The Big Ten expansion rumor mill continues to churn, with the conference reportedly inviting (or at least welcoming to fill out the online Common Application to join the conference) Notre Dame, Missouri, Nebraska and Rutgers. Supposedly, if Notre Dame were to accept the Big Ten’s invite this time around, then the conference would add one more school for a 16-school conference. If the Domers reject the overtures of the “Big Integer” once again, then the conference would decide between staying at 14 schools or finding 2 other schools to invite. (Note that as I’m writing this, SportsCenter has teased talk about Notre Dame possibly joining the Big Ten about 8 times in the last 20 minutes with nary a mention of anyone else.)
This particular rumor has been denied by various parties, including the Big Ten’s office and Nebraska’s chancellor (who has probably been the most open university president of any of the schools involved over the past few weeks). Still, I’m suffering from confirmation bias with respect to this specific story because it’s the main scenario that the collective brain power of this blog’s readers has settled upon over the last few posts: Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers as virtual locks in a minimum 3-school expansion, with the Big Ten only going to 16 if it gets Notre Dame and/or Texas. I noted this in my interview with Penn State blog Nittany Whiteout a couple of weeks ago (here are parts 1 and 2):
NITTANY WHITEOUT: I’ll have to ask you a three part question. First: without thinking about money, or logistics, and if saying “no” wasn’t an option, what would be the ideal move for the Big Ten? Second: getting back to the real world, what’s the best possible decision for the conference? And lastly, just a shot in the dark, what ends up happening? Does Joe Paterno get that “Eastern Rival” he’s been pining for?
FRANK THE TANK:
1. The Big Ten adds Texas as team #12 and stops there. There is no single school that can provide more impact for the conference (even Notre Dame).
2. For all of the focus on TV markets, this expansion is going to require a massive football name in order for it work, which means at least one of Nebraska, Notre Dame or Texas. Any 14-team scenario with 1 of them would work very well and I think that you need 2 of them for a 16-school conference. If I were making a recommendation to the Big Ten and it’s not an option to just add Texas or Notre Dame as team #12, I’d go for a 14-school conference with one of those big names as an anchor. The other 2 schools would provide a base of households (Missouri to the west and Rutgers and/or Syracuse to the east), with the caveat being that if the Big Ten can get Texas but also needs to take Texas A&M, too, then the conference should do it in a heartbeat.
3. If I were to bet today (and be advised that this changes on almost a daily basis), I believe that the Big Ten will add Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers to create a 14-school conference. Nebraska provides the national name, Missouri safely delivers a state of 6 million people for the Big Ten Network, and Rutgers is a reasonable bet to at least get a toehold in the state of New Jersey. They are all large flagship schools that are members of the AAU, so they meet the academic requirements of the conferences while “fitting” the Big Ten mold. These are also all schools that will say yes to a Big Ten invite almost immediately. Finally and most importantly for your readership, JoePa gets one Eastern rival to pummel annually.
What’s interesting is that if the Big Ten were to actually send out 4 invites in the manner that it was reported today, it indicates that the conference is employing something similar to the Super Death Star Conference multi-phase expansion strategy that this blog threw against the wall in a homage to John Nash. The Big Ten is pot committed to expanding one way or another and clearly isn’t bluffing (as many casual fans across the country continue to believe). This puts Notre Dame in a precarious position because it will end up holding the key to whether the Big East will live on with just losing Rutgers from the football side. One line of thinking (which is the one that UCONN football coach Randy Edsall and many Big East fans believe) is that if Notre Dame were given an ultimatum to join the Big East football or give up membership in that conference’s other sports leagues, then the Irish would be “forced” into the Big Ten and the Big East could minimize its losses since Jim Delany wouldn’t pursue the East Coast any further. (I threw a lot of cold water on this popular suggestion in my post about potential Big East expansion scenarios back in February. Please see assumption #2.) On the other hand, the line of thinking in my head (and what I believe is the Big Ten’s modus operandi) is that Notre Dame joining the Big Ten actually would embolden the conference to go for the jugular in the Northeast with a 5-school expansion that includes multiple Big East teams. Jack Swarbrick has consistently tried to toe the proverbial party line that Notre Dame is fully supporting the Big East. The Irish will have to decide whether joining the Big Ten or staying independent will end up hurting the Big East more (and if it actually matters to the school).
Now, this blog’s commenters went wild in the last post over this Northwestern Rivals message board rumor about a drunk Big Ten employee supposedly stating that the Big Ten’s true targets are Notre Dame, Nebraska… and Texas. (What’s up with Northwestern and Big Ten expansion rumors? The university president telling a bunch of sorority girls about how the conference voted at the AAU meetings? Plastered Big Ten insiders getting toasted with the Wildcat faithful? Is this why Evanston was a center of the temperance movement?) The scheduling proposal is whack and would seem to be a non-starter for the Big Ten, but as for the mix of teams itself, no one can really discount this as the ultimate goal for the conference (as much as it might be a shoot the moon attempt). There have been multiple threads on Orangebloods (the premium Texas Rivals message board) that actually corroborated that if the Big Ten could grab Notre Dame and Nebraska, then that would be the scenario that would get Texas to join the Big Ten (whether or not Texas A&M is included). So, call me just a little bit titillated that the Big Ten might be sending out 4 invitations to apply to receive invitations with 1 outstanding spot that seems to play right into what that wasted Big Ten guy apparently told his Northwestern alum buddy. I’m simultaneously laughing off the thought that someone with this type of knowledge would spill it to a message board poster while seeing enough detail in the rumor to think, “Why the fuck not?” This is what passes for “solid” expansion news when no one with actual authority is willing to go on the record. A variant of the Super Death Star Conference might be coming along just yet.
Or it could “just” be a 3-team expansion with Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers. It continues to amaze me that a few months ago I thought that it was ridiculous to even think that the Big Ten would add multiple teams, yet now believe that 3-team expansion with one of the top 10 college football programs of all-time (Nebraska) that locks up the state of Missouri and possibly enters into the New York City market is a “conservative” move. That’s how much our expectations of Big Ten expansion have changed in an extremely short period of time. Hopkins Horn, a frequent commenter and Texas alum, asked the blog’s readers whether they’d be happy with that ultimate outcome. Personally, I think that it would be a great outcome for the Big Ten. While I’d love to add on Texas and/or Notre Dame on top of that group for a 16-school conference, a 14-school conference with Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers as new additions provides a great mix of star power, guaranteed households and East Coast market potential while still maintaining some semblance of an actual tight-knit conference feel (as opposed to being a massive confederation). As an Illinois alum, I like the natural East/West division split with annual games against long-time Braggin’ Rights rival Missouri. Expanding further to 16 without Texas or Notre Dame isn’t worth it, in my opinion (as much as I have a huge soft spot for Syracuse).
So, that’s where we are in the expansion rumor cycle at this point. Hopefully, some real news will come sooner rather than later.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from College Hoops Journal)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Schnitzel.
LikeLike
Could we see a TX-ND-NE-MD-Rut expansion? MD/DC and NJ each have more TV sets than MO, same for Georgia.
From my neck of the words, it is hard to think of a more delicious scenario than TX, ND, GT, MD, and Rut to the B16 and aTm to the SEC. “Here’s your Big Eight back, just like you’ve always said you wanted…”
But now for the real reason I’m posting. Normally the TX legislature only meets for the first 5 months of odd years. However various house and senate committees occasionally gather in Austin to deal with matters. Lots of them are meeting this week. If UT and aTm want to broker deals that may require lobbying legislatures, this is a good week to do that.
For aTm, the best possible outcome would be to go to a P14 or P16 without Texas. The chances are small that the Aggies would thrive in the meatgrinder of the SEC, and a B16 will be almost as tough. In contrast getting into the P14’s conference championship game would happen far more often than getting into the SEC’s. More visibility and more success brings more recruits and more success. That’s the fast track for aTm, especially if USC gets hit hard with a multi-year sentence in the next few weeks. Probably in a division with KS, CO, TT (or MO), AZ, ASU, and Utah. Better odds than facing OU, OK St, LSU, AR, Ole Miss, AL, and Aub.
The Memphis AD recently stated that a P10 AD confirmed that while they targeted UT and aTm, the Horns weren’t interested but the Ags were. Going to the P10 instead of the SEC would publicize aTm’s academic standing and boost its reputation. And how about the chance for they and TX to meet in a Rose Bowl?
A potential deal-killer would be UT having to schedule both aTm and OU as OOC games. Hence one reason why the NWestern rumor about UT and ND seeking more OOC games makes it believable.
Still, put me on board the TX to the B16 and aTm to the P14 train.
LikeLike
but this is a even (2010) year?i don’t understand what you mean by “Normally the TX legislature only meets for the first 5 months of odd years. ”
i have always enjoined “sources close” BS.. Hey “Source Close” to the Burger king/Wendy’s expansion to take over Mc D’s spot as # 1 ,have said “It’s all a Bunch of Lies”
LikeLike
The Legislature meets in regular session on the second Tuesday in January of each odd-numbered year. wikipedia
So the one thing that’s not bigger in Texas is their legislative schedule. Good to know.
LikeLike
And thank God for that!
LikeLike
Heard more rumors today that UT and aTm are indeed negotiating with both the B10+ and P10. Since ESPN reported that Georgia Tech is in the running, don’t we have a new dream scenario, or close to it? Adding TX, aTm, ND, GT, and Rut is tantalizing. Helps lure ND with more of a ‘national’ schedule in conference and Rutgers provides the foothold to play showcase teams in the suburbs of the nation’s largest market and media hub. Atlanta is a demographic triplet to DFW and Houston, and what a psychological power statement. Right into the heart of the SEC, plus hitting the 4 corners of the eastern half of America. TX=25 million, GA=10 million, NJ=9million, MO=only 6 million.
But NE & MO would still do alright in a P16. Quad Utah and CO with the AZ schools, another of NE, KS, MO, and perhaps ISU, plus the 4 Cals and the 4 NW schools.
As a Longhorn, a UT, aTm, ND, Rut, GT addition is the best realistic option I could hope for.
LikeLike
How about this power pod:
UT, aTm, ND, GT – Gives ND a game in TX every year and in the Southeast every other year. Puts all the good newcomers in their own pod to beat each other up, an advantage for the original Big Ten members. Other pods:
MN, WI, IA, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
NW, PU, PSU, Rut
Splits up IU-PU and PSU-OSU, but somewhat balanced.
Or perhaps:
UT, aTm, IU, PU
MN, WI, IA, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, NW
ND, GT, PSU, Rut
LikeLike
Don’t get too worked up about GA Tech. Two years ago, LSU put more butts in the seats at the Georgia Dome for the Chick-fil-a Bowl that Georgia Tech did. You can walk to the GA Dome from GA Tech’s campus. For a historically good team, GA Tech has very little support for their athletics in Atlanta. From what I’ve seen, UGA dominates the ATL. Auburn probably has fans in the ATL than does GA Tech.
LikeLike
I used to live in Atlanta. UGA is the dominant program, but GT has a solid following.
They’re now AAU, top-flight, and will make a nice fit. Similar to Purdue but knows how to win consistently.
LikeLike
Here’s the infamous flyover when GT hosted a mediocre Wake F team:
Stands not completely full in the 55K seat stadium, but still a good crowd.
LikeLike
Rutgers is in the mix only because Delaney is from NJ. GT? Why? Small stadium, small crowds. Small following. I lived in Hotlanta for 10 years. Nobody but engineers cares about GT. MO/NB good B10 fit. GT/Rut…eh.
LikeLike
I doubt the Big 10 stays at 14 teams. If Notre Dame rejects a Big 10 invite (likely), then staying at 14 basically confirms they can accept the invite whenever they would like.
I believe this is a multi-phased expansion, and that you will see three teams added by July 1, but if ND turns down the bid, I think you’ll see another two schools added by the end of the year, which then completes the complete expansion process in the 12-18 months first mentioned last December.
While we’re hearing new names such as Maryland or Georgia Tech, I think its really between Syracuse, Connecticut and Pitt for 2 spots. PSU and Rutgers gives the B10 a presence in NJ and PA, but if the Big 10 wants more of a play in NY, they’ll need to take a couple more BCS schools.
I think Syracuse is likely team #15, and right now, Connecticut may have a better shot at #16, mainly because you surround the tri-state area, and also have more exposure to New England in general.
Further, Syracuse and Connecticut are strong b-ball programs and are star programs in lesser sports such as women’s bball and lax which brings additional content to the BTN.
So right now, I think NU, Mizzou, RU, SU and Uconn is most likely.
LikeLike
Don’t think so Justin.
You have to remember that the presidents are going to be involved in this process.
We’re already adding the two lowest ranked academic schools in Mo and Neb. Your scenerio would also have the BT add the school with the least research (by far) in Syracuse, and a non-AAU member in U Conn. I don’t think that will happen. I can’t imagine that in a 5 team addition the best academic fit won’t be added.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – I think it’s somewhere in the middle with respect to academics. My feeling is that adding Mizzou and Nebraska will likely mean that the Big Ten wouldn’t make a play for a school like Kansas that’s similarly ranked. The Syracuse and UCONN comments are duly noted and I highly doubt that both would be invited, although if one of those schools is determined to push the Big Ten from being a fringe player in the NYC market to a true presence where the BTN gets basic cable carriage there, then the university presidents aren’t going to turn down those dollars when Syracuse and UCONN are likely in the “academically acceptable” cateogry (even if they aren’t academic powerhouses). The academic requirements are more qualitative (prestige by association), while the athletic requirements are more quantitative (how much TV money can a school bring to the rest of the members), and in this day and age, the quantitative factors are going to carry a lot of weight.
Regardless, if ND doesn’t choose to apply for a spot, I think that the Big Ten would stop at 14 unless it can get Texas and Texas A&M (who both certainly meet all facets of the athletic and academic requirements) to go up to 16.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 stops at 14, then they’ve again signaled to Notre Dame the door is always open.
I cannot see that happening. I also think its ironically enough, easier to have a 16 team conference then 14 teams, because with 16, you can have pods of 4 and rotate the schedules such that all the teams face each other every other year.
Nebraska gives the Big 10 a national brand in football. Syracuse and Connecticut bring a national brand in basketball, and with Rutgers, they have the tri-state area.
LikeLike
I agree with many of you, that, without Texas, the B10 stops at 14. Rutgers would be the 20 years later tag-a-long for PSU football and Missouri for Nebraska football. Since football is the major driver for the BTN, IMO, do not add anyone until Franks Fav, Texas, is either in, or, absolutely, positively out. I would think five years would be a reasonable time period we could expect to wait for Texas(and A&M, please)! However, the caveat is how much per school net, BTN money, if any, would be left on the table by not expanding with two more universities, to 16, in the near future. The numbers crunching, media, BTN, market share and add revenue analysts really have their work cut out for them. I know some of you have expertise in those areas. Could you add your thoughts on short term,(five years) 14 vs 16, revenue implications. My question, again is, if Texas could be ‘had’ within five years, would it trump anything from the Big East going forward with 16 immediately?
LikeLike
What signal is sent to ND is not relevant. What is relevant is what is the best plan for the Big 10 long-term.
To me, RU-NEB-MO looks better than RU-Neb_MO-Syr-Pitt. The risk-reward on the latter may not be there. If you stop at 14 you leave open a lot of options down the road. Maybe ND. Maybe TX. Maybe TX & A&M. Maybe Maryland, if the ACC fragments.
Maybe U Conn gains AAU status, and it’s football and academic status take off such that it becomes a no-brainer.
‘Twer me, I would also add Pitt, and stop at 15. How’s that for a signal? I would do that because Pitt is such a good fit and because the ACC may at some point offer ND, Pii, U Conn, and Syr. Yes, there’d be an odd # for awhile, but we’ve lived with that for 18 years or so…..
LikeLike
Of the Wiener variety only… please.
LikeLike
and don’t forget the spaten.
LikeLike
I had also heard in this report, or at least in reference to (whether endorsing or denying, I can’t recall) that the Rutgers invite would be dependent on whether ND said yes? Anybody else recall seeing this? I’ve been going through my browser history and can’t seem to locate where I heard this.
Either way, if true, this is, as they say, “A BIG FUCKING DEAL”. And I, for one, as an Indiana alum and die-hard Wolverines football fan, am pumped!
You gotta think that with only offering 1 BE football participant (Rutgers), ND has got to feel ok about the BE surviving and would probably risk staying Indie for the time being. In fact, I’d argue that with these offers on the table, the BE seems to be in a lot better shape than the BXII, no?
It looks to me like the B10 is going for a multi-phase expansion strategy, grabbing 2 BXII North schools, with another (Colorado) eyeing the Pac10, and half of the North Division is byeski. The only pool of likely candidates to replace them is in Texas (TCU, Houston, UTEP), but none are very attractive, nor do they help the BXII avoid the problem of population distribution for TV contracts.
WIth half a division kaput, UT and aTm would be crazy to not try and bug out of the BXII as fast as they could, and you gotta believe at that point they’ll do it with the blessing of the legislature, the governor, the lt. governor and every joe and jose schmo on the street.
What am I missing here?
LikeLike
@HoosierMike – A Rutgers invite wouldn’t be conditional – the wording of the original report was just confusing. What it essentially said was this:
ND accepts = 16 school Big Ten with ND, Rutgers, Missouri, Nebraska and one more lottery winner
ND rejects = 14 school Big Ten with Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska
LikeLike
Ok, so that doesn’t change things too much. As you state in your scenarios, the only variable here is ND. No way that Neb, Mizzou or Rutgers turn this opportunity down. If the certainty of these three teams moving, is coupled with Colorado moving to the Pac10, UT really has a decision to make.
#1: Work with the remaining 9 to rebuild a 1/4 of your league.
#2: Jump ship with the Buffs to the Pac10.
#3: Jump ship with the Huskers and Tigers to the B10.
#4: Join the SEC (Just kidding, HopkinsHorn)
#1: With who? Take your pick from the MWC or WAC? Arkansas? BYU, CSU, NM, BSU, LT, NV
Q: Which of the above schools makes your position stronger, UT?
A: none. If you’re going to rebuild a cabin, you gotta have some logs to get it done, and I just don’t see any laying around.
#2: I’m still having a hard time with thinking that you can get a unanimous vote from the Pac10 schools to support adding a member, let alone two or three. Hell, 3 schools voted against Penn State joining the B10 (sketch!). But, then again, there was a time I thought the B10 going to more than 12 was just stupid, stupid talk.
#3: In the wake of conference realignment armageddon, as the first dawn emerges from the long darkness, but before the sun rises, still shadows will seem alive, and the light will play tricks on the eyes. If there is a (college football-)loving god, in this uncertain, volatile and dangerous landscape the Big10 WILL provide a safe haven to UT. The B10 becomes the bar-none biggest swinging sac this side of Patton’s 3rd Army, and well, I’ll be one happy Hoosier. All I’ll need then is RichRod to get to a bowl and Crean to get to the dance and my world will be right.
By the way, if all of this ends up being yet another bogus rumor that I’ll end up spending countless hours thinking about, I’m gonna be totally pissed… and anxiously awaiting the next baseless rumor.
LikeLike
Dammit Frank, Every TIME I think I have kicked the expansion crack pipe, something comes up that sucks me back in…..
@ Hoosier Mike,
I don’t know where this will show up, but it’s a response to your first post (I think). Completely agree on Texas. If Frank’s scenario 1 materializes (or was that your scenario 1) then Texas has some building to do without any logs. Why not move at that point?
Also, Pac 10 expansion is just not happening. The Pac 10 would need to leave Stanford independent and then get three teams to sign up. I read this
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=4917550
on WASU’s board and while it was a political answer from the Stanford AD, it sounds like while Stanford would entertain the idea, there was a lot of “get screwed” innuendo with respect to the teams discussed.
@ Frank,
BEast and the Domers (JEEZ I HATE THESE GUYS!) If Tagliabue is serious about doing SOMETHING with the BEast, does it begin with Notre Dame? I mean, what else can either clearly send a message that the BEast wants to improve or they just let it implode? If Domer independence is a dinosaur waiting to collapse, why shouldn’t the BEast force the Domer’s hand and tell them to get in or get out? What does the BEast have to lose at this point?
Just wondering if there has been anything juicy coming from the BEast or if they’re simply going to react after the fact. I know I would be taking the offensive, if I were in charge. Of course, that’s probably why I’m not…
LikeLike
@MIRuss – The issue with the BE and ND is that a lot of the Catholic schools believe that a split is inevitable, in which case it makes ZERO sense for them to provide an ultimatum to ND. If a new separate Catholic league is formed, then those schools certainly want ND as a centerpiece for that conference as the biggest draw. My understanding is that it would take a unanimous vote for the BE to remove a member. The football members only have 50% of the vote, so good luck trying to get the Catholic members of the BE to kick ND out (especially since DePaul and Marquette were specifically invited to the BE as a result of the support of ND). Not only that, it sets a horrible precedent – DePaul, for example, would be on edge constantly if the conference set a standard of kicking schools out. (Temple was a unique situation as a football-only member of the BE, where the only schools that had a say in its membership status were the football schools.) Add to the fact that Rutgers is certainly on the short list of Big Ten invitees while Pitt, UCONN and Syracuse all are hopeful to get onto that list and you’ve got most of the league that have a lot of interests in ensuring that ND does NOT go the Big Ten. The main schools that have been pushing ND are West Virginia and Louisville, who clearly have the most to lose if the BE loses multiple football members. Even though it might be in the best interests of the BE conference overall to kick ND out, when there’s a lack of faith that the conference will even exist in another year or two, there isn’t going to be much willpower to give an ultimatum to ND.
LikeLike
Plus there’s still the question of who is left for the Big East to pick up if they drop ND.
They’d probably pick up a football school (9 teams being infinitely better than 8). But there’s no good argument that Memphis is better than ND from the Big East’s perspective…esp. from the Catholic schools.
LikeLike
Frank,
The Big East football schools may not be able to force ND’s hand outright because of the relationship with the Catholic schools, but they have their own tools to use. It would be very easy for the football conference to pass a referendum that its members will no longer schedule ND, period. In recent years, ND has played Pitt, SU and UConn from the Big East. In addition, I could really see Delaney wanting to stick it to ND if it seems like they’re going to turn down the Big Ten again. What happens to the Irish’s schedule if Big Ten teams no longer schedule them either? That’s a lot of teams off of the table.
LikeLike
@ Pezlion
Uh, you mean the games that Mike Tranghese asked for to help the Big East out?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_338723.html
yeah. I’m sure the Big East would love to throw a favor we did for them back in ND’s face.
Plus, how will it help the Big Ten to try blackballing ND…again. It’s a huge game annually on Purdue and MSU’s schedule that I’d bet they’d loathe giving up for Delaney’s ego. Michigan just signed a 25yr deal, IIRC. The only other Big Ten team we’ve played recently in the regular season was PSU. I don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t see any league in a position to blackball ND, especially when ND’s membership is what any league would want. This coming from a UMich fan that would have liked to have seen the B10 not schedule ND some years ago to get them to join, or at least embarrass themselves by scheduling the Pentagon every year.
LikeLike
What does Texas do?
1) Yes. Ok, it’s not a pretty picture, and really doesn’t work well. The TV part though works if the Pac-10 joins in a TV package. The Pac-10 has issues in expansion themselves with Stanford saying no to everyone. But if the Big 12 replaced NE, Mizzou, Colorado, with New Mexico, BYU and say Boise St, (or Houston, or UTEP if forced) between the 2 conferences, you’d have most of the TV markets in the west covered. The names wouldn’t be as sexy, but it would work from a TV stand point.
2) I agree on the Pac-10. Especially if the PTB tack on Texas Tech or even Houston to the mix.
3)I’m thinking this just isn’t an option any more. UT has 2 hanngers on in A&M and Tech. A&M is viable on their own, but Tech isn’t. UT, doesn’t want the SEC, and the Pac-10 would never OK Tech. The Big10+ couldn’t go to 18 could they?
LikeLike
And who would #16 be if Notre Dame accepts?
Would they go for a basketball school with just-ok football like Kansas or Syracuse? Send the ACC into a fits taking a school like Maryland? Or maybe Notre Dame and PSU would want Pitt invited? Pitt is only behind Michigan State, Purdue, Navy, and Southern Cal on Notre Dame’s all-time opponents list.
