get added. Even with as much money on the table, there still has to be an agreement on what the presidents want the Big 10’s future to look like.
Adding Nebraska forces Texas’ hand; right now the Big 12’s uneven revenue sharing requires Nebraska’s vote for it to remain uneven (Texas/A&M/OU/Nebraska are the 4 votes against even). Nebraska also happens to be the 3rd strongest in terms of TV eyeballs for its televised games behind Texas and Notre Dame in terms of the teams being considered.
I’m not implying that he’s backward looking in a negative sense. As the coach of Penn State, he has suggested on numerous occasions that the Big 10 should add his former rivals in the Pennsylvania region to the Big 10. That’s his prerogative, but we’re looking at the interests of 10 other schools as well as Penn State.
I can almost guarantee you that the Wisc. and Iowa coaches are more likely to discuss the addition of Nebraska or Missouri if asked about expansion. I would then say that they’d be biased towards the interests of their own schools, but this is how expansion works. We’re looking at an organization of 11 schools determining which addition would be the best over the next 25 or 50 years.
Every school will evaluate every team on its own merits with respect to that school. Note that Penn State’s ascension to the Big 10 was not unanimous, and I would not expect any candidate other than Texas/Texas A&M/Notre Dame to receive unanimous votes whether its due to academics or regionality, etc.
Everyone knows objectively that Texas is the biggest prize. I find it interesting that he mentioned the Pac-10’s interest in Texas, when clearly it is in the best interest of the Big 10 from pretty much every point of view ($, academics, recruiting, etc.) to also be very much interested in Texas perhaps as the #1 choice for expansion.
I tend to believe that we’re looking at either a 12 team or 14 team result (but a 13 team Nebraska/Missouri or Nebraska/Pitt would not surprise me) because we’re talking about very conservative and deliberate presidents who do not want to be hasty. You cannot undo an addition in the Big 10 because it is much more of a comprehensive conference due to the CIC.
Thus, I believe that an invite would likely be sent to Nebraska after which the Big 10 would lobby Texas hard to join as well (with whoever it wanted as a 3rd, say A&M).
I don’t see Texas flatly declining if Nebraska is in play, and thus, I find it hard to imagine that the Big 10 would jump the shark and go straight to 14 by adding Pitt and Rutgers when everyone knows that Texas would be in play after Nebraska leaves the Big 12. If the big prizes are Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Texas; the Big 10 should play its cards to aim for an inside straight in which all 3 end up in the conference. The best scenario would be Nebraska gets an invite this year; then Texas reconsiders its independence and the Big 10 lobbies hard for it and Texas A&M. That’s the most ideal outcome, since it leaves the future open for Notre Dame as well as the final 16th in Pitt/Rutgers/Missouri/Kansas to satisfy Penn State so they’re not too far away from the action.
Just look at the Big 12 North, is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the conference would be nearly irreparable unless it was totally changed, and even then, Missouri/Kansas would be clamoring for equality of revenue sharing etc. The Texas-centric nature of the past several years of the Big 12 has hurt its appeal to Nebraska/Kansas/Missouri.
All of this is conjecture obviously, and my opinion is of far less value than JoePa’s who is one of the 11 coaches that would be affected. But I think we can separate ourselves from the situation and look at what would be the best future (most $, best academic situation for CIC, most national presence of Big 10 sports, etc.). That’s probably the perspective that Delaney has and will try to use to convince the presidents of what he wants.
LikeLike
Why would Wisconsin necessarily want midwest schools added? If Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas were added, those schools would be competing for the same players. How many Wisconsin recruits are even a target of Syracuse or Rutgers? Who is going to face a more daunting road trip to Madison… Kansas or UConn?
Wisconsin is ultimately going to end up in a division with mostly schools in its geographic area.
LikeLike
All I was saying is that the Wisconsin coaches would prefer to talk about playing against Nebraska or Missouri, etc. Heck they’re trying to schedule a home/home with them.
Recruiting is an entirely different issue, but I really don’t think it’ll come up that much. Most of these schools recruit from the rust belt or around the nation.
The Big 10 is looking for its spiritual sisters to be the 12th/13th/14th schools.
There are no obvious choices other than Texas or Notre Dame. They want to add the best school that improves the conference the most.
JoePa has been repeatedly shot down every year that he’s suggested adding Rutgers for the sake of a championship game; he’s even said that he feels the other schools “snicker at the idea.”
You have to take that frame of mind. They want to add another Penn State quality school. The only ones out there like that are Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska when you look at the facilities, fanbase, viewership of national games, AAU membership or academics.
They’re looking for another big TV draw that hits the right buttons. For that reason Rutgers and Conn. don’t really make sense. Pitt may make marginally more sense, but it’s not adding new households or a national fanbase like Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska.
LikeLike
@zeek
I understand what you’re saying, and I think the mentality you’re describing is the mentality the Big10 members had up to the present. They truly thought, because they were right, that if they did not add “the next PSU”, whether it be ND/Texas/whoever they would be decreasing the per member payout, even with a championship game.
Now you state, and rightly so, Texas is a huge draw, and probably the crown jewel for any expansion talk, but right now that program is as high as its ever been and has never been a “plays well with others”. The problem I see is how likely would a team like Texas be to actually buy into the “Big10 first” mind set that the rest of the schools have? Texas already purposefully shut down the Big12 network because it was more interested in creating its own Texas based product and didn’t want to share any more Texas product with the rest of the Big12 than it already had to. Does this fit in with the “typical” Big10 program? I can use the same type of arguments about that school in Southbend. Both “look” like the perfect fit, but I can’t help but wonder if these aren’t the two hottest chicks in highschool that everyone wanted, but 10 years later they are still single because every boyfriend they dated got sick of putting up with her.
Schools like Neb, Mizzou, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers all bring their own value to the Big10 (admittedly not as much as Texas) and more so to the BTN, fit better geographically (the least important trait I agree), equally academically, and are in a much better position to be told “to get into the Big10 we need you to do X” and they’ll do it.
Anyway, I was really excited about Texas when Frank first made the suggestion, but to be honest the more I think about it the more I think Texas (now-a-days) wants to be an independent in a conference. Having one good enough to force itself into the BCS, but much more regional in scope. When Texas was flying high in the 70’s and early 80’s that’s what they did in the SWC and they’ve been on top for the past 10 years and that’s what they’re doing now in the Big12. It wasn’t until the SWC dissolved , Texas was in a down period, and facing independent status or joining with a bunch of schools it viewed as academically inferior that it approached the Pac/Big10 (at which point it probably would have been closer to mid of pack football wise, though of course not draw wise).