LikeLike
I’d hope Kansas is #16 if Texas doesn’t want the spot, if only because I would feel terrible if Kansas got left behind with the scraps of the Big 12 while the rest of the conference scatters to the Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC.
LikeLike
I like Pitt a lot if UT says no to the final spot. Solid academics, AAU, research funding on par with B10 schools. Not to mention Wanny’s got them on the rise in fb (isn’t there something about a monkey, typewriter and enough head coaching jobs that you’ll eventually do something significant?), and they’re a solid bb school. Plus, I’m too young to remember the PSU/Pitt rivalry, although I’ve heard much about it. Would love to see that fire rekindled.
LikeLike
That’s how I understood the comments, too. I think that maybe the Big Ten is giving Notre Dame the position as “Savior to the Big East” with this kind of positioning. ND admin can sell it to their alumni that way. “Notre Dame is so powerful, it can save an entire conference by joining the Big Ten!” The Big East only loses 1 school — Rutgers, and school # 16 is Maryland or Texas.
LikeLike
“Notre Dame is so powerful, it can save an entire conference by joining the Big Ten!” is not impressive enough to sway anyone…particularly Domers.
I also think the ND powers that be still don’t want in the Big Ten. Sure, the AD’s office might be in favor, as the hard-science faculty and grad student union. But the way I read Swarbrick’s near-immediate backing off his earlier maybe is that his bosses told him to knock it off. Considering how TPTB might be able to use the potential windfall of B10 TV money to drive up donations, I don’t think they’d tell Swarbrick to back-off unless they seriously determined that ND to B10 is bad for the Irish.
OTOH, if *that’s* true, why did they get the B10 to send them more info re the B10 TV deals and possible membership benefits for the B10, as is rumored?
LikeLike
So if ND says no thank you, that leaves the Big Televen with three yeses and 14 teams total. Without another big name like ND, the incentive to go full out to 16 right now just isn’t there. Does that mean a 14 team Big 10 pushes the PAC to 14?
Who joins Utah and Colorado on the trip out west? While I’ll be shocked if the PAC actually follows through with expansion beyond 12, I can’t see any way they get to 14 without Texas and a +1 for whichever belle Texas wants to bring to the ball. Is there any truly viable alternative to Texas in a PAC 14? Utah and Colorado are the only two western schools that hit every major requirement on the PAC’s list. If they need to go beyond 12 and Texas says no, is the PAC geographically screwed?
LikeLike
I think so. Without a network there’s no financial incentive to go above 12. I don’t even know if TAMU is politically acceptable to Stanford or Cal-Berkley. Every time I try to come up with a scenario to get to a PAC-16 I get stuck at 14 (TX, TAMU, CO, Utah). When I try to sub in UNM, SDSU, Wyoming, Hawaii, and/or CSU, even I think it’s not happening.
I think the only place to really find politically acceptable schools for the Pac-10 is the Northeast. I’m thinking schools in the Big East and ACC that the Big Ten is looking at are the type of schools that the PAC-10 is looking for but can’t be found in the Rocky Mtn states or Great Plains. I doubt that it’s economically feasible flying cross-country for Olympic sports, which would be a dealbreaker. Then again, the idea of a UCLA-UCONN match-up three times a year in basketball is very entertaining to me.
LikeLike
How committed is the Big Ten to the PAC-10?
As you ask, TheBaron, who else can the PAC-10 get? Is the Big Ten confortable capping PAC-10 expansion to merely Colorado and Utah? Is that PAC-12 line-up good enough to maintain the Rose Bowl as we currently know it?
This may be why ND is such a big deal to the Big Ten. ND is the B10’s best name expansion candidate that allows them to leave Texas to the PAC-10 and maintain the PAC conference as a major one…or at least in the same ballpark as the B10 and SEC.
LikeLike
We’re committed to the Pac-10, but we’re more committed to making the Big Ten the dominant conference in the East.
Delany and co. believe that the Pac-10 will prosper simply because the Big Ten can never truly eat it or harm it, since we’re never going to go west of Texas and neither will the SEC.
Thus, the Pac-10 will always be third fiddle to the Big Ten and SEC.
For the Big Ten, grabbing Texas is the #1 priority, making sure Texas does not fall to the SEC is the #2 priority.
If Texas says no to the Big Ten, then it better be going to the Pac-10 in other words. That’s the only scenario where we’ll be fine with Texas going elsewhere. But first, we’d want Texas.
The Big Ten doesn’t mind leaving the Pac-10 as the third major conference, since that won’t really kill it per se; it’s got 2 time zones protecting it.
LikeLike
But yes, to answer your question in a better way: the Big Ten would be satisfied going to 16 with Nebraska and Notre Dame. We wouldn’t really need Texas as long as it still doesn’t go to the SEC.
LikeLike
B10 EXPANSION HISTORY & IMPROVING NU/MIZZOU rankings
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 1950, 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 & what Presidents have been saying?
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
Former Penn State President Brice Jordan indicated that after he lead Penn State into the Big10 that there was talk of adding Texas and creating north and south divisions.
I am not sold on Missouri, Nebraska and Rutgers. IMO you have 2 schools with worse academics and research than every other Big10 school in Nebraska and Missouri. You have 2 schools with average at best football teams in Missouri and Rutgers. You have 1 school with an ok basketball program in Missouri. I can not see the AD’s or Presidents hyped about this trio of candidates, no disrespect intended. Unless the plan is to add two more of Texas, Texas A&M and/or Notre Dame immediately after adding the first trio of teams.
Maybe the premise is that if Notre Dame is accepted, Texas comes in as team 16 and Texas A&M along with Colorado go to the Pac10. If Notre Dame says no, maybe Texas A&M comes with Texas.
Whatever the case, I think more is needed from an academic, research and sports content point otherwise simply add Nebraska for football, or Rutgers for academics, research and TV sets.
LikeLike
Agreed. I love Neb from a purely fb perspective. asses in the seats and eyeballs on the tv. Rutgers I like for having Big10 games played near NYC. Mizzou? What do they bring other than a natural rivalry with Illinois and middling everything else?
LikeLike
Nebraska brings a fairly sizable population base that will certainly sign up for the Big Ten Network, unlike Rutgers (from whom we might but may well not get NYC) and Nebraska (low population base).
LikeLike
In this day and age, the number one concern for most Presidents is probably money. If the BTN becomes huge enough (i.e. with enough programming to really cash in), then the athletic programs in the Big Ten will be able to generate substantial income for their schools. If the experts are saying that expansion is the way to cash in, I think the Presidents will be more generous in their critiques of the newcomers’ academic standing.
LikeLike
I think the Presidents and Chancellors will be more ¨generous¨ in the sense that they are actually considering multi-team expansion, when in the past that would have been unheard of. As for drastically lowering their academic standards, without being thrown a couple carrots in the process . . . I don´t buy it.
Until this rumor unfolds to add at least one power house research program, I don´t think any of us should take it seriously. And remember, even though the Big 10 is clearly comfortable with ND, I can´t imagine their inclusion (and lack of research prowess) would do anything to justify the other schools added.
The fact of the matter here is that RU, NU and MU are all AAU schools but none is a powerhouse. Rutgers is probably the best of the bunch but it roughly equates to Iowa, among the current Big 10. Iowa, for God´s sake! Being in a dead heat with the back of the pack does not qualify as a research bang and would not be enough to get this trio of schools approved. Hell, even if ND and Texas were numbers 15 and 16, I´m not sure it would be enough. If that were the case – and it seems like the best case scenario under this rumor – it would at least make for a very contentious vote.
LikeLike
How many times does it have to be pointed out that Nebraska has higher annual R&D expenditures than Rutgers (and more than any expansion candidate other than Pitt and UT/A&M)?
LikeLike
Rutgers is #38, I believe, in the ARWU rankings which places it middle of the pack in the Big Ten. Pitt is about the same. Both schools are in the tier just behind the academic leaders in the Big Ten (and of course the world). By most standards, RU and Pitt would be considered first rate academic institutions
LikeLike
PS: Big Ten schools do not share research dollars per se. The CIC is simply a mechanism for cooperation between schools. Bringing in schools with little research capability doesn’t drain the bigger research schools’ coffers, but it is a lost opportunity to have a strong partner with good facilities and good staff with whom they can augment existing research efforts and facilitate new research endeavors. And adding private schools or state schools within the existing footprint could conceivably mean a lost opportunity for having more senators and representatives lobbying for funding for shared projects.
LikeLike
TIMING & POLITICS
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 promise. 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
http://www.jconline.com/article/20100425/SPORTS0201/4250333/Former-Purdue-president-foresees-Big-Ten-expansion
“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.”
LikeLike
First, I share your view that too many folks on this board are looking at this from the BTN side of things instead of the CoP/C perspective. You’re talking about some seriously risk-averse individuals here, none of which want to be remembered for pushing the domino that drastically altered collegiate athletics if this expansion business gets WAC’d. I thought that 12 would be most likely, followed by 14 with a cool down period of a few years, and thought that 16 was an “out there” idea, but for some reason, every rumor points in the other direction. I hope someday down the line some average sportswriter is able to put together a mediocre book about this period of expansion and we can all find out who these sources “close to the situation” and “deeply involved in discussions” are.
I think the 12-18 months is a factor of CYA more than anything else. They’ve got to announce that they’re looking to expand, and better to give fair warning ahead of time of their intentions. Just as you’re not required to let your neighbor know you putting a fence up ahead of time, it’s kind of rude not to give them some advance notice. It’s really a way to minimize blowback on the backend of things.
I’m not sure how long the expansion reviews took in the past, but I also know there wasn’t any number crunching around the BTN that needed to take place to determine likely subscriber rates/household blah-blah’s.
As a Big10 alum (IU) and huge fan (UM fb, IU bb), I’m all for expansion… to 12. I’d prefer UT/Neb/ND/Rut in that order. I’m not big on 14, and think Mizzou is kind of an unnecessary pick, but I get it. I like Rutgers because I like the idea of heading to NYC for a weekend to take in a game. Suh-weet. I think 16 is a big stretch with some significant risk of diluting the product of “Big Ten Football”, not to mention the academic standard you mentioned. 4 team pods, with rotating divisions seems workable to me, but isn’t quite as sexy as two divisions with a CCG in the first week of December (my birthday) played in Indianapolis (my hometown). That, sir, is my heaven on earth. Big 10 football on my birthday 5 miles from my house. And anything that goes beyond that is unnecessary in my book, unless it guarantees we’re considered “better” than the SEC in football and ACC in basketball. Then it’s ok.
LikeLike
EXPANSION LESSONS LEARNED & EXPANDED TRAVEL
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
1] The Big East was strictly a basketball league in ’83 and ’85 when Penn State was talked about as an addition. There was little interest in them from the catholic basketball schools.
2] There was no Big East football in ’79. The Big East football conference was only organized after Penn State accepted the Big Ten invitation.
3] The Virginia legislature used the ACC bylaws and well-known fact that Duke and UNC were against expansion to strong-arm the other schools into taking VT instead of Syracuse.
4] The ACC invited BC because they were a more attractive candidate. You have to remember that by 2003, Rutgers had not had a winning season in 10 years and the administration had not begun its large and controversial investment in the football program and facilities.
5] Expanding to Florida is always worth it. Flights are cheap and plentiful, recruiting is top-notch.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’ll defer to your Big East knowledge on this one.
I doubt ND will apply for Big Ten membership or accept an invite in the forseeable. I agree with your Big East second assumption that ND won’t be kicked out.
My question: Is independence a viable option for any Big East school not taken by the Big Ten, particularly Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, WVA and/or UCONN as they wait for potential ACC or SEC expansion? Would it help if ND as a fellow Big East school cut them a deal for November games until they found a new conference home?
LikeLike
My humble thoughts on this is “no”. The $5MM penalty the BE instituted for leaving after the ACC raid, as well as a leaving school not receiving any money from the FB or BB TV contracts, makes it an expensive and risky proposition for a school to go it alone. If you’re going to have to pay the 5 mil whether or not you leave to go indy or to join another conference, you may as well wait until you’ve got somewhere to go/money stream to dip into/other schools close by to schedule games with. I also can’t see ND helping a school with scheduling that’s decided to weaken the BE in any way.
LikeLike
What if the Big East dropped football, but not the football playing schools? That is, the schools would remain Big East in all sports but football like ND.
Does that change the answer?
LikeLike
I don’t think that anyone can really pull off being independent today other than ND and Texas. (The service academies are in a different class as extensions of the federal government, so they don’t have the same financial issues to consider.). Financially, none of the BE schools would have the leverage to put together individual TV packages that are as attractive as being part of a conference. In terms of bowl tie-ins, the BE has had a hard enough time getting decent bowl agreements even as a group with the enticement of ND every few years, so it would be horrific if they had to go out on their own and make their own deals. Finally, and most importantly for the BE, I don’t think that any of these schools have the power to obtain the same treatment from the BCS as ND, meaning that they would have to go to the BCS non-AQ pool. Even if all 4 Northeastern schools were to leave the BE, the 4 BE schools left behind actually have performed the best out of the BCS AQ criteria over the past few years (WVU and Cincinnati, in particular), so whatever league that is cobbled together would still maintain BCS AQ status. There’s no reason whatsoever to unilaterally give that up since that’s the main differentiator between the BE right now and leagues like the MWC.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s true. Good point.
I wonder where they go. I don’t see the ACC expanding again for a while. If the Big East has to replace three or four members, they’re really gonna have to scrape the barrel, and that’s even if they’re willing to expand all the way to BXII country.
Is there the will in the Big East to pick up schools like Buffalo, Temple, UCF, and ECU? At what point do Georgetown, Villanova, and St. Johns say no mas for fear of diluting the basketball brand?
The longer this goes, the more excited I become for Notre Dame’s future…especially if it’s as an independent.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – I think that if Syracuse and UCONN stay in the BE, then the hybrid survives. If they don’t stay in the BE, then you’ll almost certainly see a split. Now, if I were running the BE, my first call would be to TCU. (This is assuming that Texas and Texas A&M stay with what’s left of the Big XII, where there’s little incentive to add another Texas-based school.) Seeing how the BE has been run, though, it looks more like a Memphis/UCF/ECU-type move.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox How do you see ND’s future getting brighter in this scenario of a strengthened B10 and weakened BE?
LikeLike
Probably because emotionally I’m at the point most of the commenters were two months ago when anything was possible. 🙂
If the Big East drops football, ND will have the opportunity to play the major remaining Eastern teams late in the season, and more potential BCS slots open up since the MWC will likely get the BE’s old AQ slot. Especially since I don’t see either the ACC or SEC expanding further into the Northeast anytime soon.
As my father always complains, the Big Ten beats up on the Big Ten. If the major powers of the midwest are content to group together to beat up on each other, some of these powers will have to wane. This can only help ND by comparison. Plus, if Big Sixteen fans are happy with the expansion, and ND fans remain happy with their independence, it can only help my existence in dealing with Big Ten fans. 😀
I’m also intrigued to see what an all-Catholic league of the best Catholic schools east of the Mississippi might look like. I’d love to see if they were treated like a major, particularly in basketball.
LikeLike
FTT, I totally agree that BE’s 1st call SHOULD be to TCU if only Rutgers goes to BE. Is there a realistic possibilty of BE adding a 9th FB/17th BB school assuming BE thinks outside the box? If so, would Houston be a fit giving a travel partner in BB?
LikeLike
@FLP
“If the major powers of the midwest are content to group together to beat up on each other, some of these powers will have to wane. This can only help ND by comparison.”
Replace “midwest and Notre Dame” with “southeast & Tulane.” How’d that work out for them?
LikeLike
If the Big Ten is hoping a multiple phase expansion would somehow entice a university that is hesitant to join now, it is deluding itself. The belief a university just needs to be convinced to not take a wait and see attitude undervalues your brand. All invitees will want to pull their weight and then some to improve themselves and in turn the conference so that all benefit. Entrance into the conference is not the destination but only the beginning.
If the time horizon is really 25+ years, why be conservative with 14? The premise I take is that there will still be a healthy bowl experience for the next 25 years and we will not see a playoff system other than a +1.
http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/11/12/would_a_college_football_playoff_be_fair_96533.html
16 offers better scheduling with the various pods that have been discussed in numerous comments. There could be 8-12 bowl tie-ins. We also know about the additional programming opportunities for BTN. We could see more non-sport programs something you would see on Discovery, PBS, NatGeo, History, etc.
As several have pointed out, the analysis of the present and future values of which universities offer the best fit would seem to favor the more assertive path of 16.
LikeLike
i disagree about 16 teams being the “Best”. i still thin 14 works out a lot better.
One thing i think is odd, why invite Rutgers until you know ND’s answer. and if you know it’s no. then why bother to even ask? Getting ND changes IMO Rutgers value.
LikeLike
There are probably legitimate questions as to whether ND “delivers” the NYC DMA. That is, is having ND in the conference enough to put the BTN on a basic tier? Methinks no.
I think it’s to let ND know that the B10 is looking to the BE, and if ND says no, it’s very likely the next two schools we invite will be BE schools.
It makes the invite count 4, which equals 15 schools, which implies a willingness to go to 16. Rutgers is the first BE school. If ND says no, that leaves 2 open slots for two more BE schools. If the B10 takes 3 BE schools, the conference is in serious trouble, and ND may need to find another home.
LikeLike
Put ND a mere 25 miles away from NYC every other year and I guarantee you they deliver NYC. There’s a reason why ND is the team playing at Yankee stadium.
ND makes the Rutgers play pay off in spades. Then again so do any big teams like Michigan/Ohio State/Nebraska/Penn State/Texas.
The people of NJ/NYC only care about big time football; that area is so inundated with professional sports, that they don’t care about the Big East because it’s not really anything like professional sports. The Big Ten expansion has the potential to take it to that kind of level by doubling the number of national draws to 6.
LikeLike
That is so very true about the NY Market. It’s big time sports, not only the pros, that the market craves. The Big Ten package, ND, Texas, etc, the whole concept of big time sports is what gets the juices flowing. With or without ND, the Big Ten package (preferably 16) will sell.
LikeLike
Hawkfan, as to “why Rutgers”?—The BT presidents have been thinking about RU for 20 years…it’s the state u of a large state, NJ, has 35000 enrollment, is highly regarded in academic circles, has plenty of research $, and is 20 miles from NYC. Additionally, it has turned a corner, imo, in football in the last 10 years. Stadium improvements have been made, and more are contemplated. And, finally, adding RU gives the pres some academic “cover” to add Mo and Neb.
I do agree with you that this WON”T be a two-phase addition. I seriously doubt that the BT pres will want to go through all of this nonsense twice within 6-12 months. They’ll go to 14 or 16 in one move–they won’t keep the college football world all mixed up for another full year.
I think they’ll go to 14 and stop. They’ll let things play out and see what the landscape looks like in another 5 years. Obviously if TX or ND change their mind in the interim plans would change….
LikeLike
Nebraska has a a looser acceptance policy than Rutgers, due to population and mission, but they spent more in research last f.y.
LikeLike
Rutgers research figures do not include UMDNJ (the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ), which WAS part of RU but was stripped away in a political move several decades ago. The current belief is that the new Gov of NJ is on board with at least part of UMDNJ (which does $200mm+ a year in research) being moved back under the RU umbrella.
LikeLike
That would be a good thing for Rutgers, keep the research united. Maybe there would be an increased efficiency with a move like that.
LikeLike
I haven’t heard that any anywhere Phil. It’s my impression that UMDNJ was completely separate, working as closely with Princeton and Seton Hall as with Rutgers.
LikeLike
MushroomGod, Maryland has many of the academic attributes of Rutgers, in addition to a better and more traditional all-around athletic program. And its ties to Washington and Baltimore, two large media markets, are considerable. Why shouldn’t it be a factor as well?
LikeLike
Maryland is on the table as a top get, but no one knows if they’re interested.
Maryland may not want to leave the ACC since it is so close to the other D.C. area schools…
LikeLike
Spartakles, I disagree.
Assuming this move is true, the addition of Rutgers, Missouri, and Nebraska is a game changer for both ND and Texas (And A&M for that matter).
Before this move, there was a lot of speculation, and almost too many potential paths for national re-alignment and expansion. With the Big Ten at 11 schools, there may have been too many variables for ND and Texas to say yes, or make a commitment.
Now, though, it absolutely narrows the focus.
For ND, there is now a paradigm shift. The Big East will lose a football member. If ND says no, there is a very distinct possibility that this is their last chance to get into the Big Ten. Additionally, if ND says no, there is also a very distinct possibility that the Big Ten next offers two more Big East schools (Pitt, UCONN, ‘Cuse). Also, joining the Big Ten to go to 12 schools is much different than joining the Big Ten to go to (eventually) 16 schools. The Big Ten has made the first bold move. Now, the pressure is on Notre Dame to be proactive. If they want to stay put, that’s fine, but doors will be closing, and their choices may be very limited as the weeks (not years) go by.
For Texas, we’ve gone from many variables, to the distinct fact that the Big XII is losing two schools, two states, one national football power, and one-and-a-half big cities (St Louis and half of Kansas City), and (for now) one Big XII Championship Game. With the heavy rumors about Colorado to the Pac 10, as well as other rumors of A&M to the Pac 10 or Kansas to the Big Ten, again, now is the time for Texas (and A&M) to be proactive. It’s no longer a question of leaving the 12-school Big XII to be school number 12 in the Big Ten. It’s now a question of proactively choosing which path to take. Either rebuilding a smaller, less powerful Big XII, or becoming a part of a bigger, more powerful 16-school Big Ten.
And Perhaps the Big Ten knew this all along; maybe ND told the Big Ten that this is what needed to happen to get alums on board. Maybe Texas told the Big Ten this is what needed to happen to politically put Texas in a position to accept a Big Ten invite.
LikeLike
I agree with this position.
There are two options for Texas. Move now or move later.
The Big Ten can wait for Texas to come to it if Texas does not want to come now.
We should leave spots 15 or 16 open for Texas or Notre Dame (or both) if they aren’t willing to come now.
We’re trying to build the conference for the next 25-50 years; there’s no point to rushing to close the door on two national draws…
LikeLike
I don’t see a paradigm shift in re ND. Rutgers leaving hurts but does not kill the Big East, particularly in basketball. I am coming to the conclusion that Big Ten fans believe that ND has been using the Big Ten as a fall-back option for years for whatever unknown reason. Seriously, who outside of the Big Ten cares if ND joins them or not? Maybe the BE-Catholic schools, maybe.
In the public 1999 turn-down ND cited poor institutional fit as the #1 reason against joining the Big Ten. Taking 3 more large secular public institutions only makes the Big Ten less of a fit for ND. Even if UCONN and Syracuse leave, all the Big East would likely do is drop football. Who would the non-football conference rather have: Pitt, U of L, WVU, USF, and Cincy or ND and the top part of the A-10 and pick of other Catholic schools? For that matter, outside of Pitt, where are the rest of those schools gonna go? CUSA? Even if the SEC expanded, they wouldn’t be first choices, and I doubt half of them would be acceptable. I think ND likes it’s chances.
The doors to the Big Ten may (finally) be closing for ND. But if ND doesn’t think it’s that great of deal to begin with, I don’t think they are going to feel any pressure. With the possible exception of Irish Texan, I don’t know how TPTB at ND can spin joining a conference before we get to four 16-team super-conference future to the alumni in an acceptable way.
LikeLike
In answer to the questions about who cares whether or not Notre Dame joins the Big Ten, the answer is simple–probably everyone.
You’ve read the scenarios. If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten as its only member, then the college football status quo stays the same.
If ND joins with the schools mentioned in the report out of the KC radio station, then all the conferences get affected. There’s a strong likelhood that the Big East as a football confernce is finished. The SEC would look to expand and the ACC will almost certainly look at some sort of reorganization in the wake of everything else.
Regarding the question of what happens to the Big East if Rutgers and two other programs go to the Big Ten (say they’re Syracuse and Connecticut), I would say that the baskeball only schools will split from the football programs as Step 1. Step 2 is finding a home for Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida. Could a reorganized ACC or even an expanding SEC take some of those programs? Sure. Or they might go to Conference USA–which is where Cincy and UL came from before joining the Big East.
If you’re suggesting the Big East drop football, then where is Notre Dame going to play in terms of non-BCS bowls? ND’s bowl agreements are piggybacked with the Big East–no BE, no bowl games. Now I know Notre Dame can replace a SEC team one year in four at the Cotton Bowl, but that’s it. Do you think Notre Dame is going to be able to come to agreement with another confernce and let them shoehorn in on their bowl deals like they did with the Big East? I’m hard pressed to imagine there’s any confernce that would allow it within the BCS.
Notre Dame will still have its problems scheduling the latter two months of the season if the Big East folded. In fact, since ND generally plays three BE teams in the latter part of the season, Notre Dame is going to have to find replacements? Do you really think that West Virginia, for example, would schedule Notre Dame when ND had the opportunity to save the conference that just got destroyed? Would Pitt be that congenial if this were to happen?
That doesn’t leave a lot of choices for Notre Dame, despite the generic claims that being independent allows ND to have a national schedule. Sure, the schedule is national–just as long as it doesn’t include a major program from the SEC, ACC or Big XII. Do you enjoy playing Tulsa or Western Michigan? How about that game against Army in Yankee Stadium? You’d better get used to it, because that could well be the type of competition showing up on Notre Dame’s schedule if the Big East implodes.
LikeLike
The Big Ten picking up ND is only a big deal if it also means the Big Ten expansion hunger is satisfied.
I believe Frank’s shown how unlikely that is. Assuming the Big East can be saved knowing that the Big Ten wants to expand to eventually 16 and can pay more than any other conference to do so makes the idea that ND can save the Big East laughable.
ND will figure something out, like it always has. For non-BCS bowls, ND’ll come to some sort of agreement with a variety of Bowls where ND would play every 1 of x years it didn’t make a BCS game. Plus, those Big East tie-in bowls will be looking for replacements, and the opportunity to get ND will probably be better than other available options. Let’s face it, the Big East tie-ins of late aren’t that awesome. If a raid of the BXII happens as well, they might be willing to allow ND in to their rotations esp. if more than 2 or 3 teams leave.
For those Big East teams that are not absorbed by the Big-10 or SEC (since they are really the only viable BCS conferences to expand in the near future east of the Mississippi), they’ll still need late season games. They may be mad, but they still need to play. Even Frank doesn’t think they can handle being major football independents. ND might be able to get them 2 for 1 as opposed to the 2005 agreement with the Big East where we played them home and homeish.
And I still don’t know what Big Ten fans think the Irish are using the Big Ten as a back-up option against.
LikeLike
FLP – Let’s assume that the reasons for ND staying independent today are unchanged, and that it remains the poor institutional fit, the freedom of an independent schedule, and the catholic vs secular school issues. And that these are more important than any re-alignment discussions or news or money concerns.
If that’s the case, don’t you think that they would say “no thanks” up front, not unlike Maryland is rumored to have quietly asked to not be considered? Sure they need to do “due diligence”, but I don’t think they would be sending mixed signals.
While I agree that Notre Dame has a lot of reasons to stay independent, and I think that all things being equal, they would stay independent.
But, if presented with a situation where Notre Dame must join a conference for football, I do think that The Big Ten is not only the clear favorite, but is distancing itself from the other conferences as possibilities for Notre Dame. And this move may be the first domino that quickly knocks over some other dominoes, that quickly puts ND in a position where they need to join a conference.
If the winds are blowing towards 4 super-mega-steroided-conferences, are you willing to risk a spot in the Big Ten, only to end up in the SEC, Pac 10, or ACC?
LikeLike
@ Cliff’s Notes
Excellent question. I’m not on the inside, so here’s my theory.
In 1999, there were folks at ND who wanted in the CIC, namely hard science professors, large percentages of the rest of the faculty, and all the grad students (for some reason). There was also rumor that many in the administration building wanted ND in the CIC including then President Monk Malloy as part of his “aspirational peers” BS. Fortunately, they weren’t the ones making the decision. The mainly undergrad/law-grad alumni Board of Fellow made the call and the wider board passed it unanimously to say no.
A lot of those folks in favor of joining in 99 are still on campus. Knowing the relative strength of the grad programs, I’d bet the grad students would still want to go B10. Also, considering the current scheduling issues and the TV $ changes, there may be more support for a move in the Athletic Department than a decade ago. That’s why we got the initial maybe from Swarbrick in March. Considering Fr. Jenkins statements in the last blog, I don’t think he’s near as excited at the prospect of joining the B10 as say Monk was.
This will likely turn into a internal ND political question as much as anything else. As such, no one likely has the authority yet to nip it like Maryland did. Who knows, by the time this is all over with, they may not want to.
Since ND has previously stated there’s a bad institutional fit, they may yet be seeking concrete assurances that ND’s Catholic character and small school needs will be protected if they joined the Big Ten. One for all only works if all believe the group is acting in the best long-term interest of each member, and all have similar goals.
LikeLike
FLP: In what way would ND’s Catholic character be jeopardized in the Big Ten compared to the Big East?
LikeLike
Well, since half the Big East is Catholic, I don’t worry much about them attack ND about Faith.
Off the top of my head examples?
ND has not added “Sexual Orientation” or anything about LGBT rights to the non-discrimination clause. The GSA has been denied official status for years. Do you think the Big Ten will find that OK?
ND has a stated preference for hiring Catholic faculty, and wants to keep a majority of Catholic profs? Will Big Ten faculty have the ability to force a change?
If ND implements Ex Corde generally believed to require approval from the Bishop of any Theology professors, what will the Big Ten response be.
I bet people in the academy can come up with more and better ones.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine how the Big Ten could exert any control over who any school hires or how it conducts its business. The Big Ten does not control the functioning of any of its universities.
LikeLike
I’m not sure you can compel ND or UT into some scenario that forces them to react. Even if the Big Ten had 16 teams, if those 2 universities applied for admission later, would the Presidents/Chancellors tell them we can’t figure out a way to accommodate or schedule their teams so go away?
LikeLike
It just makes it unlikely.
If the Big Ten goes to 16, it is highly unlikely that we see another expansion within the next 20 years.
Absorbing 5 schools is a very arduous task, developing them into Big Ten schools, building rivalries, integrating their research programs into the CIC, etc.
We have to get #12-16 right before we settle in…
Delany will not leave Texas and ND on the board and go to 16 unless they tell him “we will never join the Big Ten.” That’s not going to happen.
Texas will be compelled to act if it doesn’t think it can match the Big Ten’s $ with its own Longhorn Network.
Right now there are probably analysts at work for Texas trying to figure that out… if their results show that the Big Ten is in the best interest of Texas for the next 25-50 years, Texas will remain at play, so we shouldn’t go to 16.
LikeLike
@zeek – I’m with you here. There is nothing good that could come out of ND joining, say, the ACC in another decade or spurring Texas to move to the SEC (even if I think that’s unlikely if UT is as committed to academics as it says it is). I kind of wrapped my head around the 16-school scenario that we discussed last week, but more and more, I don’t think that it’s a good idea unless ND and/or Texas is included, too. It shouldn’t really matter what message the Big Ten sends to ND if it stops at 14 schools – it’s finding the best fit for the Big Ten itself and if that means keeping some options open down the road (including the prospect of ND joining), then that’s what it needs to do.
LikeLike
If we’re going to mention Texas and academics and this being why the SEC is a non-starter, let’s at least ground it in the reality of graduation rates:
Click to access 2009-10_Bowl_APR_GSR_Study%20UPDATED.pdf
LikeLike
Spartakles,
I’ll address Notre Dame first. I think that Notre Dame has less decisions to make than Texas, so it would be more difficult to “compel” them to react.
Notre Dame’s “big” decision is whether to stay independent in football, or to join the Big Ten (yes, they may consider other conferences, but there isn’t any real talk of them going anywhere else right now).
Once they decide that, the question of whether or not to leave the Big East in all other sports is very secondary.
If ND joins the Big Ten in football, all other sports follow suit (except for the odd outlier, like hockey). If ND stays independent in football, they will stay in the Big East. If the Big East collapses, I don’t think ND or their alums are sweating it, knowing that it will work itself out, possibly with the all-Catholic conference.
I think that one of two things would need to happen to truly “compel” ND to react.
1. The money from the BTN gets too ridiculous to ignore. (ie, lets say BTN goes basic cable in Texas, NYC, NJ, STL, KC, and combined with increased ratings and ad rates, the current $22M per school quickly jumps to $44M). $15M vs $22M might be able to be sacrificed, but $15M vs $44M? I think that if you are going to turn down that much money, you had better be sure about your reasons for doing so.
2. Something happens where 4 super conferences draw a line in the sand. Maybe 4 super-conferences decide to leave the BCS and do a “plus one”, or maybe the 4 super-conferences decide to leave the NCAA altogether.
Neither one is going to happen this year. But, again, the winds are starting to blow in this direction.
And like FLP suggests, there are different factions within Notre Dame. Perhaps the money issue becomes enough to sway an influential group or two.
At this point, I do believe that ND is compeled to investigate the situation thoroughly. And I’m sure TPTB at ND are talking to all of the conference commisioners, and major school presidents, and they have their pulse on the the likelihood of the plus one. It may be all fantasy talk, but it also may be a freight train coming down the tracks. If it is a freight train, then yes, these initial moves by The Big Ten may compel ND to be proactive. And I’m sure that many of the issues that FLP mentions will be discussed and negotiated before ND agrees to anything.
LikeLike
The real question is the feasibility of the Non-football Big East to be a top conference on their own with perhaps some other schools.
ND abandoned the MCC when it contained Butler, Loyola (Chi), Detroit Mercy, La Salle, and Xavier in the early 90s. Of course Dayton, Marquette, and Duquesne had already left at that point. If this post by “burgerczar” can be believed, ND is exploring just that feasibility.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=141&f=2455&t=5915579
I think I remember hearing that ND did get some numbers from the Big Ten as well.
Until about an hour ago, I thought that the viability of a expanded Catholic Big East would be dispositive on the matter.
Then I read this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0514-notre-dame-miami-football20100513,0,4647229.story
Per the Trib, ND is working out the kinks on a series with Miami (FL). This is not the action of a Athletic department that is looking to join the Big Ten in calendar 2010.
LikeLike
Regarding “compeling” Texas to react, I think they are compelled to make a studied and conscious decision VERY SOON. And Texas has more options on the table to review than ND. Texas can realistically look at :
1. Not doing anything immediately and staying in the Big XII for a year or so to see how things shake out.
2. Going full steam ahead with a rebuilt Big XII by adding replacements for the 2-4 schools that might leave.
3. Become independant
4. Go to the Big Ten
5. Go to the Pac 10
6. Go to the SEC.
Perhaps some of these choices are long shots, but I think they are more realistic than any of Notre Dame’s options (beyond staying independent vs joining the Big Ten).
And even if the Texas decision is to essentially “abstain” and stay right where they are at, it is by far more of a conscious decision this year than any other year.
But as I stated earlier, Texas is facing a massive change to their conference.
Some have suggested that Texas priorities aren’t affected. Maybe they do want to be the big fish in a little pond, or to have an easy path to the National Championship, or their priority is to support the growth of the network of schools in Texas.
But if their priorities are the prestige of their academic standing, their athletic conference, or increased athletic revenue, then they absolutely are compeled to take a very hard look at what is happening around them.
The Big XII and Texas are (allegedly) losing St Louis, the biggest conference market not already controlled by Texas. They are heavily rumored to be losing Denver, the second biggest conference market not already controlled by Texas.
and they are (allegedly) losing a bite out of Kansas City, which is the third biggest conference market outside of Texas.
If Texas decides to sit still and do nothing, that is their right. But they are losing a Championship game. They are losing big markets. They are losing a name brand football program that holds national appeal. This will reduce the revenue pie of the Big XII. And at the same time, the revenue pie of the Big Ten is increasing.
I am pretty sure that the alums and other stakeholders within both the University and the govenrment of Texas will have a great deal of interest and be very demanding in what the future hold Sitting still in a scaled back Big XII conference of only 8 or 9 or 10 teams is probably not going to make a lot of people happy. Texas will not be able to sit on the fence too long.
If Texas decides that they want to be a part of rebuilding the Big XII up to 12 schools (from 10 or 9 or 8), I think the new schools joining and the other schools remaining will want some assurances that Texas is staying, too. The rumored name brand schools that might go to the Big XII include Utah, Arkansas, BYU, Colorado State, and perhaps New Mexico or Air Force. Would Utah or BYU join the Big XII if they weren’t sure that Texas was a long-term dance partner? Would Kansas or Texas A&M or Colorado or even Oklahoma commit to a revised Big XII if Texas had a big loophole to leave for the Big Ten? Or would these schools become very proactive in pushing for a Pac 10 or Big Ten or SEC invite?
At this point, whatever Texas decides is going to send a pretty loud message one way or another. If the Big XII loses only Nebraska and Missouri, and “quietly” adds TCU and Houston to the Big XII, this still sends a pretty loud message to the rest of the conference and the nation that Big XII = Texas.
LikeLike
Cliff, assuming you are correct that the current 3 team scenario for expansion “narrows the focus”, what happens if ND & Texas blink & politicians in Texas insist on A&M as a package deal? Now B10 has potentially 17 which wouldn’t work. Do they disinvite one of the 3, go for broke to 20 or choose between ND & TX pair? Hmmmn,…
LikeLike
Your examples are why Delany is treading very carefully.
Once an invitation to apply has been sent, there will be no turning back.
The path to 16 must be done in a way that guarantees that at least 2 of Nebraska/Notre Dame/Texas join and are content with the result.
A rush to 15 or 16 gets us nowhere and may ruin even the most carefully laid of plans.
LikeLike
indydoug,
That is a good question. However, I do think the Big Ten has talked informally to both ND and Texas. If either school was in a position to be #12 of 12, I think everyone agrees that it would already have happened.
I agree with Frank that going from 14 to 16 only happens if you get at least one of Texas/ND.
So, if Notre Dame blinks, and Texas says they’ll only come if A&M joins, well, then you’ve got your 16.
If Notre Dame joins, and then Texas says they’ll only come if A&M joins, well, I think that would be considered a “nice problem” to have. At that point, it would be rather easy for the Big Ten to do the analysis of the effects of going to 17 (and presumably 18), or simply telling Texas that the Big Ten is taking one more school. Texas or UCONN. You decide. (Yes, I blatantly stole that line from another poster on this board from months ago – sorry if I don’t recall who wrote it)
LikeLike
Personally, I think Texas would make sure A&M is happy with the Pac-10 or SEC.
A&M hasn’t shown interest in the Big Ten, but it is willing to take calls from the Pac-10 and it has considered SEC membership in the past.
Thus, there’s no real reason to think that Texas can’t help ensure A&M a spot in the Pac-10 or SEC before taking the final spot for itself in the Big 16.
LikeLike
“A&M hasn’t shown interest in the Big Ten”
There’s been no public statement indicating they’re looking at any conference. However, I don’t recall any behind-the-scenes sources saying they’re not interested.
Despite what some have said, I don’t see joining the Pac 10 without UT as anything but a fallback position for A&M.
LikeLike
Cliff, ain’t that why we all spend our time here!! The possibilities are ENDLESS, Fascinating & COMPELLING.
LikeLike
I said this in the previous blog, but getting UT is a Home Run. Getting UT and TAMU is a (walk-off) Grand Slam.
LikeLike
The way I understand it, the Big 10 asks schools to apply for admission. (Kind of weird…but OK)
I’m wondering if they’d ask more than five schools to “apply”. Secretly of course. Things might leak out, but it’d never be officially acknowledged.
I don’t think going beyond 16 is an option. But I do wonder if someone is asked to apply (cough, cough MISSOURI, PITT) and then is not chosen in favor of a bigger school (Texas, ND) who is asked to apply a few months later.
LikeLike
This is what I’ve argued all along. Very eloquently stated.
The Big 10’s ideal is Texas, aTm, ND, Nebraska, and Rutgers.
LikeLike
Ok, if this rumor is true, can anyone explain why Mizzou was offered other than to try to destabilize the BXII and pull in UT? Is the state of Missouri really that valuable for the BTN?
LikeLike
Missouri is the only other high density population state in the mid-west and encompasses the only other major city (Kansas City) that isn’t already in the BTN footprint (at the $.70 per subscriber level). Per someone’s post, it also has a high number of top notch highschool recruits, respectable football/basketball, and respectable academics. While it in no way is “solid gold” it is a valuable piece of the Big12, and a piece that rightly or wrongly feels the Big12 has stepped on time and time again.
Rutgers is very similar to the east.
LikeLike
Right on, but if I had the choice between Mizzou and Kansas (either of which would arguably deliver KC), my choice would be Kansas hands down. While nothing special in FB until recently, they’re one of the top 5 all time BB programs and on about equal footing academically with Mizzou. To have IU & Kansas in the same conf playing BB and UM, tOSU, PSU and Neb in the same conf playing FB?
Duuude.
LikeLike
i have heard that Kansas would have to get K state in as well,( like a Texas ,Texas A&M) but i don’t know that as a fact.
LikeLike
K-State isn’t linked at the hip with KU. If the Big 10 offers, KU will go with no strings attached.
As for the KC market argument: there are 73k KU alums in KC vs. 21k MU alums. KC is 35 miles away from KU’s campus– MU is in the center of Missouri. KC is a KU town.
LikeLike
To follow up on Gopher86’s comments — Half of KC, give or take, is in Kansas anyway. Missouri and KSU are neck and neck for 3rd place (depending on which bandwagon is more full) in that town after the Chiefs and Jayhawks.
LikeLike
Even if Kansas has the biggest single fan base in Kansas City, I’m guessing the BTN has been sufficiently convinced that there are enough Missouri fans, Nebraska fans, and Big Ten transplants in the KC metro area to pull a decent rate on basic cable.
LikeLike
I can guarantee you that there are more KU alums in the area than all three of those segments combined. The BTN may gain entry to the market, but they won’t get picked up on a basic package and they won’t get the ad rates they would be getting with KU in the fold.
I guess it comes down to how saturated they want to be in the KC market.
LikeLike
@Hoosier Mike,
If I had my choice, I’d take NU over MU &/ KU. Football is driving this bus. Instead of RU, I’d rather see Pitt as the initial BE invite.
LikeLike
I agree on all counts
LikeLike
One other point about Missouri – to the “casual” sports fan, both St Louis and Kansas City have more ties to the Big Ten footprint than elsewhere.
The St Louis Cardinals play in a division with Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Chicago Cubs, Pittsburgh, and Houston. Only Houston is currently in the Big XII footprint, while all the others are in the Big Ten footprint.
The Kansas City Royals play Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago White Sox, and Minnesota. All in the Big Ten footprint.
The St Louis Blues biggest rivals are Detroit and Chicago, and also have Columbus in their division. Only Nashville is not in the Big Ten footprint.
The NFL is a totally different alignment. Both KC and St Louis play in Western divisions. With the exception of KC and Denver in the Big XII footprint (and that may change soon, too!), all other division rivals are in the Pac 10 footprint for KC (Oakland, SD) and St Louis (SF, Seattle, Ariz).
So not only for the Missouri-Illinois rivalry does this make sense, but for the “casual” sports fan, too, there is some regional synergy towards the Big Ten footprint as well.
LikeLike
Again, you’re presuming MU is the best University to deliver Kansas City. That simply is not the case.
LikeLike
If what matters to generate cash for the BTN is football, maybe the combo of Missouri and Nebraska gets enough interest in Kansas City to make it to basic cable there.
LikeLike
I’m glad someone else is also saying this. To me, Kansas has always seemed like a better choice for the Big Ten than Missouri.
LikeLike
The fact that there’s a state line cutting through Kansas City is important to remember. If the Big Ten took KU, then it would get almost all the KU fans in the area (a very high percentage live on the Kansas side of the line) but only about 35 percent of the total metro area population. Plus you also get the rest of state of Kansas (total population 2.8 million).
If the Big Ten takes MU, then it gets 65 percent of the metro population as part of a state that has 6 million people.
Those population numbers and the difference in carriage rates for states in the Big Ten footprint vs. those outside give the Big Ten millions of reasons to pick MU over KU.
LikeLike
You can’t go by state populations, though. St. Louis doesn’t count because the BTN is already there, and KC isn’t 35-65 in favor of MU. There are over three times as many KU alums in the KC metro area than MU alums. Additionally, KU’s campus is 35 miles away from KC, whereas MU is 125 miles away.
If it is a play for Senatorial votes, it makes sense (from a research standpoint), but from a TV market standpoint, the MU-KU debate isn’t so clear cut.
LikeLike
Gopher86,
I don’t think it’s about who is the “one best school” to carry KC. I think it is enough that Missouri is part of the KC market.
Not unlike the fact that Rutgers is not going to “carry” New York City, but it does get you on the map.
And as far as synergies go, there are people that plan road trips to see their team play out of town. And also look to see if they can kill two birds with one stone.
And there are also reporters and beat writers who do the same.
This is a minor issue, to be sure, but it is something for the “casual” sports fan, who might not buy a ticket to a game, but listens to sports talk radio, and reads the newspaper, and follows it from a distance, who might tune in for a big game, or to see the first Missouri-Ohio State or first Missouri-Michigan game.
LikeLike
I think I see where you’re going with that. I guess I misinterpreted your premise.
LikeLike
@Cliff,
I haven’t been thinking about the BT footprint, as it relates to pro sports, but I find it very intriguing/interesting.
LikeLike
Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers are all solid gets.
Nebraska brings the historical FB reputation and passionate national fan base (huge TV ratings and advertising $$$ for the BTN).
Missouri and Rutgers bring strong recruiting bases and households for the BTN.
At 14, the conferences fits very neatly into two seven team East-West divisions based upon time zone that maintain all of the key rivalries.
Most importantly, all three are large, public, state flagship universities that want to join the Big Ten and fit the profile of its current membership. There are minimal integration issues as all three universities share the mission of the existing 11 universities.
I do not believe other rumors about Notre Dame, UConn or Syracuse being in the mix. Looking at it from a President’s perspective, none of these schools fit the profile of Nebraska, Rutgers or Missouri.
Yes, ND brings football and strong alumni base but ND prides itself on independence and is worried about its primary focus of undergraduate excellence being different than the Big Ten’s focus of academic research.
UConn is not a AAU member.
Syracuse is a AAU member but has a very small research budget.
I believe the Big Ten will stop at 14, absent them being able to snag schools like Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland, etc.
LikeLike
as i have said i like the 14 team idea. 6 in Div games 3 out of Div games!
West : Neb,Mizz,iowa,MN,Wis,NW,Illinois,
East : tOSU,Um,MSU,IU,PSU,Purdue,Rut
CCG can be played in four locations, two in the west two in the east. last years winning Div gets one of its cities to host the CCG.
LikeLike
@HawkfanBeau It’s definitely workable, I just hate that the Little Brown Jug becomes a 4 or 6 times a decade kind of thing.
@ gjlynch17 I just don’t think Mizzou’s “strong recruiting base” is near enough reason for any big10 fan to get excited about them joining the conference, especially when nearly 40 of their players are from TX. I just feel like this is an instance where the B10 would be doing more by doing less.
LikeLike
that is the Beauty of the 3 out of Div games. you could have one or more Rival games that are played ever year.
LikeLike
alright, so one protected rivalry, but then the other 6 teams in the opposite division you’ll play home and home and then won’t see for another 4 years. An entire recruiting class will enter school and graduate without playing two of the teams in the conference. Isn’t that a little weird? I mean, I know you’ve got to break some eggs, but anything more than 12 is less like a conference and more like two conferences that play a playoff game at the end of the year.
LikeLike
well as long as IL and tOSU play , and Um plays Minn then the rest can be a mix.
PSU and Minn will lose their Trophy( Im sure neither tema cares)
Il and Purdue will lose theirs,( Might be a bigger deal)
so you will play every school at least once every 4 years.
LikeLike
I agree that 14 is better than 16. At 14, you could still play 3 out of 7 in the opposite division, and retain playing everyone in the conference with some regularity. Once you hit 16, the other division seems like a bunch of strangers.
LikeLike
Oddly, at 16 schools broken into 4 pods, a 4 year player is more likely (if scheduling works out as I’m assuming) to play every other school in the conference than in a 14 team conference.(See above post on 14 team scheduling cycle)
If the pods rotate each year, you’ll be guaranteed to play every school in the conference at least once in a 3 year period.