Again, it truly is the “biggest” addition that could be made, right now, but the more I think about it the more I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
LikeLike
I think Texas is like that with respect to the rest of the Big 12 because it is purely a marriage of convenience.
The difference between the Big Ten and Big 12 is that the Big Ten was built to last since it is a much more comprehensive alliance (including the CIC, etc.). No Big Ten school would ever make the jump to the Big East or ACC or Big 12 or whatever.
Texas nixed the Big 12’s original Big 16 plan since it did not want to share the pie with even more smaller schools.
Texas is by far the biggest fish in its pond right now, but if it joined the Big Ten it would find itself among its peer schools in the food chain.
I can see why people are arguing that Conn/Rutgers/Pitt add value, and they do, but none of them is as big a splash as Nebraska/Notre Dame/Texas.
Nebraska is the most likely to be invited at this point just because of how prominent its football program is as well as the fact that it is an AAU member, etc.
They were thinking like this just last year and there’s no evidence of a massive paradigm shift in the thought of the presidents. According to JoePa, just last year he suggested an expansion and it got shot down with the “snickers” and all that.
They’re not searching for an immediate 16 team solution. It’d be utter folly to go to 16 immediately without the schools that you want to be in the 16 for the next 100 years.
If the goal is to bring along Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska and two others, then being prudent and bringing them along gradually is a much better plan than just randomly adding 5 schools for the sake of the Big Ten Network from 2010-2020.
There is no way Delaney will allow the Big Ten to go to 16 without Texas and Notre Dame unless there’s no chance at all of those schools coming along.
But since there is a chance as long as the window’s open, we just need to prod them in the right direction. The Big 12 is a dead man walking right now since Colorado wants to jump to the Pac-10 and the North schools hate the Texas-centric nature of the conference.
Texas will not stay in a Big 12 if it’s the only big fish and it’s still splitting revenue 50-50 with a bunch of small teams.
Texas will look at the Pac-10 and Big Ten if Nebraska leaves the Big 12.
This is why I still believe that it is by far the smartest option to go for Nebraska (which in itself is a Penn State level quality school in terms of athletics/following), and then wait and see if Texas and Penn State can be dislodged.
There is no way that the Big 10 will move to 16 for the sake of going to 16 if it means adding 5 teams that wouldn’t bring national prominence.
After all, if Texas/A&M join the Pac-10 and Oklahoma/OSU join the SEC, then the Big Ten will be way behind those two conferences…; we’d have shot ourselves in the foot.
LikeLike
Understood, but here’s the thing…only Texas is truly a splash school out of the ND/Neb/Texas trio because only it has the triumvirate of program/research&academics/population. The other two are for football, and football only…at least at the present, and I really think that long term Nebraska and ND are going to be diminished brands.
In any case, I ask again what does the Big10 need to give up to get Texas. I really don’t think it will come alone and that means having at least two other teams coming along, probably TAMU to boot. If the Big10 expands into the mid-west even further, what exactly is it going to be doing that the other failed mid-western conferences haven’t done?
If what has been posted can be believed, the Big10 has a lot of alumni in the Mid-Atlantic/NYC area. Adding schools in those regions combines big time programs (PSU/OSU/UofM) and large population centers with the popular home-town teams which I really think is going to draw more interest from ABC/ESPN come contract time than the 2-3 good games Nebraska is going to play a year. Sorry, while I may be very interested in a Neb-Iowa game and I’m sure all of Iowa/Neb will tune in, I can say with a fact that that game won’t be getting air time in highly populated eastern markets (especially if there are no additional eastern schools added to the Big10).
What’s more, the eastern schools dominance in bball (and other secondary collegiate sports that draw great interest in the region) mean the Big10 maintains revenue through all months of the school year, not just Aug-Dec. Looking at the next 50 years to me just doesn’t mean football. It means understanding previously un-profitable collegiate sports events can, and will, become money makers (for any conference with a dedicated conference tv channel that is).
Again, I’m not opposed to a couple more mid-western schools, and if Texas is willing to be one of them so much the better, but I’m really wary of making a “Mid-Western Conference” even more so when I just haven’t seen much success from conferences that have gone that way before.
LikeLike
With all due respect to JoePa (who is one of my favorite Big 10 coaches), he’s extremely biased towards wanting the addition of 2 or even 3 of Pitt/Rutgers/Syracuse for the obvious reasons that those are their geographical rivals and it makes sense from his illustrious career to consider those to be the natural extensions of the Big 10.
But the Big 10 is looking at the NEXT 50 years, not the past 50. For the future, neither Rutgers nor Syracuse adds much to the Big 10 network and Pitt is a relatively weak addition.
Which is why I think Maryland remains a target of Big Ten presidents and conference officials. The Washington, D.C. market is only going to get larger and more affluent, given the growing presence of the federal government (not to mention the large number of Big Ten alums in the area). The University of Maryland is the best way to tap this market, both for athletic and academic research revenue. It could conceivably offer far more than SU, RU or Pitt.
The Big Ten won’t wait for Maryland forever, but if the university senses the ACC could be in trouble after Slive’s comments about expanding the SEC, it may say to heck with nearly 60 years of ACC membership and look in a new direction to keep its revenue stream afloat. After all, keep in mind that for many years, West Virginia was a member of the Southern Conference.
LikeLike
Having only watched the BTN once before, the final minutes of Fresno St-IL, I decided to check it out just now after the draft. Penn St spring game, bleh. Would have keep flipping except there is Joe Pa in an extended interview with Herbstreit and Scuzburger. Wow, I could listen to Joe Pa all day! Dude is awesome, I hope he coaches through his last day on earth. If only he could run college football.
Talked about expansion again, and several times he mentioned adding 3 teams. Doesn’t mean he knows for sure, but it could be an indicator. Also seemed certain that the P10 would expand, though there was nothing to indicate he was expecting them to go past 12.
Thankfully Matt Millen picked VT, meaning a BCS busting Boise win is a lock.
LikeLike
I give Frank a lot of credit for his analysis but there is some seriously flawed lines of thinking that must be questioned.
First of all, the 60/40 rule. Today, the rule might be 60/40 but that can’t be goal of Fox or the Big 10. Adding Connecticut, for instance, almost guarantees millions of Cablevision subscribers who otherwise would have no interest in the Big 10 Network regardless of who else they may add. Cablevision carriage alone would surpass the entire state of Nebraska. BTW… that doesn’t include a wide swath of potential Comcast and Time Warner customers throughout the Tri-State.
2ndly… while Football is obviously primary it only occupies four months a year. A tv network needs programming therefore it “needs” basketball. UConn and Syracuse are the only potential schools who have national programs that generate ratings from December through March. In UConn’s case, the women’s program would often generate greater ratings than many Northwestern men’s basketball.