Weird.
LikeLike
but you lose more rivalry games in a 16 team with rotating 4×4 pods.
LikeLike
In a 16 school conference I’d play a 9 game conference schedule. You play all 7 schools in you division yearly, playing every year makes for rivalries. You play 2 schools in the other division yearly and a 4 year athlete gets to play everyone in the conference.
LikeLike
I would like 2 divisions and 9 conference games. You play your division every year, forming new rivalries if any of your rivals are in the other division. Then you play 2 schools from the other division every year and a 4 year athlete gets to play every school in the conference.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
Ham.
LikeLike
If I’m reading the rules the Big 10 has for adding a team correctly, then technically there will never be an ‘invites’. The way I understand the ‘rules’ (if there really are any rules in this whole process) a team has to apply to gain access to the Big 10. The application is then reviewed by conference chancellors/presidents and is either accepted or rejected. Could this leak not actually be about invites; but the Big 10 saying to these schools “if you apply you will not be rejected, start the application process”? No school would want to fill out the application only to be publicly rejected….who knows. Hopefully there is some truth in this latest leak.
LikeLike
That’s pretty much what I think could be happening – the Big Ten could conceivably have asked these schools to fill out an application with a heavy intimation that they will ultimately be accepted. Meanwhile, everyone can truthfully deny that no actual invites have been sent out.
LikeLike
This is how I remember hearing about how this process works as well.
LikeLike
What happens if Rutgers submits an application?
Is that tantamount to leaving the Big East, triggering the penalty?
I’d love to see whatever contracts are out there.
LikeLike
i think they will be “Invited” to Apply.
LikeLike
bulgogi
LikeLike
bulgogi, (forgot to click the subscribe button the first time)
LikeLike
Bulgogi is made from thin slices of sirloin or other prime cuts of beef.[2] The meat is marinated with a mixture of soy sauce, sugar, sesame oil, garlic and other ingredients such as scallions, or mushrooms, especially white button mushrooms or shiitake. Sometimes, cellophane noodles are added to the dish, which varies by region and specific recipe. Before cooking, the meat is marinated to enhance its flavor and tenderness.
i
LikeLike
And it’s delicious.
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
where we going Greg? and can i bring some beerz along for the ride?
LikeLike
@HawkfanBeau
We’re going to the national title game this year, but that’s not relevant to the current discussion. 🙂
Beers are a requirement!
LikeLike
The more I think about this, the more I think that this is the Big Ten giving Notre Dame one final bite at the apple *AND* giving Texas and A&M the political cover to join, or to move to the SEC. Nebraska and Missouri are going as soon as the ink’s dry on an invitation, and Colorado’s been making cow eyes at the Pac-10 for a decade. So after the Domers decline the invite, Texas and A&M will be extended quietly. Delany will get 2 of the Big 3 in a 16 team conference, or he’ll stay at 14.
LikeLike
@Albino Tornado – This is actually what I’ve been thinking lately. Expanding by 5 schools is a “bet the conference” move. The Big Ten will likely not expand for many more decades (if ever again) and are going to be locked in with these schools without any flexibility for future moves. If the Big Ten goes up to 16 teams, then it HAS to get it completely right without any margin for error. As much as the university presidents want academic peers, are they seriously going to bet the conference with only Nebraska as a big-name national football draw? These university presidents are academic snobs, but they’re also not sports ignorant and definitely not financially ignorant. I feel pretty good on betting the conference with a 5 school expansion that includes 2 of Texas, ND or Nebraska. I don’t feel very good betting the conference based on how well UCONN/Rutgers/Syracuse may or may not get cable carriage in the NYC area.
LikeLike
Frank,
I am still of the 3 teams ONLY camp. I have never bought into the 16 team scenario, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the ONE right team were brought it that would be it forever, or until someone else changes the landscape and forces the Big 10 to add more…
With respect to drunk Northwestern fans and alumni, well, yeah…I mean, you know…What else do they have to do?
Besides, I think it has something to do with the proximity to South Bend…And I agree with your laughing it off, but not so fast take: Generally, when no one is willing to talk officially and you hear something totally off the wall, off the wall is sometimes a whole lot closer to the truth than previously thought….
LikeLike
Getting drunk fits very easily into the busy life of a Northwestern fan/alumni. It only takes few minutes to have 2-3 apple schnapps.
LikeLike
i also think that without a “Home Run” group of 5 schools then the big ten is taking too big a chance on a Media backlash. If they only go to 14 and both the Big 12 and Big east don’t fold up shop. Take 3 schools from the Big East and it’s done. Fans of other Conferences will go nuts, as will those hack reports at the “Mother ship”
LikeLike
Taking Missouri and Nebraska — coupled with the Pac-10’s likely recruitment of Colorado — is going to cripple the Big 12, one way or the other, especially if it gives UT/A&M the justification they need. Taking Rutgers doesn’t cripple the Big East, but Notre Dame’s *choice* not to join might if Delany then goes after two other eastern schools.
BTW, the SEC’s recruitment of Arkansas was the biggest domino in the fall of the SWC, and by extension, the Big 8, but no one seems to blame the SEC for it.
LikeLike
i could see Texas using Co, Neb, Mo leaving to make the Big 12 even more of their own lil Conference then they already do. move OU,OSU up north, take BYU (north) and a couple of Texas schools. Playing OU twice might be dicey, cause you know the “Red river shout” out will remain a every year game.
LikeLike
The only issue I have with that, is that Texas won’t sit around in a conference with a contract worth $3-5M. That’s what a Big 12 minus Denver/StL/KC and one of its three big draws Nebraska is worth.
Texas will only sit around if a Longhorn network is worth $10-15M a year. We don’t know that, and I find it hard to believe that Texas would not take an invite to the Big Ten and just sit around with the hope that a Longhorn network will be a big money maker some day.
LikeLike
I agree that if only three (3) are added right away, the Big 10 will turn its focus to Texas.
I disagree that if Texas shows no interest, the Big 10 will wait and hope for Texas or ND to change their mind. The Big 10 can make more money with 16 teams, and their leverage is the best right now.
The Big 10 will try for Texas, if it says no, then it will find the next two best options.
If you want to think outside the box as Andy Katz suggested, then Miami (FL) is a darkhorse candidate. They would open up the South Florida recruiting territory, play in a major TV market, and are located in an area where there are lots of Big 10 alums.
The Canes are not a southern school. They have no longstanding ties to the ACC. Their president was the former chancellor at Wisconsin, has ties to Syracuse and is very familiar with the CIC.
Shalala was adamant that Syracuse and BC accompany Miami to the Big East because U Miami recruits a lot of students from the northeast.
Miami is also in no position to turn down revenue. They are a huge TV draw for football.
LikeLike
I completely disagree.
Jim Delany’s express goal is to make the Big Ten the far and away #1 conference.
Leaving Texas on the table for the SEC or Pac-10 means that they can catch the Big Ten unless we take Nebraska and Notre Dame.
Simply put, the only way we leave Texas on the table for anyone else is if we have Nebraska and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Zeek – if that’s Delaney’s express goal, he will be disappointed. The Big Ten and the SEC will never get much separation from each other, because football is TOO big and matters TOO much to its alumni & fans who are willing to pay for success. Whatever the Big Ten does, the SEC will probably match it.
Whatever happens, the Big Ten and the SEC will get richer and continue to pull away from the rest of the pack. They just won’t pull away from each other.
LikeLike
I believe the odds are prohibitive against Miami, but man oh man are you talking Joe Nebraska Fan’s fantasy. Miami in Lincoln, preferably on a gruesome November Saturday. Yum.
LikeLike
I agree fully with the idea that if the Big Ten goes to 16, it has to be done right. And I just don’t think picking Nebraska and a bunch of maybe-they-get-NYC schools is smart. You need actual teams. Actual product. People here say that NYC likes big time sports, not the small, local teams. I think that’s true. If you have a USC versus Alabama, I’ll watch. Texas vs. Ohio State, I’ll watch. Nebraska vs. Florida, I’ll watch. I dosen’t matter geography so much–get good teams and you’ll get good ratings. Especially if the only place to watch a bunch of high profile games is the BTN, yes, I’d subscribe.
Taking Missouri, Nebraska and with Colorado likely leaving as well, and the B12 conference is likely to implode. Meaning Texas and Oklahoma will go somewhere to make another conference stronger, while this huge Big Ten powerplay gets you what? Rutgers? Syracuse? UConn? No disrespect to those schools, but they’re not football names. If the Big Ten goes to 16, I don’t think you dink around. You need Texas. Otherwise, don’t go to 16.
LikeLike
Here´s an idea:
If you´ve got RU, MU, NU, ND and UT in the bag, and one of your goals is to foster the NYC market, rent out the Meadowlands for the Big 10 championship. You could even try to put the basketball tournament in NYC, beating out the Big East for MSG.
LikeLike
Too cold.
Plus, everyone believes that the Big Ten Championship will be played at the Colts’ indoor stadium. It is perfectly located in Indianapolis to serve as the Big Ten Championship with no complaints.
LikeLike
By definition, nothing located in Indianapolis is perfectly located. 😉
LikeLike
If the Big Ten really wanted to be bold (and I really don’t think this would ever happen), they should put Michigan-Ohio State at Yankee Stadium, and let the Big Ten Network carry it. That’ll showcase both the conference and the network in a big fat bow for NYC.
A Conference Championship Game is inherently difficult for fans to travel to, as they would likely have only one or two weeks notice to travel.
For many, it just isn’t feasible to drop everything and arrange tickets, hotels, and flights from the midwest in 5-10 days. If you give alums a year to plan, they will be much more likely to make arrangements to travel.
And if NYC is all about the big names, it’s hard to think of a a bigger regular season game that could realistically draw a crowd and get NYC buzzing about the Big Ten. (As a Michigan alum, it pains me to say that they might want to wait until the name “Michigan” means what it did for the last 40 years before RichRod – hopefully that’s soon).
Not to knock Penn State, as they would draw an east coast crowd, too, but they don’t have the historic name-brand rivalry like Michigan and Ohio State.
If ND has the greatest number of NYC fans, than perhaps ND-USC would do it, but USC doesn’t have the motivation to impress NYC (and ND isn’t in the Big Ten anyways). Likewise, no SEC matchup or Miami-Florida State matchup would have the motivation to impress NYC or the alums to generate the buzz and ticket sales.
LikeLike
Sorry. I can’t see UM or OSU giving up the most highly attended game of the year to play at a neutral site. Any match up other than that and I’m on board Neb v PSU/OSU/UM/ND, PSU v OSU/UM/ND, etc.
But not The Game.
LikeLike
HoosierMike, I don’t see UM-OSU happening in NYC either. I’m just pointing out that it would be the biggest, boldest move for the NYC market.
That being said, any conference matchup held in NYC could be a “neutral site” matchup, whereby each school technically gives up one-half of a home game, and not one team giving up a home game.
For example, let’s say both Nebraska and Notre Dame join the Big Ten, and they play annually, and they agree to play in NYC.
The series could look like this:
2013 at Notre Dame
2014 at Nebraska
2015 at NYC
2016 at Notre Dame
2017 at Nebraska
And not like this:
2013 at Notre Dame
2014 at Nebraska
2015 at NYC
2016 at Nebraska
2017 at Notre Dame
2018 at Nebraska
LikeLike
@Cliff
I think that could definitely work, and be a very cool showcase game. Hell, you could do multiple per year with a mix of teams.
I just don’t think that Michigan, having just scheduled their first home night game for 2011, is going to want to “experiment” with something as revolutionary as a neutral site game.
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Adding.
LikeLike
I try not to get too into scheduling for hypothetical conferences, but a pod-like system still works pretty well for 14. Instead of 4 pods of 4, have 2 pods of 3 and 4 pods of 2. The pods of 3 are always in opposite divisions but have each other as inter-divisional games more often to maintain (relatively) equal number of games against all non-pod members.
The pods actually fall together very naturally with the Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers scenario (I’m open to naming suggestions):
“The Eastern Additions”
Penn State
Rutgers
“The Big Two And Zoidberg”
OSU
Michigan
MSU
“The Bucket Brigade”
Indiana
Purdue
“Battle of LoL (Land of Lincoln)”
Illinois
Northwestern
“That’s Not A Trophy”
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
“Western Additions”
Nebraska
Missouri
There’s probably needs to be some restrictions on how divisions are setup (e.g. don’t put Nebraska, Penn State, OSU, and UM in the same division at any point) but in general, on a rotating basis a division consists of one of the 3-pods and two 2-pods. If set up correctly, every team should have a home and home with every other team every 4 years, even with only an 8 game schedule.
LikeLike
what the heck M? what is this? you totality lost me with 4 2 team pods and 2 3 team pods.. why not have 7 2 team pods that never play the other team in the pod, then on even years play all teams with same starting letters of your schools name( Mich , Minn, Mizz..Iowa Ill, Indaina) and then.. um . shoot IDK. heehee
LikeLike
I agree it’s more complicated than the 4×4 setup, but the basic idea is the same: have fixed rivals who are always in the same division, but have the divisions change each year. If anyone found it too confusing, they could look and see which divisions each team is in each year.
As a more concrete example, here are example divisions:
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Penn State
Rutgers
OSU
UM
MSU
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
The next year, they could be
I agree it’s more complicated than the 4×4 setup, but the basic idea is the same: have fixed rivals who are always in the same division, but have the divisions change each year. If anyone found it too confusing, they could look and see which divisions each team is in each year.
As a more concrete example, here are example divisions:
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Penn State
Rutgers
OSU
UM
MSU
Indiana
Purdue
Missouri
Nebraska
Like pods, determining the divisions/schedule for any particular year is a little complicated, but once they are set it works like a normal division setup.
LikeLike
Year 1&2-
OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, Rutgers, IN, PU
IA, MN, WI, Il, NW, MO, NE
Year 3&4-
OSU, MI, MSU, Il, NW, MO, NE
IA, MN, WI, PSU, Rutgers, IN, PU
Every year play 6 division games + 2 non-division games.
If you like you can give the two 3 team groups permanent non-divisional rivals-
Minnesota-Michigan
Iowa-OSU
Wisconsin-MSU
Putting Nebraska in the Iowa-Wis-Min pod makes more geographic sense but leaves one awfully weak pod and breaks up the old ‘Big 8’ rivalry.
LikeLike
A pod system is still workable with 14 schools but no need to make it this complex, just go with 2 four team pods which would anchor each division and would not rotate, then have 2 three team pods that would switch divisions every two years. The schools in each of four team pods would play two schools from the other pod in a 2 on 2 off 2 year rotating basis. The schools in the 3 school pods would each have 1 protected rival in the other pod and would play the other two teams 1 at a time on a 2 year rotating basis.
It sounds convoluted on paper, but if the 3 teams mentioned are taken, this setup would perverse all the current protected rivalries and no school would go more than 2 years with out playing in any other school’s stadium, and the Big Ten would still only have to play 8 conference games.
Basically what it would boil down to is a modified suggestion a poster had on this blog awhile back about every team having 3 protected rivals and then the best teams play in the CCG. In essence this is what we would have. The division could look like this:
NORTH: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
GREAT LAKES: Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
MIDWEST: Mizzou, Illinois, Northwestern
CENTRAL: Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue,
LikeLike
To help clarify the issue about the alleged attached-at-the-hip myth about A&M going where Texas goes, let me tell you as a Texan that this is by no means the case. A&M does not need Texas to take care of it. It is more than capable of finding a new home in a conference it prefers all on its own. A&M will not be in a position of being left out in the cold.
A&M has wanted the SEC for a long time. If the Big 12 dissolves, that is where they will go and will be accepted with open arms. A&M doesn’t need to follow Texas. They’ll still play each other each year for rivalry purposes, but neither is wed to the other.
Heck when the Big 12 formed, A&M had to be convinced and bullied into going along with Texas, Baylor, and Tech to the Big 8. They were ready to go to the SEC. So, both schools have already demonstrated that they are both perfectly capable, willing, and comfortable living in separate conferences.
So, let’s please stop pushing the myth that “as Texas goes, so does A&M”. It’s not anywhere near the truth.
LikeLike
@Brad – That’s actually in line with my outsider’s view (albeit from afar). I would think that A&M has a lot of various options regardless of what happens to the Big XII, so that’s the type of school that doesn’t need political protection. It’s Texas Tech and Baylor that would want the politicians to get involved.
LikeLike
@Brad I agree A&M has it’s own merits and can take care of itself. So can UTexas. But, the interests of the other schools, specifically Tech are wanting to tie the 3 together (and possibly even adding Houston or UTEP to the mix).
Like going to a sporting event, you can find a single to most any game….getting 3 or 4 or 5 seats together on the glass, that’s much harder to do…and that’s the point. Tech doesn’t want to get left behind. They need to make the block as big and un-digestible, as possible.
LikeLike
Frank, I always love your analysis/opinions.
It’s very interesting if Texas really is still on the table for the Big Ten. I don’t know that it would happen, but if so, it would be a coup like no other for the B10 to get ND and UT in the same move (considering the entire expansion deal to be one move, even if staged over a couple of years).
As for the recent rumors, I think there’s probably a shred of truth to them, but mostly I think it’s unreliable information at this point. My take is that someone in a position of “know” understands that the B10 is likely to extend those invitations very soon, and has let loose lips release that information as if it has already happened. However, I don’t think those invites have been officially extended just yet.
I do think they’re coming very shortly though. Now that the Big XII and Pac 10 have announced their intention of entering a joint venture of some sorts, the B10 will move quickly to get the Huskers and Tigers on board in an effort to remain in control of the expansion process.
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
Pingback: Hawkeye Players as Star Wars characters... - HawkeyeNation Forum
@ Frank,
Frank, this just posted on the Detroit News website. Lynn Henning is a pretty good writer in the area (Let’s just say he’s NOT Drew Sharp) and I don’t think he would have written this without someone giving him some information:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100511/OPINION03/5110390/Sources–Big-Ten-headed-to-16-team-super-conference
I will cut and paste some of the details here:
“Here’s what is happening today with Big Ten expansion, which is almost certainly headed for a 16-team conference, based upon sources who can be trusted and who prefer that their names not be revealed.
Missouri and Nebraska are the best bets to join the Big Ten and begin the break-up of the Big 12. Rutgers and either Syracuse or Pitt are the most likely schools to leave a dissolving Big East and join the Big Ten, although Connecticut is a possibility, as is Maryland from the Atlantic Coast Conference.
Notre Dame is the wild card. It is also the most vital name the Big Ten can add to a 16-team lineup.”
and
“There could be a buy-in timetable compared with a Notre Dame or a Nebraska, which would receive a full cash cut immediately. Rutgers would, in essence, make less money initially on its way to a full share. The reason Rutgers might go for it is for the same reason the Big Ten wants Rutgers: In the long term, it’s good business for both parties.
Nebraska speaks for itself. The football program is gold. Cornhuskers red is the color not only of an entire state, but of a territory, with big alumni numbers, to boot.
Missouri is the Big Ten’s expressway into the St. Louis and Kansas City markets. Again, alumni numbers make those two markets even more attractive to an expanding Big Ten.”
LikeLike
Re 16 team expansion (MIRuss)
So according to this well connected reporter, 16 is the likely goal; no mention of Texas; no reason to believe decision or “informal invites” have been made.
Appears nothing has really happened despite hundreds of posts since Frank’s prior blog post “Fab 5” based on Dienhart’s best guesses.
LikeLike
I really think ESPN and other major news outlets are missing out on the Texas to the Big Ten angle.
Most of them have dismissed it as pie in the sky talk, and yet Texas is still the #1 target for the Big Ten.
Moreso with Notre Dame’s seeming reluctance to join and the fact that Notre Dame can wait till there are 4×16 conferences on the horizon to make its move to the Big Ten.
Thus, the Big Ten is probably most focused on Texas, yet no sports writers are willing to focus on that angle.
ESPN is much more focused on the Texas to the SEC angle despite the fact that the Big Ten seems to be the best possible fit from all points of view that the president of Texas is considering… (of course ESPN is a horrible source for anything expansion related, but that’s beside the point…)
LikeLike
I’m replying to my own comment – sheesh…..
I am STILL not convinced that 16 team conferences make sense…Logistics and revenue sharing simply don’t point in that direction….
And somehow, I’m still not believing that the Domers actually do this. It’s too far gone for them now to reverse their track and join the Big 10. So, for what it’s worth I’m still a 14 team believer with The Big Red, Missourri, and Rutgers….
LikeLike
@MIRuss – My bet would still be on the NU/MU/RU 3-team addition, as well. I like the smoke around Maryland as a potential 16th team if ND joins, though – that makes the most sense in terms of academics, TV market value and athletic history of any school outside of Texas.
LikeLike
Frank, if ND says no (as I expect it to) and the Big Ten takes in Maryland as #15, I think Syracuse goes as #16 (or vice-versa, a la North and South Dakota). SU’s ace in the hole is its relationship with the SUNY system, which complements it in terms of research (and compensates for New York state’s relative lack of a large land-grant institution, just as Cornell does in some other aspects). And, as stated before, with UMd, PSU, RU and SU, the Big Ten locks up the NY-to-DC corridor.
LikeLike
I think a 16 team conference would work well enough if the added teams bring enough value (monetarily speaking) to the table. Logistics shouldn’t be all that tough, and a 16-team conference actually gives the B10 some options.
I’ve never been a big fan of four-team divisions, but I’ve seen scenarios where there was a “mini-tournament” to decide the conference championship out of the four division champions that I kind of liked.
At this point, I think the B10 isn’t just looking to go big, I think they’re looking to go REALLY big. I don’t think they stop until they’ve completely changed the face of football.
LikeLike
Also, if the B10 goes big enough, they force ND’s hand a little by threatening the stability of the Big East as well as changing the B12.
If the B10 goes really big (16 teams), you can be sure that the Pac 10 will go bigger than just two teams (to make 12), which could further weaken the Big XII. Note, I said “could”.
The SEC has already made it clear that they’ll expand if the B10 and Pac 10 get aggressive, so you could easily assume that the SEC makes some moves on the ACC as well as making overtures to Texas.
The ACC won’t go down without a fight, which makes the BE even more vulnerable.
With all of that going on, can Notre Dame afford to hold onto their independent status? What’s more, does Swarbrick even really want to? All of this movement (which is admittedly speculation), he would have a perfectly legitimate excuse to tell the Golden Dome faithful that they had no real choice but to join a conference and the Big Ten was the best “fit”.
LikeLike
As long as ND has a place at the BCS table, they can hold on to independence. As long as they have a chance to go undefeated and play for a National Title, ND’ll stay independent, AFAIK.
The New Big-16 will still a collection of larger, secular, and almost entirely public flagship schools. The only fit ND has with them is geographic. Here’s my question to you, Stix: Why would the Big Ten be the best fit for ND in this Brave New World?
BTW, $$$ is not an acceptable answer.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – I think that it’s clear that ND can survive as an independent. Anyone that says otherwise is way overstating the decline in national interest in ND – it’s still there and when the Irish are winning, they are the biggest single draw in college football.
The question is whether the ability to survive as an independent is outweighed by the negatives that now come with it. Even if we don’t talk about money (although I think it matters greatly), ND’s overall athletic department is very strong and it’s questionable whether a non-football league made up solely of Catholic schools can really support the significant investments that the school has made on that front. It’s easy for the alums to be completely football-focused, but the school’s administration has to look at the totality of the athletic program. Football scheduling is also an issue. I also see a lot of ND alums say, “If we could just get rid of the 7-4-1 scheduling model, our schedules will be awesome again!” The problem is that the 7-4-1 scheduling model is now a necessity to maintaining independence because NBC wants to show 8 games per year (one of which needs to be in prime time). That’s why I don’t think that the scheduling flexibility/regionalization arguments hold much water anymore for ND – the TV deal that allows ND to maintain independence is putting constraints on ND’s ability to schedule freely anyway. That’s not to mention the fact that the top tier schools that ND fans would like to see the Irish play simply don’t schedule many (if any) major non-conference games beyond the middle of October. USC is the lone exception and that’s a long-standing ND rival. The complaints about ND’s football scheduling have very little to do with incompetence of the ND administration (as the NDNation crowd seems to believe) but rather market forces outside of ND’s control.
I just see a lot of the former advantages that ND had with independence (more TV money, national scheduling) eroding to the point that they are turning into disadvantages. Whether that’s enough for ND to spur its independent identity is unknown, but I do believe that the ND alums would benefit from at least being self-aware that a lot of the concrete football reasons why they love independence have already been going away and they’re never coming back. I get the sense that a lot of ND alums (not necessarily you) are very naive as to how much impact this conference realignment is going to have on ND’s ability to THRIVE (not just survive) as an independent. If the Big Ten has a large-scale expansion, ND can’t proceed as if nothing had happened in its own little bubble. Texas itself wasn’t immune to outside forces when the SWC collapsed and they aren’t necessarily immune to those forces right now with the impending break-up of the Big XII.
LikeLike
FLP,
ND already has rivalries/regularly scheduled games with several Big Ten schools (okay, a few). Michigan and MSU play the Irish nearly every year and play at least one other B10 school early in the year (Purdue).
Yes, they also play several teams from around the country; this year pulling a few from the East Coast, and of course, the other independents.
Pitt is one of those eastern teams. Supposing Pitt is one of the teams that joins the B10, ND could be looking at one or more fewer options for scheduling each year.
If the Big East were to get raided horribly in the “Armageddon” scenario, by the B10, ACC, and/or SEC (depending on who you listen to), how many of the teams on ND’s schedule would no longer be available? Their “national schedule” could be relegated to the “expansion leftovers” with a couple of traditional matches still available (UM).
What are their choices? If the Big East ceases to exist as a football conference, and assuming that they wouldn’t want the travel headache of joining someone like the Pac-10 or Big XII, what’s left? The Big Ten or the SEC.
That’s a tough decision, IMO. The Big Ten currently brings in more money than the SEC, but the SEC is the bigger conference in terms of competition and national respect.
Between the two, I’d have to think that ND would want to choose geography and money over competition.
That’s all assuming that ND felt they HAD to join a conference, of course.
Here’s my ultimate reasoning why the B10 is seriously being considered by ND and would make the best “fit”.
1) the B10 is the closest conference that can offer ND a decent shot at a National Championship (and yes, keep them in the kind of money they’re accustomed to), with great academics. They’re the Midwestern Conference as well, and don’t underestimate the importance of that kind of relationship.
2) Remember that not so long ago, they approached the B10 about potentially joining the conference. That time, the B10 said “no”, but it’s important to remember that ND wasn’t always so set on keeping their “identity as an independent”. They didn’t go to the Big East, SEC, or Big XII that time, so why would they now?
In the end, it’ll all come down to ND’s analysis of whether they can continue to remain independent and still garner enough love from the BCS to have a shot at the big crystal trophy. At some point, the rest of the nation is going to tell the BCS that they want ND to join a conference or forfeit any right to play for the championship.
LikeLike
Ultimately, I see Notre Dame in the ACC. They’re a better institutional fit in that conference, and the ACC would allow them to play away games from Massachusetts to Florida.
Clearly, Notre Dame does not want to join a conference until they have to, and they seem willing to turn down a big payday in the name of independence. Reduced donations stemming from alumni backlash could cancel out any financial advantages of the Big Ten, anyway.
Given the conference’s lack of influence relative to the Big Ten and SEC, the ACC will likely be the last conference to expand in a 4×16 super-conference landscape. At that point, I think Notre Dame will reluctantly join the last ferry leaving the island.
LikeLike
@ Frank
You’re right about the schedules. But many other things besides the infamous 7-4-1 are hurting the schedule. I personally think the current BCS formula’s value of undefeated over SOS is hurting ND disproportionally since practically no traditionally great teams are scheduling more than one big-time opponent as an OOC game. Further, the agreement reached with the Big East that ND would play multiple BE conference members a year home and home (or homish) added to the traditional Navy, USC, Purdue, and MSU, along with the long-term deal with UM put conference level scheduling flexibility on the Irish trading geographic diversity for the lack of “Tier 1” opponents compared to the B10 & SEC.
Unfortunately, joining a conference means trading the current schedule’s geographic diversity for half as much flexibility. That’s why I think many Domers aren’t impressed by the scheduling argument.
Looking at the Big East’s site, I went back over the Olympics sports champs since the 05-06 school year. There were a ton of ND Monograms on there. Lotsa G-town Gs and Villanova V’s. Depaul and St. John’s made the list a lot more than I expected. Among the football schools, UCONN did very well, as did Syr and USF. The one that shocked me was how well U of L did in Olympic sports. ND and the other Catholics didn’t have good years in baseball, but they went 7-5 against the Big Ten in the Feb BE-B10 challenge. 3 of the top 6 BE softball teams were Catholic. 5 of the Big East top 8 in Women’s hoops were Catholic. ‘Nova won the Women CC Nat’l Championship. G-town’s men’s golf team won the BE, and the Lady Irish made the golf dance. 5 of the top Men’s finishers were Catholic schools at the Men’s BE golf tourney. 5 of the 7 members of the Men’s BE Lax league are Catholic, along with 4 of the 9 women’s squads. 2 of the 5 NCAA tournament making Men’s teams were Catholic as were 4 of the 7 women’s teams.
Long story short, losing the Football schools will hurt the Big East’s depth, but the Catholic schools can hold their own in Olympic Sports.
The idea of forfeiting our current contract of being on NBC nationally 8 times a year in exchange for regional coverage on ABC maybe 5 times a year, and cable for the rest strikes me as a bad idea. See how well premium cable and PPV worked out for Boxing? Free TV is probably still the best way to keep ND a national name.
@ Stix
I know I knew ND didn’t play that many different B10 opponents, but when I was looking at the 2002-14 schedules I only saw 4 current Big Ten teams listed (UM, MSU, PSU, Purdue). In that same time I saw 7 different ACC teams and six different PAC ten teams. Between the PAC-10, the ACC, MSU, Purdue, the Independents (academies and likely the Big East and Big XII Leftovers), there’s enough for games.
Plus, Jokewood is quite correct, the ACC is out there, and it has multiple private schools. Only two schools in the ACC have more than 25K undergrads. Sure, it’s weak now, but who knows if and when the dominos fall who will be ACC teams.
You do realize that, “The Midwestern Conference” is a major knock on the B10 to Domers, right?
I like Jokewood’s thinking on this, while I remain skeptical of likelyhood of four superconferences and thus the need for ND to forfeit independence.
LikeLike
FLP,
I’ve been waiting to hear your response on this, but maybe you never saw it on the other thread.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=5598641&p=9
Scroll down about 5 posts. I’m trying to figure out the whole “national” schedule argument and I’ve done a mock-up 6 year schedule for your beloved Irish in MY dream Big 10.
LikeLike
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/the-big-tens-fab-five/#comment-62905
Unless I misread the post you’re referencing, that post seemed to indicate a “Big Ten Dream Line-Up” where ND would join with Texas, TAMU, Neb., and Rutgers. I’m not seeing that happening, but I roll with it for purposes of the exercise.
To sum up, I did my own checking on ND’s future schedules. By going thru “future ND schedules” (which are quite incomplete, and often disagree) I came up with a list of differences between the teams used (and not used) by Micahandme and the schedules I found. The choice essentially boils down to:
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Texas
TAMU
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Northwestern
OSU
IU
Penn State
random non-BCS cupcakes
versus
USF
Maryland
Stanford
Baylor
Wake Forest
Arizona State
BYU
and whatever else Swarbrick can find since there appear to be around 18 open games still from 2011-16
Truth is, neither line-up above really excites me, and considering I consider the Texas teams longshots likely to be replaced with either Mizzou, Kansas, or some Big East team ND’ll play anyway, I think I’d prefer independence at this point, given the schedule diversity we’ve had in a poorly scheduled stretch from 2002-2016 ND either have or will have played:
7 different ACC teams (of 12)
6 Pac-10 teams (of 10)
5 Big East Teams (of eight)
2 BXII (of 12)
1 SEC (of 12)
merely 9 different non-BCS teams
and only *4* Big Ten Teams out of 11.
I also put other observations about Micahandme’s team choices up at:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/the-big-tens-fab-five/#comment-62908
For more info I’ve posted as to who ND plays and why, check:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/the-big-tens-fab-five/#comment-62919
The happily locked games are USC and Navy. The Big Ten rivalries are with Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan. I can’t think of any other “rivalry” games that “must” be maintained. Not Army, Pitt, or BC, need to be played more than occasionally. Any other Qs? Just lemme know. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for hosting this expansion blog. I have several observations, for what they’re worth, and questions. a. Lou Anna Simon of MSU is the current Chairman of the B10 Presidents. She is very interested in athletics and not known as an academic snob. That means she likely will push the Presidents to a financially rational decision. b. Jim Delaney (basketball) and John Swofford (football) both played at UNC during the late 60s/early 70s. Their common background probably means a B10 hostile takeover of Maryland is not likely. But could they be working together on a bigger deal to carve up the BE and share the northeast cable market? c. Can the BTN partner with MSG or YES networks to provide off-season and off-day content to the NYC cable market? Could such a partnership make the Rutgers selection sufficient to make money in NYC? d. Pittsburgh ranks #18 in research dollars with $558M. Would the B10/CIC think this is a prize bigger than the Missouri TV market? At least armPitt wins “best all-around” among Pitt/Syr/UConn.
LikeLike
This has to be the best expansion related article out there:
“You, too, can spark a bogus Big Ten expansion rumor”
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/You-too-can-spark-a-bogus-Big-Ten-expansion-ru?urn=ncaaf,240041
LikeLike
i guess my argument against 16 teams,and i don’t believe 16 works all that well fyi, is that why stop at 16? why would you waste this chance to get all the schools you want?
ND says no i think they go to 14, ND says yes they have to got to 16 ( because , and this is just a Conspiracy theory, they have already spoke to Neb, Mo, and Rut. and can’t un invite one of them.
Now if they do go with more than 14 without ND or TX, then look out, cause they intend to go to at least 24 teams. and force ND and Texas to join!
LikeLike
Er. There are only 2 teams that the Big Ten really wants more than anything else in the world: Texas and Notre Dame. Either of those joining as #12 would halt the expansion talk immediately and probably for years unless both want to join in which case we’d go to 14 and grab Nebraska along with those 2.
Nebraska, Notre Dame, Texas are the only 3 that the Big Ten needs to guarantee the future.
If we can get 1 of the 3 to go to 14, that’s good. If we can get 2 of the 3 to go to 16, that’s good too.
We would only go past 16 if we need to in order to grab 3, but that’s so unlikely as to not be worth consideration.
At this point, once you have those 3 schools, there are no other schools out there worth expanding for (other than Maryland for academics/D.C. exposure).
A 16 team Big Ten with Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska would never need to expand. That’s why Delany’s probably going to try to create as optimal a scenario as he can with 2 of those 3 or all 3 if he can draw the inside straight.
LikeLike
But I can see a scenario where the Big ten takes Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Texas/A&M to go to 16.
Then say in 10 or 20 years, Notre Dame’s TV contract is worth $15-20M and the Big Ten’s is worth $50+M a year. I could see Notre Dame finally coming around and saying, alright we’ll join the Big Ten.
Then the Big Ten would go to 18 for Notre Dame and another like Maryland…
There is no mix of schools that justifies going beyond 18.
1 of the 3 to go to 14, 2 of the 3 to go to 16, and the highly unlikely event is the 3rd to go to 18.
There’s really no reason worth going past 18. 16 is probably where we’d stay for the next 20 years in any case, but we would never say no to Notre Dame unless the presidents think it’d be overload to go to 18.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
We can have a Big20. That’s what I am going with. Delaney will seek to make the Big10 the Big20 for the next 100 years in a way no one will be able to catch-up. With new potential expansion targets Maryland, Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt.
The Big20
Eastern Pod
Penn State
Ohio State
Maryland – AAU
Rutgers – AAU
Northwestern
Western Pod
Iowa
Nebraska – AAU
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northern Pod
Michigan
ND
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Southern Pod
Texas – AAU
Texas A&M – AAU
Missouri – AAU
Georgia Tech – AAU
Vanderbilt – AAU
9 conference games
4 against your pod, 3 against your cross pod mate, 1 (2) total against each pod in other division
4 against your pod, 3 protected rivals from other pods, rotating pods playing other 4 teams in pods every 3 years
4 against your pod, 5 against cross pod, rotate pods
4 OOC Games
1 Division Championship game
Game 1 @ Dallas
Game 2 @ NY
1 Conference Championship game @ Indianapolis
1 Bowl game/NC Championship game
Each Pod Champion Plays for division title
Each division title plays for conference title
LikeLike
I don’t really see what Vandy and GTech add other than solid academics…
Plus, Vandy likes being in the SEC with Tenn. etc. Vandy doesn’t associate itself with the academics of the SEC in any way so it doesn’t really care.
GTech is hard to see ever being invited to the Big Ten because its not the top dog in its market either…
LikeLike
Vandy, GTech, UVA and Miami would add academics, but even more importantly, they´d give you a bridge into SEC country.
I think it´s pretty clear that with 16 teams the Big 10 has two strategies: a road to Texas and the NYC market. If you expand past 16, I think the next strategy would be to bring the Big 10 brand to the Southeast. Charlottesville, Nashville, Atlanta and Miami would would really make the SEC sweat.
If you look at a map of the Big 11 + 5 (UT,MU,NU,ND and RU), you have a right angle of sorts, boxing in the SEC. At that point, the next step would be to try to get to Florida, stealing market share away from the SEC. I doubt you´re able to steal any big name SEC teams, (like Florida) but if you can poach Vanderbilt from the SEC and a handful of teams from the ACC, you´ve got a claim to a good portion of the Eastern United States
If the Big 10 goes to 20, I think it only makes sense if you can break into SEC country. To do that, however, I think you have to be very aggressive very soon and beat the SEC to the punch in schools like Miami.
LikeLike
I’ve said before…Big10 going to 20 is not total insanity…
From the east…Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, Pitt, ND
From the west…Neb, Mizzou, Kansas, Texas
LikeLike
It’s not total insanity but it doesn’t make sense to consider as a possibility any time in the next couple of years.
Would the current Big Ten schools approve an 81% increase in the number of schools with no guarantee of increased payouts?
More than likely we go to 14, then 16, then 18, but 20 is hard to see. What teams would justify going to 20?
Taking Nebraska + 2 = 14, Texas + 1 = 16, Notre Dame + 1 = 18.
Hard to make a move to 20 after taking Nebraska/Notre Dame/Texas because then it’s hard to see the $.
Like your 20 team expansion minus Kansas/Pitt is an 18 team set up that accomplishes everything the 20 team version accomplishes…
LikeLike
Taking Pitt and Kansas takes the only other two AAU schools in the areas (ie decent cultural fit) and prevents any future encroachment into the Big10 footprint.
You have the biggest & best schools from Texas to New England, any additions in those states will be much lower quality (Pitt is a very good #2 in PA), and none of the effected conference will likely be around to “spite vote” against you in any BCS, NCAA, etc votes (as opposed to poaching MD from the ACC).
LikeLike
zeek – i know this is a ridiculous rebuttal, but yes, I could see the Big Ten going past 18.
If USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford decided they want in, I think the Big Ten would say yes to those four together locking up California TV markets, tremendous research and academics, recruiting grounds, and the prestige of USC football, UCLA hoops, and all four school’s all-around athletic programs (esp Stanford).
Also, if Florida called up, I think the Big Ten would listen. Again, football powerhouse, Florida TV markets, recruiting, and legitimate academics and research.
Finally, if UNC and Duke called up the Big Ten, I think they would be accepted. The research dollars coming out of those two schools, as well as the Basketball programs, would be accepted.
I don’t think any of those schools would consider it today. At all. But, if there was some drastic change in 10 or 20 years, and these schools were in play, I can see the Big Ten interested in adding these schools even if it meant going past 16 or 18.
LikeLike
Sure, but your scenario is considering the Big Ten essentially replacing the NCAA for large public and wealthy private schools.
I agree with that if the Big Ten was to replace the NCAA that we’d end up picking up all the good schools out there and creating a 32 team Big Ten NFL, etc.
But I also think that Congress would get involved at that point. We’d be setting up a monopolistic system where the rich public/private schools that are part of the Big Ten would then become vastly more rich and the ones on the outside looking in would become vastly poorer, etc.
In the meantime, I think 18 is the absolute upper limit if we do a 16 team expansion for Nebraska/Texas, and then Notre Dame wants in sometime in the next 10-15 years…
LikeLike
Let´s assume this rumor has some truth. It´s kind of interesting to look at the strategy behind each of these schools:
What does Mizzou bring to the table for the Big 10?
They bring in $245,000 in R&D. They are lower than the Big 10´s lowest ranked university. They bring decent football and basketball. A fan base that notoriously does not travel well. A partial market in STL that is already partially in the B10´s pocket. A partial market in KC that in truth would be better served by taking KU.
So, again, where´s the attraction?
The only thing I can see is that the state of Missouri is an absolutely crucial state to the Big 12 conference. If you don´t take MU, the Big 12 has a chance to survive and Texas´ hand probably isn´t forced. If you don´t take MU, on the other hand, you can leave an extra space for someone more worthy – like a Pitt, Maryland, Texas, A&M, etc.
The only reason, I can see, for taking MU is because you know that it´s going to lead to Texas.
And, if it leads to Texas, and you know Notre Dame is finally ready to come along for the ride, Rutgers suddenly makes a lot more sense.
So what does Rutgers bring to the Big 10 under this scenario?
A regular NYC visit from the most important university to New Yorkers: Notre Dame. It also opens the biggest city in the US to the Big 10´s other big draws: Texas, Michigan, Ohio St and Penn St. From that perspective, Rutgers makes a lot of sense, whether they ever field competitive athletic teams or not.
Looking at it this way, I don´t see how 15 and 16 cannot be ND and Texas. NU is strong on its own, but you only bring MU if you are trying to de-stabilize the Big 12 and you know that, politically, it leads to Texas. And I think the same´s true with Rutgers. Unless you already know you´ve got ND, Rutgers doesn´t make a whole lot of sense.
LikeLike
Missouri brings a lot to the table.
First, it is the 2nd largest enrollment of any school being considered. RU is something like 35000, Mo. is app. 31000. It thus “looks” more like a BT school than does Syr (19000), Neb (24000), Pitt (27000), U Conn (24000)…
Second, R&D, while not huge by BT standards, is a lot more than ND and Sry, and somewhat more than U Conn.
Third, it brings a big, on-campus stadium (74000 or so), which is generally pretty full. Advantage Mo over Kan (50000), Syr (50000), and U Conn(40000).
Fourth, it brings a large basketball arena which is pretty new, and generally pretty full. Advantage Mo over Neb,. Rutgers
Fifth, it brings better than average traditions in both football and basketball.
Sixth, It is the public flagship U of a fairly populous state.
Seventh, it is the best geographic fit, along with Pitt.
Eighth, it has ready made rivalries with Ill. and Neb.
Nineth, it has a good overall sports program–avg. #36 in Sear’s Cup rankings over last 10 years. Adv. Mo over Pitt, Rutgers, Syr.
LikeLike
Missouri bring enough to the table to be accepted as a means to draw in Texas. That´s it.
Take a look at this chart comparing MU to the rest of the Big 10: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/mizzou/story/5D0FA768B78B59288625771D0008086E?OpenDocument
Missouri fits with the bottom half of the Big 10, but nothing about that screams for expansion.
You say that Missouri is a fairly populous state, but this is more important to the Big 12, under this scenario, than it is to the Big 10. The Big 10 already has a good portion of STL and KU would do a better job providing KC. The only reason MU´s more appealing than KU to the Big 10 is because MU´s more important to the Big 12 than KU is.
Also, comparing MU to other sub-par candidates says nothing about NU. Its competition, on its own merit, would be NU, ND, UT, A&M, Maryland, Pitt and maybe Rutgers. And, again, on its own merit, it falls behind all of those schools. If, however, it provides the political cover to bring in UT then the end easily justifies the means.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with this.
If you don’t add Missouri, then it really does feel like a Big North + 2 to Texas as Frank has alluded to in the past (I believe).
Texas probably doesn’t want to be in a conference where the closest state is Nebraska/Iowa/Illinois.
They don’t want to feel like Hawaii per se.
LikeLike
@Zeek,
And even more so than that, I think all else being equal, Texas would prefer the status quo. That means the only way to draw them to the Big 10 is to make the status quo no longer an option.
Who knows if Standford will ever come around to voting in Colorado, but without Missouri and Nebraska I don´t think the Big 12´s viable for UT. And the Big 10 is their next best option.
LikeLike
Michael, I never said that Missouri was a better candidate than ND or Texas, but they aren’t available. I doubt that A&M or Maryland are available either.
I was comparing Missouri to the other rumored candidates, and refuting your rather silly post. I gave you 9 reasons why Missouri would be a solid, if not spectacular addition.
With respect to NU and KU, there are reasons to prefer Missouri. Vs. Neb., larger enrollment, a more populous state, better basketball tradition and interest, better geopgraphy.
Vs. KU, larger enrollment, a more populous state, larger football stadium, better football tradition/history, better geography.
That is not to say that Neb. and KU don’t have areas in which they top Missouri.
But Missouri is the single best fit of ANY expansion candidate. Now before you get all excited, I said ‘best fit’, not ‘most valuable’. That is why it is prominately mentioned in every expansion rumor and is nearly a lock if TX/ND aren’t involved.
LikeLike
I tend to agree.
The only way I see Missouri getting left out is if we get a Big 14 with just Nebraska/Texas/A&M, and Texas says no to 16 unless Notre Dame is involved…
LikeLike
Alright Mushroom, look:
A number of things but I´ll start by humoring you. Yes, Missouri ¨fits¨ with the Big 10. The culture in NE, KS, MO, IL, IA, and parts of IN, WI and MN is similar. And for that reason, I´d love to see NU, KU and MO added.
That said, I´m not sure KU and MU bring enough to the table to be added together and I don´t think either brings enough to be added by itself, as the one and only expansion team.
The goal of expansion is to add value across the board, and while MU is average in just about every category, that doesn´t make it a ¨target.¨ It is a tool. In this case, it´s a bone that can be thrown to Texas to make this politically possible.
Before you get upset, I´m not saying MU has no value. The Big 10´s not going to add a Texas Tech or Baylor, just for the sake of Texas. Missouri is obviously head and shoulders above that and, like you say, fits with a good portion of the Big 10. That said, if MU is all there is, I think you´re better off holding out for something bigger.
LikeLike
“Fifth, it brings better than average traditions in both football and basketball.”
Missouri has won 1 Big 12 tournament title in basketball and 0 Big 12 titles in football. Missouri only has 6 Big 12 titles in all sports combined, last-place in the Big 12. Missouri is the definition of average.
LikeLike
@mushroom:
1). MU’s undergrad enrollment is 21,600 and it’s total enrollment is 28,400. No where near 31,000. http://admissions.missouri.edu/aboutUs/fastFacts.php
KU’s total enrollment is 29,260
2). Their R&D was $ 102.8 mm in 2009. KU’s was $ 97.4 (not including their medical center).
Click to access research2009.pdf
3). Their stadium seats 71,000, but sells out two games a year. KU’s sells out at about 54,000 about 3-4 times a year.
4). Mizzou has a nice arena, but they don’t sell out any games outside of Kansas and maybe any other top 15 team that wanders in. They had an attendence of about 2,500 during some of their early non-con games. Kansas has sold out every game for the last decade or so– 16,300 seats.
5). Mizzou isn’t better than average in either sports historically. They’ve never made a BCS bowl or a Final Four. KU has a recent Orange Bowl victory, three tourney titles and 13 Final Fours. The football record between the two schools is pretty much dead even, and the basketball record isn’t even close.
6). This is Mizzou’s key advantage– Congressional firepower.
7). If geography was the main factor, Louisville or Butler would be considered.
8). One could argue that Pitt or Syracuse vs. Penn State would be a better rivalry. KU vs NU is a stronger rivalry than NU vs MU.
9). It really isn’t that strong of a program. It competes in the most sports out of any Big 12 team, but only has 6 Big 12 titles (the fewest of any team). Only one is a revenue sport– a tourney basketball title (they came in third for the regular season).
I know I’m drinking haterade here, but I felt compeled to correct some of these rumors.