Re: national ratings. Keep in mind, that Nebraska and Missouri specifically pad their early season schedules so as their records become inflated… so do their national rankings and tv ratings. If they played a schedule similar to Colorado’s or many Pac 10 teams, you would see those ratings/rankings drop dramatically.
Finally, re: the East Coast schools… the final unspoken component is the Florida market. By adding, 3 or more East Coast schools versus Missouri and Nebraska… you likely open up the Southeast Florida and Miami tv market as well. While that may be great financially as well, it also opens a potential recruiting pipeline to all the kids who would then have the Joe Paterno and Rich Rodriquez coaching shows weekly in their living rooms.
LikeLike
Harvey Pearlman, NU Chancellor on Nebraska’s place in expansion. Very interesting read.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814
LikeLike
Wow.
Pretty telling article — that does not sound like a chancellor who is enthusiastic about NU’s place in the Big 12.
There wasn’t even any equivocation from the NU chancellor. You would have expected some type of affirmation that “We are happy to be in the Big 12.”
Nebraska is clearly positioning itself with Missouri as the Big 12 schools most ready to ditch the Big 12. K-State and Iowa State aren’t serious candidates. Colorado has focused its attention on the PAC 10.
Kansas stands to be the school with the most to lose. You don’t hear much about them as a frontline Big 10 candidate.
LikeLike
It all depends on how this plays out in some sense.
Given that many of us think that Nebraska is the first logical choice if Texas and Notre Dame say no, then there’s likely to be a free for all for spots 13 and 14. Missouri would probably round out well with the addition of Nebraska, and then the 14th spot would come down to Pitt or Rutgers or Kansas.
This is where Penn State may be able to convince Michigan/Ohio State to not allow the Big Ten to be pull too far to the west and that would be to the detriment of Kansas without a doubt.
The all-in Western strategy would seem unlikely if Penn State pushes back hard enough at being left out in the cold in the East without the addition of Pitt or Rutgers.
LikeLike
One other thing is that Northwestern and Illinois might push back as well since they’d probably both want to be in a Big Ten west as in-state rivals.
Big Ten West: Nebraska/Missouri/Iowa/Minn/Wisc/Northwestern/Illinois
Big Ten East: Mich/MichSt/OhioSt/PennSt/Indiana/Purdue/Pitt (or Rutgers)
This is probably the biggest problem that Kansas faces other than being 3rd in line geographically and for other reasons behind Nebraska and Missouri. If you have Penn State/Northwestern/Illinois arguing for the addition of the 14th team in the East after Nebraska/Missouri in the West, then that would seem to almost nearly doom Kansas’ chances unless the other 8 schools are really willing to push for Kansas which they probably aren’t.
LikeLike
Two west and one east has always led to the most natural divisions. If that happened, you could even call them the Eastern and Central divisions as an ode to the time zone divide.
That said, I think adding five teams changes that algorithm. With 16 teams, you are probably talking about four pods – and if that´s the case it´s not as politically difficult to go all West.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s Chancellor Harvey Perlman talks about expansion.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814
Here are some highlights:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perlman wants Husker fans to know one thing — the first hat he wears in any conversation about conference realignment will be red and white with an N on it. He and Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne are solidly together on potential courses of action.
“My instinct and Tom’s instinct isn’t just to sit around and wait to see what bad things happen to you,” the chancellor said. “We’re certainly talking about what options we have.”
The Big Ten, the Pacific 10 and Southeastern Conferences have publicly stated they are studying expansion or are open to it.
So far, Perlman said, Nebraska hasn’t been approached by another league.
“But are we in the swirl of things? Yes,” he said. “By the product of our location, we could be vulnerable if there is significant change in conference realignment.”
Perlman said he wants the Big 12 to succeed. But that doesn’t mean a move by Nebraska to any other power conference has been ruled out.
“I don’t think anyone can dismiss anything out of hand,” he said. “If you take the wildest predictions about mega-conferences — 16 is the number you see most, but 24 has been floated though not publicly — we certainly have to act in the interest of Nebraska.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LikeLike
Absolutely terrific news from Nebraska. They’re saying all the right things. ht to Mike and Scott C.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m reading Nebraska Chancellor Perlman’s remarks too closely, but I sense there may be (implied) interest from Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas for going to the SEC if they are part of the “left behind” for Big Ten expansion. Know the SEC currently has a less attractive TV deal than the Big Ten, but one would assume the SEC could renegotiate if they added a particularly attractive set of teams during the interim to contract renewal. Guess that’s part of the reason I favor Big Ten expansion that leans heavily toward the northeast (doesn’t destabilize the Big 12). Nebraska is the one Big 12 team I would probably make an exception for (assuming Notre Dame and Texas won’t join, as seems likely). At least one program with established national football prestige would be valuable in a package of expansion teams and Nebraska appears to be the best available prospect.
LikeLike
Being centrally located, I suppose anything is possible for Nebraska. Pac-10, SEC, Big 10…theoretically they could go to any one of them.
For Nebraska’s part, of the three, I would think they would favor the Big 10 as providing the best revenue, exposure, and academic benefits. Their first choice, as Perlman says, is for the Big 12 to succeed and prosper, but in order to make that work it seems to me that the Big 12 schools need to work together to reach consensus and that right now seems problematic. Perlman does point out the travel problems for non-revenue sports while conveniently ignoring that right now his teams are traveling to Texas, which is just as far as the eastern Big Ten schools.
From the Big 10’s standpoint, at the end of the day they want to be in the strongest possible situation. It is one thing to be gentlemanly and another to voluntarily pass up a great opportunity just ’cause you wanna be nice.
Perlman more or less says that he prefers the status quo. If that includes unequal revenue sharing, then the Big Ten is not for Nebraska. I brought that up above and Mike seems to think not. We’ll see. I am concerned that Nebraska might shoot themselves in the foot by not being able to pull the trigger – as it were.
LikeLike
The reason it seems unlikely is because Nebraska knows that it won’t get a TV network by itself or with the Big 12 that would be successful enough to make unequal revenue sharing worth it since the Longhorns want their own.
Nebraska isn’t even really being helped as much due to the fact that they’re in the Big 12 North. Being in the North means that they’re often 4th or even 5th in terms of TV revenue in the Big 12 on an off year.
I really don’t see why Nebraska would demand unequal revenue sharing, since equal shares is optimal if the league can afford it and has big enough states/markets like the Big Ten and SEC have. The only school that could go to the Big Ten with that kind of demand is Texas.
The fact that he was so openly discussing the possibility of a Nebraska moves means that it’s very much on the table.
If Colorado gets poached, and then Missouri appears to be on the table, there’s no way I could see Nebraska not attempting to jump in line and get the invite for itself.
Everything he says leads me to believe that if the Big 12 has no future (as it probably wouldn’t without Colorado/Missouri), he’ll grab the invite for Nebraska.
Nebraska in the SEC doesn’t really make much sense since Iowa/Wisc/Illinois/Minnesota are much more of a natural division for them.
LikeLike
Help me out here guys. With the talk of the large ACC schools being poached (highly unlikely as that might be) I started thinking again about the Magnolia League. The similar private schools across the south with outsized academic pretensions would need a home. But I want a 9 team conference. I can only think of 8 obvious choices. Who do I add to:
Duke
Navy
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulame
Tulsa
Wake Forest
Vandy seems out because they won’t leave the SEC. Miami is so unlike everyone on here and still thinks they’re relevant with the big schools. Who am I missing?
LikeLike
Would you consider Baylor if the Big 12 fell apart?
If you go out of the south, BYU might fit in; Notre Dame if it had to join a conference and deliberately avoided the big public schools might also be worthy.
(you didn’t misspell Tulane because of the Rice/Tulane ‘rivalry’, did you?)
LikeLike
No to Baylor. They’re too backwards. I need an Emory or Sewanee quality school.
Did I misspell Toolame? My bad…
LikeLike
loki,
Baylor is a private school that might get left out if the Big 12 gets poached.
Also, it wouldn’t hurt any of the SEC schools’ feelings if Vandy left. I know that they wouldn’t because of the money that they currently make in the SEC. But it would be somewhat hypocritical if athletics money was the reason that they stay in the SEC since they did away with their athletic department because the “athletic life” was interfering with the “academic life” at Vandy.
LikeLike
The NFL Draft; Expansion; and the Big Ten
Here is this year’s draft results and the cumulative 5 year draft results for the Big Ten Expansion candidates and the current Big Ten members:
Team 2010 Draft 5 year Draft
Texas 6 29
Notre D 4 19
Nebra 3 18
Pitt 2 14
Rutgers 3 13
Maryland 2 13
Missouri 1 12
BC 1 11
Syracuse 2 10
TAM 1 10
UConn 2 9
Ohio St 4 31
Penn St 6 25
Mich 3 20
Iowa 4 17
Wisc 2 16
Purdue 1 13
Mich St 1 11
Minn 2 8
Illinois 3 8
Indiana 3 7
NW 3 6
LikeLike
The NFL Draft; Expansion; and the Big Ten (edited)
Here is this year’s draft results and the cumulative 5 year draft results for the Big Ten Expansion candidates and the current Big Ten members:
Team 2010/5 year
Texas 6/29
Notre D 4/19
Nebra 3/18
Pitt 2/14
Rutgers 3/13
Maryland 2/13
Missouri 1/12
BC 1/11
Syracuse 2/10
TAM 1/10
UConn 2/9
Ohio St 4/31
Penn St 6/25
Mich 3/20
Iowa 4/17
Wisc 2/16
Purdue 1/13
Mich St 1/11
Minn 2/8
Illinois 3/8
Indiana 3/7
NW 3/6
LikeLike
Iowa had 6 draftees this year, not 4.
LikeLike
Yes it was 6, my apologies. Still 17 for the 5 year total.
LikeLike
Ok, forgot Kansas NFL 2010 draft and 5 yr history:
Team 2010/5 year
Kansas 3/7
LikeLike
@Rick – Speaking of “perfect storms” – Congrats on RU getting 20K for their Spring game. Way to represent. If that, added to location, added to recent facilities upgrades, added to being a good research institution doesn’t seal the deal for Rutgers as one of the three, I don’t know what will.
LikeLike
Interesting comments from former Purdue president.
When Penn State joined the conference, Beering was optimistic that the Big Ten would become a 12-school league. Beering said some of the same schools being discussed today — Notre Dame, Syracuse, Rutgers and Pittsburgh — were considered nearly two decades ago.
“There were a number of us that were hopeful of adding the University of Pittsburgh as well,” said the 77-year-old Beering, a 1954 graduate of Pittsburgh.
“We had, at that time, a number of new presidents who were not secure in what they knew about the situation to cast a vote. They abstained, and we never got a vote to add a 12th member.”
http://www.jconline.com/article/20100425/SPORTS0201/4250333/Former-Purdue-president-foresees-Big-Ten-expansion
LikeLike
Omni: yeah 20k for the Spring game was nice. The fan base is solid and psyched. That coupled with the excitement of having 2 1st round draft picks, the prospect of hiring a BB coach to turn things around, the upgrade of the BB arena, and the possible invitation to the Big Ten, the RU faithful are quite excited. Kudos to the Orange for a very solid showing in the NFL draft as well. What are your thoughts on Tagliabue and the Big East commish comments? Or Boeheim for that matter?
LikeLike
“What are your thoughts on Tagliabue and the Big East commish comments? Or Boeheim for that matter?”
Ugh! Don’t get me started. Tags is a Georgetown guy. Nuff said. Love JB as our coach, but he was wrong about moving out of Manley, he was wrong about going to the ACC, and he’s wrong now. The man is very resistant to change. Much preferred his earlier comment when asked, “I’ll probably be retired by the time we change conferences.”
LikeLike
@omnicarrier – I have to imagine that Nancy Cantor couldn’t have been too pleased with those comments. I’ll expand upon what I think of Tagliabue in a new post coming up soon.
LikeLike
Top ten reasons why Kansas should be considered as a candidate for conference expansion:
1. AAU member since 1909 with a total enrollment of just over 30,000.
2. One of the Top 3 or 4 College Basketball programs of all time.
3. Rising football program just two years removed from BCS Orange Bowl appearance. New coach Turner Gill is going to get it done.
4. Very favorable national Brand/identity which is instantly recognizable on TV.
5. Good academics; Forbes Recently ranked KU as the 22nd highest Public University.
6. For cable viewership and advertising, KU brings the State of Kansas and more importantly Kansas City (there is no debate here, KC is a KU town)
7. Profitable Athletic Dept with revenues of $82 million in 2008 and $70 million in 2009; top 20 in the country.
8. Top notch athletic facilities which would be in the upper half of any BCS conference.
9. Endowment of $1 Billion.
10. Great college town; MSN just ranked Lawrence, KS as one of its Top 10 college towns.
LikeLike
Kansas is a dark horse candidate for a 14 or 16 team expansion scenario. I can’t see it being the 12th team alone though since it seems as if the 12th is likely to be a neighbor of the current Big Ten unless it is Texas.
A 14 team Kansas scenario would probably be Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas or Nebraska/Kansas/Pitt or Nebraska/Kansas/Rutgers. I don’t really see Kansas coming without Nebraska in any scenario and even though Kansas may jump Missouri, it seems unlikely right now.