LikeLike
Hey all, traveling today and can only post a new comment (no replies possible) on my mobile:
@Frank: you made a mention of independence being a viable option for Texas. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts as to why. The consensus amongst the Texas fans I know is that independence is a non-starter for a number of reasons, and I agree with that assessment.
@Brad: re the UT-A@M tied-at-the-hip issue, first that’s what my legislative source told me, and though the source is anonymous, I can say with confidence that the source is extremely knowledgeable. Second, I think the key is that neither school would allow the other to leave without having its own escape plan. If Texas were invited without A&M to the Big 10, and it turned out the Pac 10 and the SEC would not swoop in and rescue the remaining Big XII members, I think it’s fair to guess that Texas would have to turn down the invite.
@Everybody: am I the only only who thinks that yesterday’s “news” was most likely made up, is at best a trial balloon, and that the official announcement will only have a passing resemblence to what was reported?
LikeLike
I think yesterday’s “news”/rumor would actually resemble what would happen very much.
If A&M secures its own escape to the Pac-10 or SEC, then Texas would probably be cleared to join a Big Ten with Nebraska/Missouri/Texas/Notre Dame/Rutgers.
Also, Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers is the most sensible pick to go to 14 if Texas isn’t yet on board.
But the reason why I don’t think any of it will play out like that is because I think Texas will be on board any expansion play as soon as Colorado moves to the Pac-10.
Thus, I would imagine that if Colorado (and possibly A&M) moves to the Pac-10, that the Big Ten would immediately invite Texas/Nebraska/Missouri/Notre Dame to apply. If A&M goes to the Pac-10 or signals its own plans, then we send the 16th invitation to Rutgers.
If Notre Dame and Texas decline to apply to the Big Ten, then we stay at 14 with Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers.
If Notre Dame declines but Texas accepts, then we may end up sending the 16th application to A&M if A&M is on board and wants to come: Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers.
If Texas declines to apply, then we send the 16th spot to Maryland or Pitt. and the end result is Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Notre Dame/Maryland (or Pitt.)
LikeLike
Needless to say, I think we would know whether Notre Dame or Texas is interested before inviting them to apply. Thus, this will all play out in private before it plays out in public.
Once a team is targeted for an invitation and the news is public, I assume that they’re almost certain to join.
LikeLike
i think it’s closer to the truth than you would think. and i have a strong feeling that Neb, Missouri are in.. ND is going to get a “Last Time” call, and Rutgers is a 50 /50. depends on the info they have to support letting them join verses another team that fits better in the Big ten Foot print.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Oh, I don’t really think that Texas would ever actually choose independence. I just meant that in theory, Texas is probably the only school other than ND that could pull it off if it wanted to. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea – Texas doesn’t have a Big East-type conference nearby to house all of its other sports and ND is finding that it’s a much tougher world to be an independent than it used to be.
LikeLike
Well, that is the next step in all of this. After a while, these schools that are “carrying” conferences are going to look around and wonder why they are sharing revenue with bottom feeders. Texas v Rutgers will generate interest in NYC… Indiana v Rutgers will not.
So… you will end up with 4 mega conferences and several elite schools with their own TV deals a la Notre Dame.
If Texas joins the Big 10… the Big 10 network payouts increase to $40M. Texas looks around and wonders why Indiana gets $40M. Someone says… we’ll give you $65M for YOUR games. Bingo. Texas can say to the Big 10… we need unbalanced revenue sharing or we leave.
Other schools carrying conferences are out there too. We watch Florida St./Miami. We don’t want Wake Forest/NC State. We watch Florida/LSU.. we don’t watch Mississippi St./Arkansas.
So if you’re the Big 10… does Texas seem all that attractive to you? They are the Super-Model Girlfriend. A fine idea… but a disaster in the end. Meanwhile… Missouri, Rutgers, Nebraska, and all the other candidates just want to be loved…
LikeLike
You’re forgetting that it’s not just about football. Texas has 19 other sports to worry about. Good luck finding someone willing to give them a deal like the ND/BE situation if Texas isn’t going to participate in football.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a big IF. A&M is NOT getting left out in the cold. That’s too many fans, too big a school, and too strong of an athletics program to be needing anyone’s help.
The one who forced A&M into the Big 12 was NOT Texas and it had nothing at all to do with Texas. It was Bob Bullock who promised A&M some much needed funding they were after if they agreed to join Texas, Baylor, and Tech in the Big 12. Bullock, the most powerful man in Texas politics at the time, was a BU and Tech alum.
Your friend might be confusing what happened in the early 90s thinking it’s indicative of the future. It’s not. A&M doesn’t need Texas, and vice versa. It would take a crazy impossible situation where A&M would be left to Conference USA/WAC/MWC options that would require any intervention of the legislature’s part. That’s just not going to happen. A&M will be courted plenty, and have their pick.
As I stated before, they were perfectly ready to split before, but it was actually BU/Tech powers in Austin that forced the issue to bring A&M to the Big 12. It wasn’t Texas taking care of A&M. It was BU/Tech taking care of themselves and needing A&M to come along for the ride to make it work.
Texas gets go where they want. A&M gets to go where they want. What should be asked is if Tech and Baylor have enough clout politically anymore to force the horns or aggys to take them with them wherever they decide to go. I don’t think they do anymore. But we shall see.
LikeLike
This is what made the scenarios that erupted yesterday so believable.
A&M can choose the Pac-10 or SEC easily because both conferences covet A&M.
Thus, Texas is really in a position to be the 16th team in a Big Ten as long as it moves after A&M.
For a Texas that wants to go to the Big Ten, the best outcome would be for the Pac-10 to announce Colorado/A&M as its two additions…
LikeLike
If it’s a trial balloon, who is it being floated by?
If it’s the Big Ten, it’s interesting, but I think it’s something that Frank and the commenters (hey, that’s not a bad band name) already have been going over for weeks if no months.
If it’s Mizzou, I just hafta wonder why they floated it at all.
LikeLike
ESPN has a colorful graphic at the link below regarding conference projections. Click on “the projections” within the article to get the graphic. It’s a PDF file that takes a minute to open.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22137/a-new-look-at-conference-expansion
LikeLike
anything that has Boise state going to the Pac 10 goes on my to dumb to read list!
LikeLike
Don’t dismiss Boise State to a major conference too quickly. Though their strength of schedule is suspect at best, they’ve not fared so horribly against ranked opponents (6-5 in last six years), and in bowl games (2-4 last six years isn’t wonderful, but not horrible either). They’re as ready as they’ll ever be to join a major conference.
Admittedly, they don’t have the huge fan base that most conferences would be looking for, but thanks to their more recent “BCS busting”, they’re gaining an much larger intrigue-look from football fans across the country.
They wouldn’t be my first choice for an expansion candidate, but I’d gladly take them in conjunction with someone who will bring in tons of viewers and/or seat-fillers.
LikeLike
I think Hawkfan is referring to the fact that no way Stanford does not veto letting Boise State into the PAC.
LikeLike
Ah, my bad. And after looking at their layout, I’d agree even more…didn’t like that layout at all.
LikeLike
Yeah, NO WAY Stanford agrees to let Boise State in. Boise State really doesn’t have a lot of options in all of this realignment. Maybe the Big 12, but that’s a big if. But, the Boise State fans should stop dreaming about the Pac-10. That isn’t happening.
LikeLike
Boy’s State, San Diego State, and Fresno State in the Pac 10? Right. Sure. And I’ll get that new conference logo made up at the same time with the one that has Notre Dame, Florida, Texas, Maryland and Nebraska joining the Big 10…
I think we need a new blog entry on the Pac 10 and what “really” can happen with Stanford and to a lesser extent, California involved. The unanimous vote rule pretty much kills any discussion before it even begins. Expansion for the Pac 10, if you have followed any of the reliable information out there, just isn’t in the cards. It would require a huge shake up (where everyone just leaves Stanford alone – kind of like those pesky Domers. And if anything like a bomb went off in Pac 10 land and that did happen, you’re going to end up with WSU and OSU on the outside looking in if there are better candidates available for a new Pac 16 or whatever number they settle on…
Just my opinion…
LikeLike
Frank – its been a while since I’ve seen Star Wars Episode VI, but wasn’t the Super-Death-Star destroyed because the little furry Ewoks knocked down the some protection beam protecting the Super-Death-Star?
Is the Super-Death-Star-Big16-Conference pre-ordained for destruction?
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Ha! Those stupid Ewoks. The one thing that I will say is that the comparisons to the old 16-team WAC aren’t exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s quite different when you’re talking about schools like Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska and possibly ND and/or Texas in the fold. Still, the Big Ten needs to be careful, here – that’s why I don’t like the thought of going up to 16 without at least 2 huge football names. I hope that they don’t get too starry-eyed or have tunnel vision regarding the potential in the NYC area.
LikeLike
Frank – I’m all for expansion in the Big Ten, and the SEC for that matter, but the point I was trying to make is that you can only take so many Divas in one conference. Think about Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Notre Dame & Texas: all football royalty. Sometimes they may play second fiddle, but they’ve always had a fiddle. If the Big Ten pulled off the Super-Death-Star, one of these 6 teams would have to play in the Insight.com Bowl every year.
I’m not worried about the WAC-16 comparisons either, but the schools need to be tight-knit for expansion to work. The two best conferences are the SEC and the Big Ten because the schools in both conferences the members understand that what’s good for the conference is good for their school. Will Nebraska, Mizzou and Rutgers understand that? I’m guessing yes. Will Notre Dame & Texas in a 16 team conference? Not so sure.
History has taught us many things, but I’ll mention two:
1. Loose confederacies don’t work.
2. Even George Lucas makes mistakes (See Ewoks above).
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the Big Ten go to the NCAA and demand that the limit of 2 BCS bowls be pulled?
A Big Ten with 5 or 6 powerhouses is in a position to demand 3 BCS bowls every year…
Then the SEC would have justification to go to 16 and also try to grab 3 BCS bowls every year…
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Oh, I see what you’re saying. I’ve actually written concerns about that before. My comparison was a basketball team, where you can’t have a team full of Michael Jordans or LeBrons to be successful and there needs to be a good mix of marquee teams and second tier programs. I understand how you can can have the same concern with too many power teams in one conference. Still, I’d rather have that problem than expand by 5 teams but only bring in 1 new “diva”. 2 divas out of 5 total probably would strike the best balance.
LikeLike
@ Frank & Alan:
Yes, but you have 5-6 big dogs in the SEC in:
LSU
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Auburn
And they have only 12 teams. On top of those, some suggest if the SEC expands, they could add FSU and Miami. If they were to add those two that would make at least 8 premium football properties. Why couldn’t it work in a Big16 with 6 alpha dogs in:
Ohio State
Michigan
ND
Nebraska
Texas
Penn State/Iowa
LikeLike
prophet & mike – Those SEC schools have been together for 75 years and get it. I’m not saying it can’t be done, because it can. But the Big Ten can’t make concessions or make special deals the Divas, ie Notre Dame & Texas. It has to be all for one and one for all, for expansion to work. That’s how the SEC and the current Big Ten have operated for as long as I can remember. If Texas and/or Notre Dame can come in be be one of the gang, then you’ve got a great situation. If they can’t then you’ve got a f*cked- up mess on your hands.
Here’s how the SEC works: Alabama is the only Diva, but Tennessee, Georgia & LSU have all won at least 10 conference championships. Additionally, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas all want to be on the top of the heap, and have sufficient resources to get there. Since the early 60s, Bama has been challenged by many teams, but they are the only constant. It really pains me to write this, but the point I’m getting to is the SEC can handle one true Diva. The Diva makes everybody work harder. I don’t know if we could handle five.
I don’t think FSU is a diva as it has always played 2nd-fiddle to UF & it used to be a girls’ school. Miami is down on its luck and needs cash. Oklahoma may be a diva, but they have always shared the spotlight, first with Nebraska and now Texas.
LikeLike
The way that I perceive the SEC is that it actually isn’t really filled with marquee names. It is the best pure football conference from top-to-bottom on a consistent basis, so that’s really why they draw ratings. In terms of “diva” schools that simply draw tons of eyeballs across the country just for showing up and whether they win or lose (like Notre Dame or Michigan), I’d really only put Alabama and Florida into that category. Those are truly alpha dogs. National interest in schools like LSU, Tennessee and Georgia is much more variable depending upon how they perform from year-to-year. Now, at least one of those schools on the next level beyond Florida and Alabama is in the national championship race more often than not, so that’s a huge interest driver in the conference. The SEC’s attraction is really more of a collective entity as opposed to leveraging a handful of superstars. This is what the Big Ten is generally like, as well, whereas the Big XII is the opposite.
LikeLike
prophetstruth,
Please tell me you don’t view Tenn, UGA, & the Auburn (Auburn, are you kidding me???) in the same category as Michigan, OSU, PSU, TX, ND, Neb? Heck, I wouldn’t even put LSU (sorry Alan) in that category. UF has only been in that category since the early 90s. Now I know I’m a little bias on this, but Bama is the only SEC team that has consistantly been in the “national championship” discussion since the 30s. As Alan stated, Bama has always been the big dog in the SEC. That changed a little bit when UF final broke through in the 90s. But those other teams aren’t in the same category. JMHO
LikeLike
But the SEC has LSU, Florida and Alabama, all schools that have won a NC in the last few years, not to mention an undefeated Auburn team, and generally competitive UTenn and UGA. They all seem to get along pretty well, no?
LikeLike
I’m sure that the Big Ten will also negotiate an increase in payouts from all of their bowls, as it is more likely that a higher ranked team and bigger brand name school will be at the Capital One and Outback bowls, and then down the line.
LikeLike
Frank, you and I have drawn the exact same conclusion about expansion. In my last article, I discussed how 16 almost had to include either ND or Texas to work. I think there are two models of 16 that work; a Big 10-Big 12 merger or a New York model moving east. I must admit, I was a little concerned about a mixxed approach thinking their would be too many different interests at work. As most of your readers know, my aricles, inspired in part by your work, can be found at http://www.thepolesposition.com. Keep up the good work. It only took about 12 weeks or so, but we ended up pretty much at the same point.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’m just curious why the Big Ten might feel adding Rutgers and Syracuse would get the NYC market. The Big East has this combination already, and nobody watches for the most part. I know the Big Ten values the NYC market, but I think it would be folly of great proportions to think NYC cable companies would add the Big Ten network because they added Rutgers and/or Syracuse. Those 2 plus Notre Dame; maybe. But then again, Notre Dame could maybe do it by itself, so that goes back to the “why Rutgers”?
LikeLike
My thought? The only 3 schools the Big10 really covets is ND, Nebraska and Texas. So any team not named ND, Nebraska or Texas being asked to join the Big10, are being asked because Delany believes that in some way, inviting them may cause ND, Nebraska or Texas to join the Big10.
LikeLike
@HoosierMike,
Exactly. That´s why 1) this rumor is false or 2) Mizzou/Nebraska leads to Texas and Rutgers gives the Big 10 a chance to showcase ND (and everyone else) a few miles away from NYC.
If it´s number 2, this plan looks shrewd and probably puts the BTN on basic cable in NYC and Texas.
If it´s not, then we´re back at square one trying to figure out how to get the greatest number of the following schools: UT, ND, NU, aTm, and Maryland.
LikeLike
Agreed. I’m leaning towards Door number 2, Michael (nice name). I think they really took the long view on this one, knowing they’d need two BXII North schools to change the dynamics of that conference (plus a Colorado defection). Rutgers and ND invites lets ND know we’re willing to go to 16, and if they don’t want in, we’ll take TX/aTM or 2 more BE schools and collapse that conference, too. Midwest, bitches. Do not fuck with us or we will kill your conference.
LikeLike
I agree with both of you, but one thing to consider is that Texas also knows what both of you are stating.
Thus, Texas knows that losing all of the major markets outside of Texas along with Nebraska’s national brand is the death of the Big 12.
It is in Texas’ interest to act in a way that maximizes its options with respect to its knowledge that the Big Ten will strike at the heart of the Big 12.
Therefore, Texas may act right after Colorado leaves with the excuse that “Colorado has mortally wounded the Big 12 by taking Denver”…
LikeLike
that’s the hope anyway. Hook them Horns!!
LikeLike
@Greg – The argument is that the “penumbra effect” of PSU, Michigan and other Big Ten schools combined with the physical presence of Rutgers and/or Syracuse could deliver the NYC area. There is something to be said for the fact that there has NEVER been a conference that has combined Penn State with the other major Northeastern schools, so there is possibly a lot more potential there than it looks like on paper. Think of how the Big Ten would look if you took away Michigan and Ohio State and that’s effectively what the Big East has looked like without Penn State – it never had a real chance to break through. Now, I don’t know if this argument will hold and if I were running the Big Ten, I’d much rather go full bore towards Texas than take a gamble on the NYC region, but the Big Ten can’t be blamed for looking to see if that market can be opened in any way possible.
LikeLike
I got to say as a fan of the Big ten, i would not be happy with Texas in the Conference, and i don’t care one way or the other about Notre Dame! we get a bit to “BIG PICTURE” on your site, me thinks. after all there has to be some kind of “Fit” to the whole thing. No way the Gov’t lets there only be to “BCS” con fences. and i cant see the big ten plus , Neb, Texas, and ND being able to have the same win/loss as a Pac ten school or a ACC school. and i dont see it being any better in a Expanded Sec with FSU , Miami, etc.
LikeLike
What exactly is wrong with Texas?
Texas acts too big for the Big 12, but so would Michigan or Ohio State.
The fact is that the Big 12 is a little pond compared to the big lake that is the Big Ten.
We want the big fishes to come to where they’d feel at home just as Penn State felt at home in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
but Texas is a “Southern” school. we are midwest. and i dont mean Southern as a bad thing, they have different winters and a host of other things then us.not bad just different
LikeLike
I dunno. Austin is Ann Arbor is Bloomington is Madison. Culture of Austin is not that different from Big10 college towns.
LikeLike
I don’t really buy that. Texas is a large public flagship university that is a research and academic powerhouse.
Last I checked, that’s what makes the Big Ten schools special (along with Northwestern being private of course).
Penn State is an Eastern school even if it is a Rust Belt school and it has fit in well with the Big Ten.
I really think the differences between Texas and the Big Ten are more imagined than real.
Texas sees itself more as a Southwestern school, not really a Southern school and if we’re adding Nebraska and Missouri then we’re adding schools to the southwest of the Midwest, so we’re already adding schools that aren’t really that different from Texas…
LikeLike
This is also a supporting argument for adding Nebraska/Missouri to make Texas feel more at home.
We don’t want Texas to feel like they’re regionally very distant. They won’t feel that way if Nebraska/Missouri/A&M come along. You’d have 4 Great Plains-Southwest schools added to a 16 team Big Ten…
LikeLike
it would be funny that Neb leaves the Big 12 cause Texas wont share equally with them ,, and then ends up in the the Big 10 with Texas.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Missouri are nothing like Texas culturally and are in no way “Southwest” schools. Both NU and MU have far more in common with Iowa, Illinois and the other western teams in the Big Ten than with the former members of the Southwest Conference.
LikeLike
I would still argue that adding Missouri regionally removes the thinking of a Big North vs. Texas/A&M kind of Big 14 + 2 as opposed to a Big 16…
LikeLike
I don’t think Penn State counts as a rust belt school, really. The rust belt doesn’t start until Johnstown.
LikeLike
yeah, what I said, plus what Frank said. But mostly what Frank said. I think I’m getting Diabolical Twitching Mustache Syndrome. help!
LikeLike
what about what i said right after what you said, after you heard Frank say it?
LikeLike
oh, completely disagree 🙂 I would love to have UT, ND and Neb in our conference. And I can’t stand ND and Neb. But the level of competition is unparalleled. It’s the perception of competition that allowed a 2 loss LSU team to be crowned national champs. It’s borderline ridiculous, but hell, when it works in my team’s favor, I’m all for it.
LikeLike
H Mike.. i was Kidding, and i wrote that before al ot of the other replies. teehee
LikeLike
Holy Shit, Frank! You went to Ho-Flo? Half of my friends from college (IU) went to Homewood-Floosmoor. What year did you graduate if you don’t mind me asking? Small freaking world.
LikeLike
Class of ’96. South Side!
LikeLike
Right on. All of my buddies were 2000, so you’d have just missed being able to throw them into lockers and beat the snot out of them. Which is good for everyone, I suppose.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
QUESTION FOR OUR NEBRASKA FRIENDS:
Can someone shed some more light on the “regional” reach of Nebraska?
I understand that Nebraska has a national name brand, and that it’s fan base travels as well as anybody, and also reaches into existing Big Ten footprint states (like Iowa).
Specifically:
1. Would the addition of Nebraska put the BTN on Basic Cable in South Dakota? North Dakota? Wyoming or Montana or Idaho?
2. Somebody argued that perhaps Missouri + Nebraska + Kansas in Kansas City (or, the Kansas Cities). Does Nebraska really have reach into the state of Kansas? Would the BTN get sizable numbers in the state of Kansas due to Nebraska?
3a. Does the University of Nebraska have any regional agreements with other states? For instance, about 15 years ago, I heard that since the Univ of Colorado is the only medical school in the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, that the school grants in-state tuition to students from those four states, and holds a few spots for kids from those states. Is there anything like this at Nebraska U regarding the Dakotas?
3b. Would this relationship virtually add additional Senators from the Dakotas that have a vested interest in seeing Nebraska Research Dollars grow?
4. Anything else I might be missing from the addition of Nebraska to the Big Ten from a Regional standpoint?
Thanks!
LikeLike
One correction. It should have read “Nebraska + Missouri = Kansas” in Kansas City. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
1. The Dakotas, probably more interest in South Dakota than North. Any reach into the mountain states would be iffy. Wyoming hates us for hiring Devaney, Montana has their own 1-AA (or whatever it’s called these days) football thing going on that they’re rightfully proud of, Idaho (at least southern) aligns more towards Utah and LDS interests.
2. The Kansas City Metro is home to a lot of Nebraska grads. I’ll defer to locals concerning loyalty percentages.
3a. Dunno.
3b. The Dakotas look out for their own interests. If theirs and ours coincide, sure.
4. We drown any children who aren’t Husker fans, which is why we have nationwide reach. If you’re descended from someone from Nebraska, and you’re alive, you’re a Husker fan. At worst they’re you’re second-favorite team.
LikeLike
4b. We take a bite out of the Denver metro also, as it is the destination of many who move from the western part of Nebraska.
LikeLike
First post, last sentence, you’re = your. Should probably proofread.
LikeLike
I would say that there are many Husker fans in Wyoming, mainly due to the Union Pacific jobs that shift between Norfolk / Grand Island and Torrington / Douglas. I had relatives in Douglas, WY for a while and there was definitely support.
LikeLike
True for Cheyenne and Pocatello, Idaho, also.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska would bring a decidedly minimal number of new local or regional subscriptions. In fact, I might go as far as to say that the addition of Nebraska would add fewer new LOCAL subscribers to the BTN than programs which are already within the footprint such as Pitt & Notre Dame. There simply aren’t many people living out in the Great Plains states.
Meanwhile, those facts hardly even matter because of the power of the Nebraska name. Growing up in South Carolina, I never met a Nebraska fan until going off to college. Yet I recall numerous times hearing conversations that started off with, “Did you see that Nebraska game? Wow…” If Nebraska can capture an audience in far-away South Carolina, it can certainly capture an audience in New York, California, Texas, and of course current Big Ten country. It’s simply a program that turns heads in all parts of the country. IMO, only 11 other programs are in that kind of company: Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and USC.
BTW: I do not know about South Dakota, but North Dakota has a deal with the state of Minnesota where students from either state can get in-state tuition to either state’s universities, so I’m sure that state doesn’t also share a similar deal with Nebraska.
LikeLike
@ Cliff’s Notes
1. Nebraska definitely holds much of South Dakota, and I know there is a very large presence in Wyoming as well as Idaho. Montana I’m not really sure, but further west in Oregon there is also a large number of Nebraska faithful. There are also large numbers of fans in North Dakota, although not as strong as South Dakota. My brother works and lives in Kansas City right now and from what he has seen; Nebraska fans have a stronger presence in KC than even Kansas State. He said that during football season, the Nebraska fans in KC almost are as prevalent as the Missouri and Kansas fans he comes into contact with, so take that for what it’s worth; but there definitely is a strong presence in KC. I’m not sure how many other programs have this sort of national presence (and I will find and list them later) but the Husker Sports Network is a group of radio stations nationwide that broadcasts Nebraska Football games from California to Georgia. I live in Tulsa, OK and can listen to games on the radio through Husker Sports Network affiliates in Rogers, Arkansas. So take that again for what it’s worth.