A 16 team Kansas scenario would probably have to include Texas/Texas A&M or Notre Dame and something else attached to the 14 team scenarios.
LikeLike
Sarge, with respect to #1, the relevant info is enrollment on the Lawrence campus. That 30000 includes the KC medical center and 1 other branch campus. I believe enrollment on the Lawrence campus is something like 26000-27000?
I could see KU included in a 5 team RU-Pitt-Mo-Neb-KU expansion. KU would be taking the place of Syracuse or U Conn. I don’t think the Big 10 will go that route due to the US News ratings. The Big 10 would be adding 3 Us in the 90s and 100s, which would be 25-30 spots lower than any school at present. Meanwhile, Cuse is at 56(?) and U Conn at 66(?).
I’d like to see it, but don’t think it will happen.
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t think we should be looking at the US News rankings as much as people seem to be doing so.
The fact that these universities are in the AAU is good enough to check the box for being a “large public research-intensive university”.
It’s hard for great plains universities to attract the kind of student body that would move the universities up the US News rankings, that prefers the older “public ivys” which aren’t in the middle of the west. I don’t think the Big Ten presidents will hold that against them.
The AAU matters a lot more for this discussion than the US News rankings. The fact that Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri have more established football programs with respect to a proven tradition helps them vis-a-vis Syracuse/Rutgers/Pitt.
LikeLike
Kansas and Missouri have more established football programs than Syracuse and Pitt? Which two programs have a combined 10 nation championships?
*Cough*
Nebraska is certainly a premier football program just as Rutgers has a long tradition of sucking, but I don’t see any way to put Kansas and Mizzou ahead of Syracuse and Pitt comparing football programs.
LikeLike
I shouldn’t have included Pitt in that area, and I don’t really mean historically. Syracuse is a historic football power, but it certainly is not in the “establishment” of top tier football programs right now.
An argument can be made that Pitt is similar to Kansas and Missouri in terms of its draw, etc.
I still think it will look something like Nebraska/Missouri/Pitt or Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas if the move is to 14 immediately.
If the move is to 12 then it just makes sense to bring Nebraska right now and then let the dominoes fall where they may for the rest of the schools.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod: You are correct, the 30,000 is total enrollment and includes the Med Center in Kansas City. But, that even strenghtens the fact that KU brings Kansas City with its Med Center being there.
I do believe KU is a darkhouse and would only be an option if 16 team expansion is on the table and at least two other Big 12 schools are in the mix. But i do believe they bring more than what people might initially think. And KU probably brings more than MU.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree with you.
One of the strengths of the Big Ten, and therefore the BTN, is the fervent regional rivalries that exist in the conference. Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas would be terrific additions to the Big Ten, in this regard. Beyond their inter-rivalry, I could also easily see Nebraska quickly developing a rivalry with Iowa and Wisconsin, and Missouri enhancing their rivalry with Illinois. I’m not sure if Kansas would develop new rivalries within the Big Ten as easily (perhaps Indiana if they resurrect their bb program), but I don’t know if they need to right away, either.
Anyway, Kansas has a great brand name, their bb program is one of the most profitable in the country, they certainly measure up academically, and they are in a good market. I hope the Big Ten presidents see it that way, too.
LikeLike
@grantlandR – As long as Self´s still at Kansas – and Illinois gets back to an elite level -, Kansas and Illinois would become pretty good rivals
LikeLike
@Michael – Bill Selfish – that rat bastard.
LikeLike
At least you got Weber out of the deal.
*shrug*
LikeLike
kansas vs illinois..
msu vs iu..
if all can be good at the same time!
tasty baskeball!
LikeLike
@grantland R-I could definitely see an Iowa/KU rivalry getting heated up as well as Indiana/KU and Illinois/KU.
LikeLike
MSU v KU in BB would be huge.
LikeLike
Bringing in Kansas, Nebraska, & Missou together would give those team instant rivals would probably help them assimulate into the Big 10 more easily. Plus they are a mid-western school that would fit in nicely with Wisconsin, Iowa, & Minnesota.
Also their merchandising sales for the second quarter of the 2009-2010 fiscal year ranked at number 16 of the Collegiate Licensing Company schools which was well above SU (which ranked at 43), Pitt (which ranked at 44), & Rutgers (which ranked at 52). I’m sure this has already been posted somewhere in either this blog or another one of Frank’s blogs, but the link to the rankings of the Collegiate Licensing Company is: http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010
They have name recognition and would spur some interesting games with the western Big 10 schools.
LikeLike
@Bamatab – interesting list – and I´m sure it ebbs and flows with a school´s success in any given year and this list in particular favors the football schools, since it reflects the royalties in the fall of ´09
Top 75 Big 10 schools and the candidates:
6. Michigan
10. Notre Dame
13. Nebraska
17. Mizzou
19 Kansas
20. Illinois
27. Minnesota
29. Purdue
36. Maryland
43. Syracuse
44. Pitt
68. Northwestern
LikeLike
Complete CiC list and ALL candidates recently discussed (OSU, MSU, Indiana, Iowa are not with CiC):
Top 75 Big 10 schools and the candidates:
1. Texas
6. Michigan
8. Penn State
10. Notre Dame
13. Nebraska
16. Wisconsin
17. Mizzou
19 Kansas
20. Illinois
23. Texas A&M
27. Minnesota
29. Purdue
36. Maryland
43. Syracuse
44. Pitt
51. UConn
52. Rutgers
56. BC
68. Northwestern
LikeLike
There is a lot of talk about Big East and Big 12 schools, and I don’t see any reason for an SEC school to leave there conference, but has anyone considered North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia from the ACC. These are both AAU schools with good academics and they seem to have good revenue as well.
LikeLike
I think the biggest nugget of info this weekend was the NE chancellor saying that not just 16, but 24-school conferences have been discussed behind closed doors.
I can think of several possibilities for how that could play out, perhaps with the current conf champ games being division champ games and the bowls as conf champ games.
Juiciest pure rumor (zero confirmation) is that Texas proposed combining the cream of the P10 and B12 and the B11 + Rutgers for a 24-team conference (The Big Twentythree Conference?)
LikeLike
PN..
is this addition with subtraction??
ie to get to 24, do they imply cutting IU, Northwestern, Arizona, Arizona State, etc.. would be a sad day to the “academic” integrity of schools leaving long time allies behind!
LikeLike
Go back to what Jim Delaney once said, “One must see beyond the horizon.”
We are dealing with college presidents who think academics first, second and third. If you look at the Big Ten, all universities are AAU members (including University of Chicago). All of the schools they are looking at are AAU outside of Notre Dame. And there are some that say the Big Ten is beyond Notre Dame.
I can see where the college presidents want to separate themselves from those universities that are not so serious about education and research. Why not create your own association (NCAA) separate from those institutions not so serious about education and research.
Not all universities play by the same rules and standards. Thus I can see where like minded universities would want to come together and separate themselves from those not so serious.
LikeLike
You guys remember the hub bub that followed the rumor/leak of a supposedly repeated conversation between a Texas booster and the University President whe the gist of it was something like, “when we go west we won’t leave you Texas Tech guys by your selves”. Just a rumor but it sure got legs on this site. Well, here is another rumor that was on the subscription only site for Tex Ags.
posted 5:18p, 04/24/10
I talked to someone who has friends on the inside at tu. He has heard that if tu goes anywhere it will be to the Big 10, as would the Ags. He says that tu is not happy with some of the recruiting stuff going on in the Big 12, and view themselves as acadamically superior to the SEC and Pac 10. He says revenue will not have anything to do with what tu does because their revenue far exceeds anyother school.
It appears that Texas may be up to their Alligators in back room discussion about the benefits of the Big Ten. As an AG, I am packed and ready.
LikeLike
Going to the Big Tent doesn’t make a lick of sense for Texas, nor does the claim that they feel academically superior to the P10, UNLESS it was to go to a combined P10/B12/B10+ that skimmed off the top P10 and B12 schools. Something like a west division of WA, Stan, Cal, UCLA, USC, CO, AZ, TX, aTm, maybe TT (contradictory today, suitable in a decade) and perhaps 2 of MO, KS, NE, OU, or maybe even ND. Would be split into Pac and Central subdivisions, while the East division would consist of current B10+ and Rut, again split into subdivisions.
I have a hard time seeing the top of the P10 abandoning members, but I can easily see Texas suggesting this! The Longhorns are NOT happy about the rise in street agents, so I also wonder if UT proposed something like this, did they pitch it to the Cal schools as leaving behind USC and their corrupt antics, too? Going for the academic top heavy and supposedly pure super conference?
If one takes all these rumors at face value (unwise) and tries to tie together seemingly conflicting info, the above would be two of the few ways to do so.
More likely Texas is negotiating with the P10 for some type of P16 that ultimately may or may not involve dropping one or more P10 schools. They’ll probably compromise by keeping the current P10 and allowing Texas to bring along aTm, TT, and OU to join CO and either KS or Utah (or NE or MO if not taken by the B14/16.)
LikeLike
Frank, I was just reading the blog your friend wrote, and it appears to have a major flaw:
“By the Big Ten’s own admission they are clearing about $0.36 per subscriber per month for the states inside it’s footprint. They also tell us that there are 26,000,000 subscribers and it is AVAILABLE to 75,000,000 people. The BTN wants to increase the available number but even more important is to increase the subscriber numbers, and there is an opportunity to do that within the current footprint. Regardless, at $0.36 per month for 26,000,000 households over 12 months I only came up with $112,320,000 for a cable carry rate. Well short of the $272,000,000 that the network likely made last year. The other $160,000,000 is advertising revenue!”
The problem is the wording. “The Big Ten clears $0.36 per subscriber.” The Big Ten is talking about [i]their [/i]cut. What that fails to take into account, is the $0.35 per subscriber or that Fox is getting. The Big Ten only gets half, hence them clearing $.36, but if you are trying to project revenue, you need to account for Fox’s share. So instead, since the Big Ten is known get about $.70 per subscriber, and it would match the wording, it would appear that the Big Ten Network made roughly $225 million from the cable carry rate, or about 83% of its money from subscriber fees.
Maybe I am off here, but that seems to make a lot more sense, as there just doesn’t seem to be a way they would generate that much money in advertising sales (not including overhead costs) so soon, showing third tier games.
LikeLike
Re “major flaw” in numbers (Big 10 network subscriber rates vs advertising) (Shaun Corbett and Frank and Patrick)
This is not the first post questioning the numbers and hence Frank’s initial conclusions based on Patrick’s numbers.
I would like to see a follow-up summary of the numbers and methodology on this issue and what is the subsequent consensus on numbers or knowns and unknowns and how it affects the concept of Big 10 Channel profits and “value of expansion candidates” hopefully written by Frank in consultation with Patrick and omni, where posts to this follow-up blog would be limited to this specific subject.
This seems to be an important factual question that should be clarified; what numbers are known and what are in question and how does that affect what is after all the essence of this blog post.
Note I am not implying Patrick’s numbers and Frank’s conclusions are incorrect. To the contrary, I would love to see a separate summary blog rebuttal as to where the numbers and conclusions stand.
LikeLike
Sorry, when I posted, I had not read the other comments. But it seems to me, if he is basing the Big Ten advertising revenue off of this reverse calculation, the fac that the Big Ten talks about what they “clear,” is pretty telling. If those numbers, as I am reading them, are correct, that means that some 80+% of the fees are coming through subscription fees, which will dry up quickly if they are not producing ratings to justify how much they are charging.
What I cannot figure out though, is if that makes a national name that does not have a big market more or les attractive? Do you go after more subscription fees? Or do you now foucs on trying to get eyeballs to the set? That is the billion dollar question.
LikeLike
Personally this makes national brands that much less important. ABC/ESPN seems to care first and foremost about big time programs playing each other. OSU v PSU. OSU v UoM. After that level it cares about big time programs in high population centers (assuming the big program has a following in the area), no matter who they play. Anything else they consider marginal.
If a conference with its own tv channel adds schools in high population centers, and has enough big time programs to cover the already scheduled ABC/ESPN contract requirements, then any additional games can be broadcast on the BTN and recoup the money otherwise lost since ABC/ESPN wouldn’t be carrying it. In this way, it doesn’t matter if the new teams aren’t big programs, they only need to be locally (or preferably regionally) followed and provide the market for the already existing members to tap into.
Case in point…Big10 adds, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, three schools in the mid-atlantic/NYC area with decent followings. Also (if the posts on here are to be believed) the most popular non-local schools are (in no particular order) ND, PSU, OSU, & UoM. That means if any two of PSU/OSU/UoM are on ABC/ESPN (typically true as BigEast/ACC tend to steal one slot) that means one of those big time programs, playing a local team, is going to be on the BTN, in high population areas, for a significant portion of the season.
Adding a top program on the western side of the conference (Nebraska or Texas) would allow the same to occur when playing teams like Minnesota, Indiana, etc. in the mid-west.