2. I kind of answered this to some degree above, but to expand on it; my extended family lives throughout central Kansas and I know for a fact that Nebraska football rivals strongly Kansas and Kansas State football throughout that state. (now that support disappears during basketball season, but during football season it is definitely noticed strongly) It got so bad at one point that for Kansas State home games in Manhattan, the Catbackers (the alumni club for Kansas State who my uncle is very involved in within Manhattan) issued a warning to all season ticket holders that when Nebraska came to town, if they sold their tickets to a Nebraska fan (and a Nebraska fan was found sitting in their seat) then they could risk their seat location being moved back or to another spot or some other ramification. That is the extent they went to keep Nebraska from filling their stadium. So yes there is a large presence in Kansas.
3. I can’t answer this with any certainty; I had in-state tuition so I didn’t pay any attention to any of the other options that were available.
4. Like I stated above I live in Tulsa, OK right in the heart of Soonerland. Yet, in my subdivision alone there are 6 other families that fly Nebraska flags every Saturday. Also here in Tulsa (as well as OKC and numerous other parts of the country most notably the Bay area in California and the Phoenix area in Arizona) there are massive watch parties for Nebraska fans to attend. Last year for the Arkansas State game (only available through pay-per-view) I attended a watch party that filled an entire convention room at a hotel here it Tulsa (probably 200+ people); I have also been to similar watch parties in OKC. This being said if that many people are willing to show up for an Arkansas State game in a city as far away from Lincoln as Tulsa then you’d have to think the BTN would be a no-brainer in many parts of the country where large portions of Nebraska fans are located.
I hope this helped you out!
LikeLike
1. If the BTN isn’t already on in Sioux Falls (it’s only 20 miles or so from the Iowa Border, and there’s a significant Hawkeye following), adding Nebraska will put it on. Adding Nebraska will put it on basic cable in Rapid City, and the other South Dakota markets aren’t worth discussing. If you think Nebraska’s got a small population, well, go visit South Dakota.
2. Nebraska doesn’t deliver KC, but Nebraska weighs there heavily, as would any historically good team very close to the market of a hasn’t-been (KU) and an aspires-to-mediocrity (MU).
3a. Nebraska, to my knowledge, has no educational reciprocity agreements. Both South and North Dakota have (or have had) reciprocity agreements with Minnesota.
3b. I do not suspect South Dakota has any real interest in seeing Nebraska’s research dollars grow. Nebraska and North Dakota are sufficiently far away — it’s the better part of 300 miles across South Dakota — that they aren’t all that aware of each other.
What might not have been considered from an impact perspective is how Nebraska being added to the Big Ten would impact satellite subscription to the BTN network. Nebraska may be a small state, but the loyalty of its expatriates is both real and significant, and it’s not simply the alumni base, but anyone who spent any formative years in the state. Scarier yet, we even indocrinate those expatriate children with our Nebraska-themed rec rooms and autumn Saturdays dedicated to football. No Nebraska fan outside the the existing BTN cable footprint — and there are millions — will fail to subscribe to the BTN.
LikeLike
3a. State medical schools have a mission to produce physicians to serve their state populations. I’m not sure what other university schools/departments are as explicit in their dedication to serving the state – perhaps other professional schools like law, nursing, and social work.
Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have no in-state medical schools. However, there is a partnership in which the University of Washington (not Colorado) reserves a certain number of spots for students from those states. The Universities of North and South Dakota have medical schools.
LikeLike
1. Nebraska’s football presence covers the majority of the great plains and it has penetration into Denver and Kansas City. I don’t know if any stations outside of the state of Nebraska would put the BTN on basic cable, but I can guarantee that they would need to offer it in all the locations you listed. Nebraska fans have been buying Pay-per-view games at $40 a pop to see games that ESPN, FSN or CBS College Sports wouldn’t cover. Outside of Nebraska, they have a large, rabid fan-base, but it’d be a hard sell to justify putting it on basic cable.
2. Nebraska has about the same number of alums in KC as Missouri and K-State (around 20k), whereas KU has around 73k. KC is a KU town, but Nebraska football is a very strong draw. If we’re talking about getting onto basic cable, NU & MU together is still a tough sell, but you’ll definitely see a lot of subscriptions. Having an annual game at Arrowhead b/n MU & NU could probably help boost the numbers, but you’re still playing catch up with KU.
3a & b – I’ll have to defer on this one
4. Nebraska is really a national brand. If you add a few other brands like it (like Texas and Notre Dame), you really can stop worrying about regional markets and start wondering if the BTN can become a nationally carried network like ESPN.
LikeLike
Forgot one thing: the ‘Jayhusker’ factor. There are a lot of casual fans that follow Husker football and Jayhawk basketball. It’s mostly because Nebraska football and KU football has been so bad historically.
Folks in the area that don’t really have a University affiliation, but are interested in college sports generally defer to Jayhusker status.
LikeLike
don’t underestimate the ‘Cornhawks’ – Kansas football and Nebraska basketball.
LikeLike
Oh man– that’s a brave bunch!
LikeLike
Jay Husker sounds like the name of a guy opening for Dwight Yoakam.
Thanks for all the responses helping to educate me regarding Nebraska.
LikeLike
The Missouri market is a keg that can be tapped at both ends — KU for KC, IL for StL.
LikeLike
MU in my view is a *meh* addition, and I think many of these rumors are the product of MU folks trying to keep their school in the conversation. Look at the talk radio story — ND is there as catnip for ESPN and SportsCenter, not because of any solif information. The real agenda of the leaker is to attach MU to the ND-sriven story. I think its a fable, pure and simple. Expansion thinking revolves around NU, TX, the NYC dream and (maybe if the fit issues can be addressed) ND.
LikeLike
Articleon the http://www.the-ozone.net
regarding how the BTN plays into expansion
Nice read and a good site for Big Ten folk.
http://the-ozone.net/misc/expansion/expansionandBTN.html
LikeLike
Big Ten Expansion and the Big Ten Network
http://www.the-ozone.net/misc/expansion/expansionandBTN.html
from the article
“…so we made a call to the one guy we thought might know the most about that, Big Ten Network CEO Mark Silverman.
“I think the network has an impact on expansion,” said Silverman who then quickly fell into lockstep with the Big Ten company line on expansion.
“I think there’s many factors involved in evaluating it in terms of cultural fit, geography, education, academic standards. I think the network is just one of a list of things that go into consideration by the conference.”
A nice, safe, vanilla thing to say. It’s also probably absolutely true. Here’s why we think that.
If the premise is true that the conference will expand in a way to benefit the Big Ten Network the most, then it stands to reason that Silverman and the network have to be included in the discussion on how to expand, something that Silverman says simply hasn’t happened.
“We talk to the conference regularly about a lot of things but we’re not actively involved in any part of the expansion,” Silverman said.”
A good read and a shout out to FtT as well
LikeLike
The biggest problem with the article is the statement that the Big Ten got $80 million in the form of a “franchise fee” and $42 million in BTN profits. Those numbers are incorrect. According to published reports (http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/92558764.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiacyKUUr), the Big Ten received a rights fee of $60 million and profits totaling $66 million last year. That would mean the total profit of the network was $189.4 million, and the total payouts were $126 million to the Big Ten and $63.4 million to Fox.
LikeLike
Interesting general article/speculation about Big Ten expansion and long run conference implications by Pete Fiutak at College Football News…
http://cfn.scout.com/2/968955.html
LikeLike
Boise State and Fresno State in the PAC-10? This idiot should be banned from the interweb!
LikeLike
Normally, I like what Fiutak has to say. When it comes down to team and player analysis, he really knows his stuff.
But I think he’s a bit off on this article. His look at conference membership in 2020 includes some big reaches, especially concerning the Pac 10 membership. Also, at this point, I don’t think we need to be projecting 2020. I think 2020 will look awfully similar to 2013.
LikeLike
@Cliff’s Notes
High level, here’s what I like about Fiutak’s analysis:
1. Big XII survives loss of Missouri, Nebraska & Colorado.
2. Projection of Syracuse and UConn ultimately joining the Big Ten. Would love to see Notre Dame and/or Texas to jump on board but it doesn’t seem likely.
3. A roughly 80-team collection of major football schools with five major conferences surviving. Although at this vantage it seems difficult to see both the WAC and MWC disappearing that fast (especially given the predilection of the PAC10 for very strict academic qualifications up to now).
Having said all that, you’re right, anything this detailed re 2020 at this juncture is going to be a big reach…
LikeLike
Ron,
Yeah, high level, it’s a reasonable and sound speculation that the lower third of Div 1-A is pushed out of the way, and it is reasonable to suggest that the Big XII survives.
It’s fun for us silly posters on blogs and message boards to speculate on the actions and reactions three or four steps down the road, such as how the Pac 10 goes beyond 12 teams.
But I think for a journalist to start throwing out ideas like this – even admitting its a guess – it’s stretching too far.
And again, I really like Fiu. Nationally, I’ll read his thoughts on an upcoming big game before I read or listen to anyone else. I highly recommend to any fan of college football to bookmark collegefootballnews.com before ESPN or CBS Sports or Yahoo sports.
LikeLike
The wild card here is that with Big Ten expansion, college football as a whole could be starting a process of change that will wind up altering the entire control structure. The NFL has a commissioner with centralized powers to help adjudicate disputes. It’s no accident that the Big East has hauled in a former NFL commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, as a special advisor. Think an unspoken assumption in Fiutak’s article is that college football is evolving toward a more centralized control structure that will decide matters like conference affiliations at a national level based on considerations of “what is good for the sport as a whole”. Which is (rightly) going to offend people who think that universities should have other priorities.
LikeLike
CFN has a general love interest with Boise, and Fresno to a lesser extent. CFN used to be a good site, but these days they are yet another college football hype machine. Oh, did I mention they love the SEC and give the Big Ten a hard time?
LikeLike
Mizzou and Big Red leaving kills to Big XII? The PAC-10 is expanding? Sheesh — why won’t these canards die?
The keys to the Big 12 are TX and OK. There are plenty of decent schools who can replace MO and NE (especially whiny MO). BYU, Utah, TCU, SMU, Houston, UTEP — they’re all decent candidates for admission. Texas and Oklahoma might be glad to be rid of the complaint squad — note that Tom Osborne cast the lone vote against having the B12 championship game in JerryWorld.
Let the whiners go, add a couple of teams who would crawl over broken glass to get in, share less money with the new entrants, keep your real rivalries and generally be even more the boss of the conference (that’s what TX and OK are thinking).
That’s a lot better than having to start new rivalries, jolt A&M and the other Texas schools (and their political friends), and MOST IMPORTANTLY — give up the power be the dominant political power in the conference.
As for the PAC-10, as noted by other posters and myself, the one-school veto is a killer. I won’t even address the myriad legal and logistical issues that make a 9-school mutiny impossible.
Consider that the PAC-10 last expanded in 1978 — that was before the BEast even started playing BBall! The PAC-10 was also the last major conference to start a post-season BBall tourney. This conference is the last mover. It may expand, but it will be last. All this light and smoke about the PAC-10 talking with this school and that school and “getting aggressive” is ridiculous. It’s all just talk.
RIP PAC-10 expansion; long-live the Big 12 Conference: A nearly wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Texas.
LikeLike
Oklahoma the key to the Big 12?
How about the fact that the biggest markets for the Big 12 outside of Texas are in Colorado and Missouri, and that Nebraska is as big a national draw as Oklahoma…
Lose Nebraska/Missouri/Colorado, and exactly what will Texas stick around for? A shrinking Big 12 contract worth around $5-7M a year?
Texas/A&M aren’t just going to sit around in a conference in which they bring all of the major markets.
Texas may sit around in the Big 12 if it can make a Longhorn network that pays it another $10-15M+ a year.
But why should A&M stick around? Why even should Oklahoma sit around? Those two stand to take a paycut if the Big 12 loses all of its big markets outside of Texas… there’s an incentive for Oklahoma to dash to the SEC for 3-4 times the TV pay if it can, and A&M is likely to follow it out…
LikeLike
Here’s the major markets the Big 12 has/will lose when they lose Nebraska and Missouri: St. Louis
You are assuming that CU is going to the Pac-10. You are assuming that Stanford votes yes to them and another team. Which are pretty big assumptions. The only other one Stanford would say yes to would be Texas. For Texas to be able to go alone to the Pac-10 or to the Big 10+ you are assuming that they can ditch their cling-ons of A&M and Tech (and maybe even Houston)…and if they could why would they join the Pac-10 over the Big 10+?
If the Big 12 adds BYU and/or Utah as one or both of their replacements, they have about the same TV coverage and markets as they had with Nebraska and Missouri. If they could add Arkansas they might have more.
The only way for the Pac-10 to expand for TV is through a joint TV alliance/venture as they won’t be voting in any schools thanks to Stanford’s veto.
LikeLike
Stanford did vote for Arizona and Arizona State. How are Colorado and Utah not a better fit than Arizona and Arizona State in terms of academics and sports?
Also, a 12 team championship game is a huge incentive for Stanford to vote yes for this time around.
Even if Colorado stays, Nebraska is a national draw and that’s a major part of what the TV package is based on.
The TV packages are based on how many games can be put on TV, and I guarantee you that replacing Nebraska with any other team results in a smaller contract with fewer televised games on the major network contract…
LikeLike
Stanford only voted for Arizona and Arizona State to join the Pac 8 because USC and UCLA told them if they didn’t, they were leaving the conference, starting a new one and not inviting them.
Stanford and Cal are going to be tough sells to convince them to accept new members. But it’s completely possible that USC plays hardball with them again. It’s also possible that the two Bay Area schools have softened their stances with the changing landscape.
LikeLike
First off, losses can be counterbalanced by additions — and additions that won’t get revenue if they don’t produce. And who said Colorado is leaving? Make the case for overcoming the PAC-10 veto (which you haven’t) and then let’s see. Omaha — smaller than Tulsa, Kansas City, and OK City.
Second, everyone ignores the politics of the situation.
Texas is the big dog in its own conference. They were able to negotiate an uneven revenue distribution. The B12 can live without a lot of schools, but not Texas. In the Big 10, they are one of 12, 14, 16. They can’t be the boss. The other B10 schools can live without them.
Explain to me why Texas would give up their power?
Also, you are assuming that TX looks at the BTN and pines to get in. How about TX looks at BTN and thinks “We can do better and make more $$” ?
As I said, Oklahoma is key for them. I agree that an OK departure would be the death blow. So, Texas shares more of the wealth with both Oklahomas (and already does). Keep OK, you keep OK State.
Why should A&M stay? How about 50 years of rivalries and tradition? Throw it away for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State? HA! Add on top of it the tacit admission that A&M can’t compete with Texas — so it’s running to the SEC. No chance. A&M might be able squeeze some cash out of the deal, but they will stay — if TX and the Oklahomas are there.
As for the other schools, where do they go? Baylor to the SEC? HA! Texas Tech to the PAC-10? Double HA! And who cares if they leave? There’s a raft of decent replacements for all the secondary schools.
My point is that the Big 12 is far stronger than anyone thinks and has a big list of options — both for replacements and to make enough revenue to satisfy the core schools. The B12 can easily live without Mizzou and Big Red.
LikeLike
Can you honestly make the argument that the Big 12’s payouts won’t shrink with the loss of Nebraska/Missouri at the least? What could you replace them with that would even remotely be revenue neutral?
Nebraska is a bigger part of the Big 12’s payday than you give them credit for, the $ are based on how many games are televised nationally, Nebraska is a disproportionate part of that, and there are no expansion candidates for the Big 12 that improves upon that.
The Big 12’s revenue model is part split evenly, it’s not all “eat what you kill.”
Texas can survive in the Big 12 with a smaller Big 12 contract because Texas can make a proposed Longhorn Sports Network and prosper even with shrunken Big 12 payouts. Texas won’t be sharing the Longhorn Network with anyone, they voted against a Big 12 Network already.
But A&M and Oklahoma don’t have that option… Why should A&M and Oklahoma sit around in a conference making $7M a year, when they can jump to the SEC making $17M? Who cares about tradition when your TV payouts are shrinking due to the loss of Missouri’s markets and Nebraska’s national brand?
There’s no incentive for Texas to share the wealth because a Longhorn Network would be all of theirs…
The Big 12 cannot easily survive without Mizzouri and Nebraska, and if Colorado leaves too, it’s totally dead.
Why would Stanford vote against Colorado? They did vote for Arizona and Arizona State… How is Colorado not far and away better than those two as an addition in terms of academics and sports fit? Also, a championship game would mean larger payouts for the Pac-10.
LikeLike
What if they don’t like the 12th school and nix Colorado for that reason alone?
LikeLike
We’ll know within 2 months what the Pac-10 has decided…
LikeLike
Why Colorado?
They bring in the 25th highest R&D at $546,000 in 2008, just ahead of UNC and just behind Arizona, who Standford has voted for. It should also go without saying that it´s a much different decision today than it would have been 15 years ago.
As for the 12th team, why not wait for aTm? Assuming the Big 10 has already taken Missouri and Nebraska, it´s a pretty safe bet that the Big 12 would fall apart if they lost Colorado – assuming they haven´t already by that point. In that case though, why take Utah when aTm and maybe UT would be available shortly? Finish off the Big 12 and then pick up the pieces.
LikeLike
@Zeek or anyone else,
Does the Pac 10 make expansion candidates first apply, like the Big 10 does? And when could a Pac 10 vote take place? Do their presidents have any sort of meeting this summer?
Any idea?
LikeLike
@Michael
I agree that CU would be one team that Stanford would say yes too. The ONLY other one would be Texas. There is little reason they take Utah.
The Pac-11…just really doesn’t work well. That’s why I don’t think the Pac-10 expansion is any threat at all to the Big 12. They won’t take ONE team..and then stop.
LikeLike
@Zeek
Q:Could losing Neb AND Missouri be revenue neutral to the Big 12?
A: Yes with BYU which is a national program, and from a far bigger metro area, then Omaha and as many national fans as Nebraska has. The other team would be New Mexico. While not as sexy as Missouri, it delivers Albuquerque/Santa Fe metro area and it’s a growing state.
So Yes, the Big 12 could come out revenue neutral (or pretty close).
But, that’s not the real question. The real question is can the Big 12 survive and compete against the Big10+ and the SEC by staying revenue neutral. I’d say that answer is NO.
Can the Pac-10 if they continue with only 10 programs and their current TV contract? No
BUT…combining California, Utah, Arizona, and Texas into one big TV market contract…then you have the weight to get the money that would get the schools closer to the SEC/Big10+ area.
That is the only real Sea-changer, the Pac-10 and Big 12 can hope for.
LikeLike
@Michael
I believe that teams are invited to apply to the Pac-10 and then voted on and any school can use its veto at that point.
In any case they’re not going to vote on any school that’s not going to join if it gets a 10-0 vote.
@Redhawk
There is no way that replacing Nebraska and Missouri with BYU and New Mexico is revenue neutral.
It just doesn’t make sense. Nebraska is a top 10 all time football program with fans across the nation. Missouri is from a large state and has a decent enough in state following.
There’s just no way that the Big 12 contract doesn’t take a big hit from replacing with New Mexico and BYU.
You’re talking about a couple few games on national television and probably a 10+% cut to the contract.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska and Missouri would be fine with that. Leave the Big XII’s $8,000,000 tv payout for the Big 10 and a $22,000,000 payout.
You’re right, Texas would likely love that senario, sweep Rice, Wyoming, and Fla. Atl. in non-conference. Then go to play UTEP, Houston, Baylor, Rice, A&M, ISU, Kansas State and Texas Tech for a chance to meet Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship.
LikeLike
$ = $
Indiana apparently has plenty of money. Not doing it much good.
Heck, Michigan’s money was probably worse for them. With less money, perhaps they could have hired better fits.
LikeLike
Egads, we have to play Texas twice a year?
LikeLike
“Why should A&M stay? How about 50 years of rivalries and tradition? Throw it away for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State? HA! Add on top of it the tacit admission that A&M can’t compete with Texas — so it’s running to the SEC. ”
What are you talking about??? A&M has one and only one historic rival in the Big 12, and that is UT. It has played Baylor for over a century, but nobody thinks of that as a rivalry. Texas Tech is a rival, but rivalries with LSU and Arkansas, largely dormant since the creation of the Big 12, are more historic than the rivalry with Texas Tech.
If A&M does go to the SEC, it will be because it decided that’s where its best interests lie. It will continue to play UT every year; there will be no “running” from that rivalry.
“Explain to me why Texas would give up their power?”
More silliness. The Big 12 is composed of several schools who bring very little to the conference, and a few who bring a lot. So several schools, including Nebraska, pushed through unequal revenue sharing as a condition to form the conference. If they join the Big 10, they’ll agree to share revenue given that they’re joining a conference with more peers and less hangers-on.
There isn’t any other real difference between the Big 10 and Big 12 in terms of rules. Missouri complains that they get passed over when bowls pick Iowa State over them; this will continue if they join the Big 10. Nebraska’s old coach complains about UT supporting high academic standards for the Big 10; he won’t find the Big 10 more accommodating.
All, or nearly all, the Big 10 schools would be with UT on these issues.
The rules UT supports in the Big 12 are the same rules most Big 10 schools support. This notion that they have some magical ‘power’ they’d lose if they move is silly. If they moved, they’d be with more schools that think like them, not less.
One thing they’d lose if they moved to the Big 10 is geographic proximity to most of the schools in their conference. Another thing they might lose is a chance to form their own TV network. They also have to wonder about possible political problems from their legislature about leaving other schools behind. They will worry about these issues; they won’t worry about losing any magical ‘power’ people attribute to them.
LikeLike
You don’t think Texas is the biggest dog in the Big 12?
You don’t think that power and control are important to universities and their presidents?
You think being first among equals is a ‘silly’ consideration?
There is nothing ‘magical’ about their power. They have the most fans, money, following. Texas is the most important school in the B12. They leave and the conference is moribund. Any other single departure and the B12 can still be relevant with Texas. Even a double departure (MO, NE) is survivable. Texas leaves and it’s lights out. THAT is power.
And it is that power that allows Texas to have the most say in how the B12 is run. You don’t think that’s a big deal?
Thinking that the TV check is the only criteria is simplistic and perhaps silly.
LikeLike
Being the ‘top dog’ is rather meaningless if it doesn’t get them something useful.
Other than finances, the policies they they support are generally the same the Big 10 supports, so they’d lose nothing moving. To say they’re avoiding changing conferences because they’ll lose ‘power’ is wrong.
With finances, they look out for themselves. Same as Nebraska and Missouri. They certainly have no more power than Nebraska in this regard. If they think their network will make more money they’ll stay in the conference, but that won’t get them any extra votes in conference matters.
If they decide they’ll make more money by moving to the Big 10, they’ll actually gain ‘power’ by moving. On all non-financial matters, they’ll actually have an easier time of it; on financial matters, they would be better off.
LikeLike
I’m with M (Ag) on this.
Nebraska and Missouri will leave for a conference that will be over $30M per team in a few years.
Texas will choose to stay in a conference making $5-7M per team (even replacing Nebraska/Missouri with BYU/NewMex is a big hit to the $ and TV draw) only if the Longhorn Sports Network is a huge money maker.
Texas will not stay in the Big 12 if it can only make $5M or so on a Longhorn Network.
Texas will not stay in a conference that would leave it far behind the Big Ten TV payday that Nebraska and Missouri would be running to…
What about A&M? A&M has a lot of options including the Pac-10 and SEC (as well as the Big Ten).
Why should A&M stay in the Big 12 if the TV money is shrinking because Nebraska and Missouri are leaving?
A&M would rush to the SEC and sign an agreement ensuring that it’s rivalry with Texas is maintained.
Oklahoma would be the next one out the door if it can cut a deal with the SEC.
There’s no loyalty if the $ are shrinking. That’s one thing you can bet on which will happen if Nebraska and Missouri leave…
LikeLike
@Zeek
Your numbers are off on the Big 12. The League currently has a pay out of between 13-9 million dollars now. Above, you say the league would lose 10% revenue. But here you put the pay outs at 5-7 Million Dollars which would be a 50-40% decrease.