Personally I think the magic number (with no real empirical evidence behind it) is “divide by 4”. If you have 12 teams in a conference, 3 need to be big programs. 16, you need 4. This allows the conference enough teams to always meet their ABC/ESPN contract requirements and still allow a fair number of (big program) games to get pushed to the BTN (which creates demand for the network and instills viewing habits in its subscribers) while not “top loading” so each big program can maintain its pedigree. What’s more, this allows the “secondary” schools chances having meaningful winning records and going to bowl games. Even if Rutgers lost every game of its PSU/OSU/UoM schedule, it still has a chance to have a winning conference, and overall, record.
LikeLike
Re “flaw in numbers” and “value of national brands” (Shaun Corbett and PSUGuy)
Interesting posts. Please note on Franks latest blog post toward the very top, I reposted my request above to Frank and Patrick and they replied they will shortly post a summary reply taking the various comments into account.
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/getting-krunk-on-expansion-news-or-lack-thereof/#comment-61352
You may want to repost your comments on the new blog post “Getting Krunk…” near my own to be sure your latest comments are part of the current conversation.
LikeLike
Pingback: Getting Krunk on Expansion News (or Lack Thereof) « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
Curios as to what Patrick’s numbers mean on reach of Big 10 network:
“They also tell us that there are 26,000,000 subscribers and it is AVAILABLE to 75,000,000 people.”
Subscribers are HH’s while the available number is about people. Is he saying this is the population of current subscriber HH’s?
I’m really curious as to what the potential HH reach is for the Big 10 network vs its current penetration. Adding HH’s to B10 network subscriber base is fixed revenue opportunity with carriage.
Given there are about 60M cable HH’s is this saying B10 is in 25M of them. How many more could they potentially add through Comcast
LikeLike
Pingback: Corn Flakes: A new Mike to coach baseball? | Northeast Kansans for Nebraska
Wow, over a 1,000 comments and growing.
So I’ve been reading alot on this, and I now believe the Big 10 will be going to 16 teams. Like the SEC guy alluded to soon there will be 4 conferences of 16 schools that will break off and form their own Super-64. The other two going to 16 will be the ACC and Pac-10.
Why? it’s about a playoff system and the money that will generate. The BCS deal ends in 2014. It will take a few years for the conferences to pick their schools, and for the schools to leave and join their new conferences….HEY whadda know…about 2015 would be about the right time to get this set up.
Each conference will have a 4 team pod. Each conference will have a semi-final playoff game, then their championship game. Each of the 4 conferences will send their winner to a 2 round National Playoff.
The big schools have for a long time wanted to be THE big schools. When they formed D-1 and D-1AA (now know as BCS, and FCS) many of the big schools were really really ticked off by the NCAA for adding so many of the San Jose St.s, and Tulanes to D-1. They wanted then to have a lesser number. The big boys wanted to keep more TV money to themselves. And the super 64 is how it’s going to get done.
One thing to think about with the Super 64 is some good schools will be left out. Just not enough spots. Texas Tech, Iowa State, New Mexico, could all be on the outside of the top 64.
so will the Big 12 take Nebraska or Rutgers? So far everyone on here (who have been really educated in their comments for the most part! I’ve been impressed!) I think is too focused on the Big 10, like they are the only one. They will be the leader in all this sure, but it’s just part of the forest.
Oh, and I think this is already planned out. It’s just figuring who goes where, while pretending the top 64 still care about the current system, before they tear it up, and leave some schools suddenly relegated to 2nd class status.
LikeLike
Which is why I think it unlikely we’ll see any consolidation break off as just 4 conferences of 16. 64 schools is probably too tight, leaves out too many politically connected schools. More likely it will be 72-84 total schools that split away.
4×16 actually isn’t ideal for a playoff. Unless all conferences go to a format where they take the 2 best conference schools for the title game instead of just the division or pod winners, we’ll see numerous cases of excellent teams being left out. What if the two best teams in the B16 are 11-1 Wisconsin and 11-1 Iowa in the same pod? Under the proposed system one doesn’t make the conference semifinals, while a 3-loss IL might.
Politically, the breakaway group might have to agree to allow an outside school into their new BCS and playoff if ranked high enough. That would allow at least a theoretical chance that the left behinds could qualify for the big BCS payout and nat’l championship. This would be another reason to incorporate wildcards.
More likely we’ll see ultimate breakaway of 5 or 6 conferences of 12-16 schools. That could work well in a Plus Three system, where you’d take those conference champions and 2 or 3 wildcards to match up in 4 bowls. Winners of those bowls square off at the home stadium of the 2 highest ranked winners, and then the neutral site title game.
LikeLike
Well, the 4 conf. 16 team does put the issue of who is in or out of the playoff back at the 4 pod level. You are right that any playoff will have a “What about XTEAM” factor.
But the playoff actually starts in a Super-64 in the 4 conferences. It’s actually a 16 team playoff. One from each pod, then to the conference championship game, then the 4 conference champions move on to the national level.
Yeah there will be issues with tie breakers and pod winners. Some might be top heavy, and other side weaker, but when it’s done in conference most people don’t really care. Sure having OU/Texas dominate the Big 12 each year is division heavy, but the Big 12 still put out a BCS team from the NC Champ. game, and if K-state upset the south, no one said, they didn’t play their way to the next level.
When you look at it this way, the Super-64 really works. BUT this set up doesn’t allow for a 5th conference to share. Like you point out there will be political factors involved, and that will come into play on the who goes where. I understand your point there, but I think it gets worked out. But I think the big schools WANT to keep out anyone sharing. That’s the point! It’s a F Boise State move.
LikeLike
Interesting that there has been at least some Kansas talk on here, but not much by the national sports writers. I was curious on the potential new households that KU brings how that took KC into account? KU’s trade area is certainly bigger than the State of Kansas and cuts substantially into Missouri. And KC is very, very KU heavy. KU basketball can garner NFL type ratings for the big games.
KU’s been in the top 3 or so of the Big XII (revenue distribution) at least the past couple of years and that’s despite KU getting no revenue benefit from being on national TV in league games (so that’s football and non-con basketball generated). So it’s not just basketball carrying KU financially in the Big XII.
Missouri’s in the middle of the pack at best in the Big XII financially. They may very well bring more money to the table in the Big 10 than the Big XII, but there’s a considerable track record that the Big 10 can look at when valuing Missouri.
LikeLike
Pingback: Clone Fans Eating ultimate Crow - HawkeyeNation Forum
Comment from someone with absolutely no insight:
As a football fan, the only names that get me excited about regularly playing UM, OSU, and PennS are Pitt, ND and Nebraska.
As for the rest, who really cares? Does Missouri really get anyone but Missouri grads excited? Sorry Syracuse, in football, your glory days are well behind you; Jim Brown hasn’t played there in 50+ years. Rutgers, you’ve been nice lately, but come on. Are you really a big time football program? How many more Illinois’ and Indiana’s can the Big 10 stand? (Sorry Illinois, but you mostly sux at football).
Obviously there are other considerations that just how good your football program is, but without football we aren’t even having a conversation.
LikeLike
A couple unexplored avenues:
1) History of B10 expansion has been one school at a time with 20 years or so between the last 50 years. To wit PSU 1990, MSC 1959, OSU in 1912 were the last three adds, a very commendable success rate. It may not be in the DNA of the COP/C to expand more than one to 3 or more members despite what seems obvious to us BTN viewers. Is there any good analysis of the previous expansion discussions & how Presidents are leaning?
2) These public Ivies make up the CIC but it is the B10 athletic side that is taking the lead in the expansion. The CIC DNA does not typically desire a solution of dilution by academic pollution of inviting lesser research schools to share their research dollars with. So it seems a homerun NU on the BTN side might be somewhat of a bigger sell to the CIC folks than say RU or Pitt. Does anybody know the effect of joining the B10 might have on improving a schools research R & D or USN&WR rankings?
LikeLike
Why would it take the B10 12-18 months to evaluate expansion when they do it every 4 years or so? They know who they looked at in the past, so what has changed so much other than the BTN to take so long to evaluate candidates? For example one former President casually mentions Pitt & NU so these names have been on the table for many years. I get the fact that this is a 25+ year marriage but these folks know each other just like their Admissions Department knows the High Schools in the region. Besides the AAU is a Private Club where they talk to each other and the CIC knows who they are competing against for grants. I do not recall the ND invite review taking this long. How long did the previous expansion reviews take?
Also there must be significant opposition to expansion considering the 4 year moratorium after the PSU invite. A moratorium sounds like a political compromise to get that last needed vote in exchange for a go slow approach. I recall the PSU invite being a stealth announcement too which would possibly indicate there was too much opposition to expansion, plus all the howling afterward. On the other hand, ND was extended an invite not long after the PSU expansion, but very little talk since then. Why all this previous resistance to expansion?
What is the prevailing B10 alumni view of the B10 expansion? What about the potential invitee alumni desire for an invite? I would think that has to be a very important aspect since alumni are many of the viewers BTN expansion is chasing. I remember most PSU alumni were enthusiastically bragging about how they were going join & win football championships. That is the unbridled optimism turned into ugly reality & then only hope that drives the BTN. This same alumni hope would be a desired trait in any possible invitee.
LikeLike
If the BTN is such a paradigm shift, the holy grail ultimate money maker for a conference, then why isn’t the P10 with Weiberg starting PTN(PacTenNetwork) up right now? The P10 has many good media markets like LA, SF, Phoenix, etc. with at least 45M population base, lots of leftover tv producing expertise just outside the UCLA campus, and a successful sample in BTN or even MTN. Even the ACC with the Eastern seaboard from FL to MA could start a tv network & same with the BEast with all their pops such as NYC which RU/SYC/SJ allegedly would deliver & the BTN apparently so covets. I can see why the BEast might delay with a possible raid looming, but why is the PacTen delaying? A case for the ACC delaying depending on the B10 expansion and possible SEC raid could be made. With a possible P10 expansion in the works, wouldn’t it be even a better time to launch a network as an additional inducement for potential brides? Is expansion & starting a network too much work to do simultaneously? I just don’t understand why these other conferences aren’t jumping on the bandwagon.
LikeLike
In both cases of the Pac-10 and ACC, there are a lot of households on paper, but the intensity of interest and large fan bases aren’t at the same level as the Big Ten and SEC. You need both those households and fan intensity (which you need in order to get cable operators to actually carry the channel) in order to be successful. At the same time, a network needs a major cable industry player (like Fox with the BTN) in order to provide the infrastructure and start-up capital. If there isn’t a willing cable partner for a conference, then a network will never get off the ground no matter how much that conference might want one. With the economy the way it is today, you might not see a willing cable partner for the other conferences because the Big Ten and SEC were the best candidates to pull off a network and they are off the market now.
LikeLike
EXPANSION LESSONS LEARNED
Why was PSU rejected by the BE in ’85 only to be welcomed into the B10 in ’90? Why didn’t founding institution Rutgers join the BE for football in ’79? Was SU offered admittance to the ACC and if so, did they accept before they were replaced by VT? Why didn’t the ACC take RU over BC to get the NYC market instead of Beantown and the additional resulting travel? Supposedly the BTN covets NYC eyeballs and this seems to be a case of one mans trash being another’s gold. I’m trying to understand some of the thinking of these folks since in hindsight, many of the decisions seem to questionable. Also what are former Presidents & Commissioners saying that might be of value in determining who might be offered admittance?
Speaking of travel, how well did the Miami & BC addition work out out for the ACC? Were the additional revenues & reputation increase worth the additional travel expenses? Same question applies with the most recent BE geographic expansion. The real question is did the expansions deliver as expected? The B10 PSU, last & SEC expansions seem to have worked well from what I can tell. It seems that most of the more successful Conferences expand well which is a blueprint for the B10 expansion.
LikeLike
Pingback: Miller: Dollars and Sense of Big 10 Expansion - Page 2 - HawkeyeNation Forum
Patrick, I might just not be understanding things correctly, but I’m not sure you accounted for Fox’s cut in the advertising money. Let me explain. If each Big Ten school made around $22 million last year, then the conference pulled in around $242 million. Subtract the $102 million from CBS and ESPN, and the BTN made them about $140 million. Just from subscriber fees, the BTN made them around (.357*26,000,000*12)=$111,384,000, meaning that the advertising revenue was closer to $28,616,000 for the conference, or about $2,601,454.55 per school – a significant amount of money, but certainly not 60% of their BTN revenue. Don’t get me wrong, I think with more investment into higher quality programming, more live sporting events, and bigger name schools making the cut, the advertising dollars will certainly go up, but I don’t think it’s fair (unless there’s just something I’m not getting) to assume the 60/40 principle as far as money making goes.
LikeLike
Pingback: Probably a dumb ? but..... - HawkeyeNation Forum
What would the numbers be for Georgia Tech?
LikeLike
Pingback: Hope Big 10 stays at 12 - Page 3 - HawkeyeNation Forum
Looks like Mike Leach has been denied by the Texas State Supreme Court in his lawsuit: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/apnewsbreak-texas-supreme-court-denies-le ach-15714286
LikeLike
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/apnewsbreak-texas-supreme-court-denies-leach-15714286 oops……try this one instead
LikeLike
Great article. I’m dealing with some of these issues as well..
LikeLike
Pingback: Realignment Rumors? - - Page 46 - City-Data Forum
Pingback: Conference Realignment Moving Day 2014 | SportsPolitico™