The Big 12 would still have Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, OKC, Tulsa, Wichita, Kansas City, markets. If CU stays they have Denver market. Trading St. Louis for Albuquerque and Salt Lake City, actually would be increasing eyes. If the Big 12 added Col. St, they still have a claim to Denver. (as strong as saying CU delivers Denver anyway) Trading the national audience of Nebraska, for BYU and all the Mormons, is pretty close as well. BYU is kinda the poor man’s Notre Dame.
Losing St. Louis and Omaha is NOT a 50% drop in value. Sorry, man that doesn’t make any sense to suggest that Nebraska and Missouri is half the Big 12’s value.
Again, that’s not the real point. The real point is does staying alive, and fairly close to revenue neutral really keep the Big 12 from falling way behind the SEC and the Big10+?
LikeLike
@Redhawk – Losing Missouri may not be catastrophic to the Big XII, but Nebraska is another matter. The Huskers are consistently the #2 or #3 TV draw in the conference after Texas – they are critical to the Big XII’s national TV contracts. BYU has a great fan base that can conceivably replace a Mizzou-type school, but there’s no way they can come close to replacing the value of Nebraska. Forbes ranked Nebraska as the #4 most valuable college football program – only Texas, ND and Penn State were ranked higher. It’s every bit as bad as Miami leaving the Big East for the ACC with the only difference is that at least Texas could possibly stay (although a lot of Big XII fans are extremely naive to think that they will just sit on the sidelines).
LikeLike
Actually, I thought the Big Ten had no conference rules regarding eligibility of partial qualifiers, but did have rules regarding the number of credit hours toward progress in a major required for players to maintain eligibility. Can someone more familiar with Big Ten rules clarify?
LikeLike
If the world was a rational place without ego and politics, ND would be in the B10, the PAC-10 would be the PAC-12 with a championship game, and Greece would never have been let into the Euro.
As for the earlier commenter demanding to know why Stanford would vote against Colorado — I have no idea. That said, I have two questions:
1) The PAC-10 has had 32 years to add 2 teams and a championship game. Why haven’t they?
2) Why were they the last conference to add a post-season BBall tourney, leaving millions on the table?
The PAC-10 could very well expand — and might do it soon, but their history shows us is that they are the last mover and only do so out of absolute necessity. Proactive they are not.
LikeLike
I agree with the history of the Pac 10 – but that was also all within the Tom Hansen era (over 25 excruciating years of it). Yes, I realize that the commission only acts in the interests or direction of the universities BUT Hansen was terrible from a forward/proactive thinking and planning standpoint. I realize that the Pac has some geographical disdvantages due to timezones but Hansen seemed content to go with the “it is what it is” strategy vs outside the box thinking to generate more TV revenue, bowl partnerships, etc.
Larry Scott, at least initially, looks to be much more aggressive through his recent staff hires, retention of CAA to assist w/ rebranding, WTA track record, etc. He has also been charged with (at least from what I have read) to increase revenue per school at most all costs by the conference universities.
Don’t get me wrong, the 100% approval is an absolute hurdle (that I really wish wasn’t there), but it is yet to be seen if Scott can rally all to vote for what is best to the conference as a whole. As a Pac 10 fan – I am hoping he can and will give him benfit of a doubt till I see otherwise.
LikeLike
Agreed with your point. My main point is not that the PAC-10 won’t expand — it’s that the political structure makes it very difficult to expand and that it is most likely the last mover — or will move only when circumstances dictate.
LikeLike
Yes, the political structure, or in other words: Stanford, does make things difficult in the way of the unanimous vote. Again, I have seen more from Scott in less then a year then in the entire Hansen era in the way of progressive thinking.
My one hope as far as Stanford thinking is this….CA is broke and both Cal and UCLA are part of the UC system. Most state schools are struggling which means most Atheletic Depts are as well – unless you are a part of the BTN or have a monstrous donor pool. Stanford realizes that the current TV contract and bowl tie ins are crap (for the most part), and even they would want to see a bigger slice of $$$ from the conference.
My thought is that Scott is going to have to pull Stanford aside and basically give them the “you may not like it, but you need to find a way to live with it” speech for the betterment of the conference as a whole to get them to come along. Stanford is academic 1st no doubt, but they do care about there AD (and ALL the sports they participate in) and I can’t imagine they want to go down as the school that left the Pac 10 in everyones rear view mirror.
I am not suggesting Scott will attempt to strong arm hm into BYU orsomething that polarizing but…they will need to particpate in the give and take of it all.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Big Ten the second to last major conference to put in a Basketball tourney?
LikeLike
You can’t replace a top 10 football brand and your second most populous state. The Big 12 may not be doomed, but it certainly won’t pack as much punch with whoever it subs in.
LikeLike
Big Ten Quashes Latest Expansion Rumors
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=10619480
LikeLike
Delany restores sanity and order. Please ESPN, take any reports out of MO with a mine full of salt.
LikeLike
Well, yeah…that’s what these guys have to say. But I think there’s way too much smoke at this point for all of it to be “untrue”.
Just one observer’s humble opinion.
LikeLike
This is one Notre Dame alum who wants to see ND join the Big Ten. I’m more concerned with academia and an increase in research, funding, and prestige than I am about how Michigan’s athletic department hurt our feelings in the first half of the 20th century.
I’m not the only one, either.
LikeLike
I think there is a legitimate issue of how well Notre Dame fits the Big Ten in terms of research/CIC. The Big Ten schools are a group of secular mostly large public institutions.
I’m sure a lot of Notre Dame alums (not all obviously) have issues with Notre Dame joining the CIC especially depending on the kind of research that Big Ten institutions may end up dabbling in…
After all, the 1999 talks for Notre Dame largely fell apart due to the CIC and institutional fit issues that Notre Dame had. There’s not really any reason to believe that those reasons have changed.
As for the $, TV payouts are now in favor of Notre Dame joining the Big Ten, but there’s an issue of whether that alone is enough…
LikeLike
I could see some Catholics not wishing to belong to a conference like the Big Ten that does “objectionable” research in fields like stem cells. However, Notre Dame already shares a conference with schools like Cincinnati, South Florida, UConn, Rutgers, and Pitt, which do EXACTLY the same sort of research. So if this is the argument of Notre Dame’s alumni, they’re clueless.
LikeLike
@ djinn^2
Yeah, but we’re not helping with it either. Let’s keep it all in perspective.
@ “IrishTexan”
Joining the Big Ten provides no additional prestige to the Undergraduate studies, and the help for the graduate rankings is debatable without AAU membership. Since CUA already left the AAU, I’m unsure if that’s even something the admin would want. As for the grad students…I don’t care. They knew what ND was when they came.
Prove you’re not the only one.
LikeLike
How would ND be helping with research in the Big Ten? The CIC wouldn’t force anyone to do anything (like research). It’s simply a way for schools to more readily cooperate on projects–professors and students can move between schools more readily, libraries are more readily shared, equipment can be purchased more inexpensively, etc.
LikeLike
Didn’t say we would be. Just saying we aren’t helping now.
Besides, IMNHO, if you wanted to go to a certain school, and you’re that bright, you shoulda went to that school.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I know what you’re saying there.
The idea of being able to spend a semester at a different school might be to work with a specific professor or to study a unique subject not offered at your school. For example, if you’re a prof or student studying amphibians at, say, the University of Chicago, and you realize that an increase in acidity in lakes is affecting the population of what you’re studying, so you want to spend a semester or two at Wisconsin, which has one of the better limnology (study of lakes) departments in the world, it’s easily done. Or what if you’re a prof at, say, Iowa and you want to use the particle accelerator at Michigan State, well, it’s easily arranged. It’s not so much a matter of being smart enough to go here or there. Not every university has a limnology department or a particle accelerator. Further, going across state lines to enroll for a semester at another school may mean a HUGE increase in tuition cost. If your studies are done at a different school, but THROUGH your home state university, you could save tens of thousands of dollars. That’s an example of the beauty of cooperation via the CIC.
I’ll point out that Notre Dame has a study abroad program that allows a student to study art in, say, Florence or Paris that would augment his education at ND. It’s the same idea. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t smart enough to go to school in Florence or Paris. It means his university is assisting him expand his beadth of knowledge.
LikeLike
That should read “breadth of knowledge” not breadth.
LikeLike
Let’s try breadth, not beadth.
LikeLike
First of all, the way it was explained to us was that the CIC was mainly used by the Grad Students and occasionally Profs.
Now, here’s where I cop to my ignorance. I’m a liberal arts guy, one of my sisters studied Finance. Everything I know about seeking Grad school comes from my baby sister who will start her Grad work in the fall in Philosophy. If what I say is way off when dealing with the sciences…well, I won’t be surprised.
While she was applying, she was obsessed with finding out about the professors at each school and their specialties. IMHO, if you go to study at a Grad level and find out the school you are attending don’t have what you need for thesis purposes you have failed miserably in picking a school. I mean, if I’m your Frog-guy, wouldn’t it make sense to know before you go that you needed a good limnology instructor if nothing else before you signed on? I mean, this shouldn’t come as a shock, right?
If you take a job as a particle physicist at a facility that doesn’t have the tools to let you do your necessary testing, isn’t that the kind of critical research failure that means you shouldn’t be teaching at the college level at all? And this is horrible to say since the according to stuff I’ve seen since I started commenting here the grad schools @ ND have improved astronomically since I was there. But, when I was there, not only was I personally unimpressed by my TAs, my business school friends would report how the undergrads consistently outperformed the MBA students on the exact same material. When I was there, I looked at the grad students at ND who were vocal in their support for B10/CIC acceptance like folks who were trying to get into a Big Ten grad program through a backdoor which offended my sense of fairness.
Plus, I didn’t think anyone worth their salt in a Ph.D program actually paid anything. I thought they got paid. Is my sister really that good?
LikeLike
FLP, as you can tell from the name CIC, which stands for the “Committee on Institutional Cooperation”, the CIC is designed simply to augment cooperation between schools.
Yes, that would primarily be for research. And yes, that means primarily grad students and profs. But it benefits everyone. As an undergrad, I worked with a visiting prof from the U of Chicago that I otherwise wouldn’t have, even if I wasn’t the one who traveled. And the lab I worked in was doing research with another lab at Michigan. So even as an undergrad, it affected me.
The CIC would be most beneficial for research in sciences, engineering and the like, but not exclusively. The CIC’s website mentions cooperative programs in literature, art history, music, speech, environmental health, library automation, physical education, economics, and others. They have a unique and shared Far Eastern Language Institute that supposedly allows students at all Big Ten schools to accomplish in 15 months what would normally take four years. (I know nothing first-hand about any of that.)
Maybe your field is archaeology at Penn State and you want to study at the U of C because of the unique materials available exclusively at the Oriental Institute. Such a facility is simply not available anywhere else. Or maybe you’re in ancient languages and there’s a prof you want to work with at some other school that is excellent at Aramaic. Or maybe cooperation means that only one university needs to purchase an obscenely expensive piece of equipment (like that particle accelerator) that several universities could share. Or maybe it allows a member school (like, say, Notre Dame) the opportunity to have one of the world’s leading authorities on geology or literature. You don’t think Notre Dame students would benefit?
You say that a prof shouldn’t be working at a school without the necessary equipment to do intense research. Well, first, for sciences, you never know what the future will hold or where a new discovery will take you. A lot of people start off in one field and end up in another. So it’s hard to foresee that you may need to know something from a different field. What if you could save years of time by working with someone in that new field at a different school?
Besides, it’s not like you can get a job anywhere you want. Iowa may want someone to teach subatomic particle physics, but maybe that requires you go to MSU for that accelerator. There are only 22 in the US—including the Chicago area, the University of Wisconsin, MSU, and Indiana University. If you’re a prof anywhere else, it sure helps for easy access to these sites. But if you hold that no one should teach at any other universities, well, Notre Dame shouldn’t have anyone teaching those sorts of subjects. And the US would have a lot fewer experts in a lot of fields.
What if you take a job at Indiana and three years later an expert colleague gets hired at Minnesota. The CIC facilitates you to work with that guy, even from a different school. That means more papers, better papers, and faster research. That benefits the US and the world.
In fact, there are some fields so specialized that there are only a handful of others in the world who may understand what you’re working on. I have a friend at MIT working on a field of cancer research so specialized, I don’t really have the foggiest idea what he’s doing. So sometimes there is no one at your school with whom you can cooperate. If working with someone else at a different school means a faster cure–well it’s easy to see the benefit.
What if you’re a prof in oceanography or tropical medicine. It’s not like the Big Ten has an ocean or a tropical rainforest on campus. You have to share resources. What if only one BT school has a facility in the Borneo rain forest, but that’s critical to your research?
You may think the brightest minds are all in the Ivy League or at Stanford or Berkeley or wherever, because they’re the most “exclusive”. But there is a reason the Big Ten does more research than the Ivy League or Pac 10 or ACC. The CIC is a big part of that.
Notre Dame may value its independence, but no one school can be great in everything. Working together strengthens everyone.
The point of all this is that the CIC is not something to be feared. It couldn’t make Notre Dame do something in research (like stem cells) any more than Pitt could force Notre Dame to do it in the Big East. Just like Notre Dame’s joining the CIC wouldn’t force everyone to convert to Catholicism. It’s simply a tool of cooperation. One may or may not wish to do participate—it’s completely voluntary (which is pointed out on their website.) But I think the CIC has proven that you get further by working together. Any new school added to the CIC would benefit. It’s a good thing.
LikeLike
re: CIC
I work in IT at UIowa. Let me outline the ways we, as IT, work with the CIC to push the University forward, which is just one more way that the CIC is beneficial to its member schools.
* Working together for higher levels of identity federation, allowing local network logins to be used to access web-based resources. Eventually, all federal research funding will require to use federation. The CIC allows the schools to work together to reach this goal, and we are well ahead of other schools, which could eventually increase the number of research dollars within the CIC.
* CIC Grid computing project to further grid computing research
* CIC Storage project to create an “in the cloud” storage network for both research and to benefit IT
* Federated wireless project, so that a user from any CIC school can use the on-campus wireless at other schools. This was initially driven by the CIOs who meet regularly, but will benefit all CIC members.
* We are investigating student email outsourcing, and conversations with other CIC schools has impacted our process. Conversations with member schools about IT practices is a big positive.
* There is a CIC IT leadership program which involves regular meetings/training at various campuses
* IT conferences in subject areas
I participate in regular CIC IT conference calls, and one of my concerns about expanding to 16 or even more is possibly making these calls unwieldy. Also have some concerns about extending the geography, as us IT grunts have to drive to meetings/conferences.
The CIC benefits each institution in many many ways.
LikeLike
FLP, here are some ways that the CIC has directly benefited me during both my graduate and undergrad programs in electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Both semesters of my senior year, I worked on a computational electromagnetics project with a UW professor in close collaboration with a professor at MSU. The UW professor was an expert in the “end use” application of the research, while the MSU professor was an expert in the mathematics underlying the method we were using. I was able to have multiple conference calls with the MSU professor to directly ask him questions on how to make the method work, while obviously having access to the UW professor to determine whether it was working correctly. This was purely an undergraduate project. I believe that this experience was one of the key reasons I won a major graduate fellowship during my first year of grad school.
As I’ve come to understand during my graduate program, each school specializes in its research fields. It is too simplistic to say that “you shouldn’t go to a program that doesn’t have the resources you need” because each program specializes within its field. For instance, I am doing my graduate work in electrical power engineering. Wisconsin has one of the best groups for electric machines research in the world (think wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, etc.), which is a subset of power engineering. Other schools, such as Illinois, specialize in other power engineering areas (power electronics for instance). It just doesn’t make sense for both schools to compete when specialization and cooperation allows far more to be accomplished. A researcher in power electronics at Illinois would easily be able work with the electric machines researchers at Wisconsin to work on a project of integrating wind power into the electric system, which requires expertise in both power electronics and electric machines. This is of course somewhat simplified, but it should get the idea across.
Additionally, the CIC allows researchers to approach companies and governments jointly for research funding. For instance, Grainger Industrial Supply is a huge sponsor of both Wisconsin and Illinois research. The ability to specialize in research areas, and then approach Grainger with a broad research proposal gives the CIC a huge advantage over competing universities.
I also have personally benefited from the CIC at the graduate level. Wisconsin and Illinois power engineering researchers routinely put on teleconference research presentations for each other. My advisor has written many papers with Illinois professors, and another graduate student in my office is directly working with an Illinois professor. Another Illinois professor has a spin off power systems software company that incorporates much of his research interests. I feel fairly confident that I would easily be able to get an internship at the company if for no other reason that it diversifies the knowledge base.
Additionally, I am instantly able to get any CIC university dissertation or masters thesis electronically. Could I get a thesis from a non-CIC school? Probably, but it would involve tedious discussions with my library system and the other school’s library system. The sharing of library resources is another huge research advantage.
Could this sort of collaborative research have been done without the CIC? Possibly, but developing such the close knit relationships necessary for effective research are not simple. I would feel far more comfortable contacting researchers at a CIC institution than anywhere else.
Hopefully this helps you better understand why the CIC is such a large advantage at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. In my opinion, advocating to continue depriving Notre Dame students, both graduate and undergraduate, of the opportunities provided by the CIC is really doing your university a disservice. While I am clearly not an expert in the history of Notre Dame, it appears that your university has been able to leverage success on the field into success in the classroom. Getting an invite to join the Big Ten over the many more qualified candidates (from a research perspective) appears to be another important way that Notre Dame athletics could help increase the university’s academic accomplishments. As a Catholic, I can understand the hesitation at some of the stem cell and other research, but research projects are completely non-compulsory.
Personally, I hope that Notre Dame does not join the Big Ten. I think the opportunity cost to the CIC compared to adding a big time research university is too great. However, I wanted to help ensure that you were clear on the magnitude of the opportunity that you want to turn down. Undergraduate research is considered extremely important, if not essential, to getting accepted at high caliber graduate schools. Specialization and collaborative research, as is common at CIC schools, is key to producing good research. Hindering the ability of the many bright science and engineering undergrads at Notre Dame to get into good grad programs is clearly not your intent, but it is one of the logical outcomes of your position on Big Ten expansion.
LikeLike
The better question is why I should care. I mean, it’s not like *I’m* making this call. Hell, I was a history major. Talk about a major that will give you contempt for “the academy”…
I’ve liked the sound of the CIC, but what I’ve never yet heard is the cost: financial, reinvestment, scholarship, expectation, and how much external interference will be placed on ND. It’s been over a decade, and I’ve still yet to hear it discussed.
Here’s the other thing. ND is a small school; and a disproportionally business one at that. Makes sense when costs are >50K/year/student. The ND college of science has approx. 1,200 undergrads and 145 instructors. The engineering school…well, it’s probably still ranked #3 in Indiana. IMHO, if a kid’s going to ND to be an engineer, he’d better be going for free.
At what points must ND say the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? If the CIC must be sacrificed for independence and the greater glory of Our Lady Domers should be proud to do so. I realize that’ll make no sense to you.
LikeLike
Football aside, the greater need of a university is the quality of the students’ education. Providing education is why your university is supposed to exist. Yet you’re telling students that educational opportunities “must be sacrificed” because you, as an alum making no sacrifice whatsoever, want to watch Notre Dame play a few different football teams each year. And you’re dressing it up as a “greater glory”.
Notre Dame should do what it wants and not be forced into anything, but I’ve got to say, this sort of value system doesn’t make sense to me either.
LikeLike
UW Grad Student: Your work sounds quite interesting.
For me, the worst part of university was not having enough time to fit in all the classes I’d like to take.
LikeLike
@FLP,
“I’ve liked the sound of the CIC, but what I’ve never yet heard is the cost: financial, reinvestment, scholarship, expectation, and how much external interference will be placed on ND. It’s been over a decade, and I’ve still yet to hear it discussed.”
Thank you for this comment; it gives me another opportunity to clarify how research funding works. Research represents incoming money to a university, not outgoing money. When my advisor gets a grant to work on a project, just under half of the grant money goes directly to the university. So if the NSF awards $200,000 to work on a project, my advisor gets approximately $100,000 to spend on graduate assistants, lab materials, etc. with the UW College of Engineering receiving $100,000 to essentially use for whatever it wants (undergraduate courses, lab space, advising, computer facilities, libraries, etc, although I believe there are restrictions on funding major construction projects). This is common practice at universities. Research therefore isn’t an expense, it’s income for the university.
I had a conversation with a professor in the public affairs graduate program who was upset with how much grant funding the public affairs professors obtained that went back to the university. I learned that a large portion of the funding received by the professors in their program went to funding undergraduate needs like introductory economics and political science courses. This reinforces the fact that research is not a cost or a burden, it represents income to the university, even in the social sciences.
Research funding allows the university to keep tuition relatively low (even out-of-state tuition at Wisconsin is less than half of what it is at Notre Dame). Low tuition allows the university to attract both a more diverse student body and a better qualified student body. A goal of large state schools is to allow gifted lower income students the chance to obtain a world class education. This simply would not be possible without extensive research funding.
As far as I know, there is no direct costs associated with being in the CIC. I have never heard of any scholarship or reinvestment requirements asociated with CIC membership. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could confirm this. CIC membership would increase research funding and consequently allow for increased scholarships and reinvestment.
I don’t believe there is any external interference associated with CIC membership. Professors and departments determine what research projects they want to work on. I can’t imagine, say, the Michigan and Penn State electrical engineering departments calling my professors to tell them what they can or can’t do. The CIC allows professors to take advantage of synergies between universities. If a professor or department doesn’t want to collaborate with other institutions, no one is going to force them to do so. For instance, no one is going to make Notre Dame faculty work on stem cell or other potentially objectionable research topics.
Even if you don’t care about the quality of the education received by the 1200 or so science and engineering undergrads, you should care about the benefits that all students receive from CIC membership (by the way, according to wikipedia, there are 1200 undergrads in the sciences alone, not even counting engineering, so science and engineering accounts for far more than 10% of your total 12,000 student enrollment). All students can gain from increased library access. All students would likely have reduced tuition from increased research funds, and all students would gain from the increased student diversity when lower income students can enroll. Student in non-engineering/science would likely benefit from CIC membership as well; I simply am not experience enough outside my field to directly comment on what those benefits may be.
I certainly don’t understand the internal politics of Notre Dame. You may point out that current students don’t want to join the Big Ten, and that might very well be true. However, the benefits from big time research or membership in the CIC are not well known. I had no idea how research or university funding worked until well into my graduate career. I never thought about why I was able to work with a professor at Michigan State during my undergrad or how that related to CIC membership. I would be surprised if current Notre Dame students, message board posters, or alumni really understood what they were advocating for or against vis-a-vis the academic and research benefits of the CIC.
I post on here because you seem to be truly interested in learning more about how this all works. I am not trying to entice Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. As I said before, I would much rather have other major research schools to collaborate with: Texas, Texas A&M (which has an excellent engineering school that is in no way a “little brother” to UT as far as I am concerned), Pitt, Maryland, UNC, Nebraska, Rutgers… I would take any of these schools before Notre Dame because I don’t think that Notre Dame adds much research expertise to the CIC.
LikeLike
@djinndjinn
Thank you for your comment. It is really an exciting time to be working in engineering; there are so many important problems to solve.
LikeLike
NSF allows universities to impose a 65% admin fee. It is a backdoor way of subsidizing universities both private and public. It is also why federal funding is so coveted by universities. In some instances, private foundations allow no skim off the top for administration.
LikeLike
@UWGS
I remember reading something not that long ago about the 1999 turn-down where then Pres. Malloy told the CIC folks early on in the process he never heard of them.
Believe me, in 98-99, we got an earful almost daily about the CIC in the student paper and from the grad student who thought it was better than sliced bread. We undergrads felt to the man it wasn’t worth it to be a Big Ten school. Y’all aren’t telling me anything I didn’t know a decade ago.
I’m here primarily to try to figure out where ND ends up when the music stops. Two things I think are going to make the decision for ND.
1. Will the hoop-only Big East Teams and who they can get be a big time conference or a mid-major?
2. What loss of institutional independence will their be under the Big Ten?
From the unanimous Trustee vote and the public announcement by Monk last time, I believe that there’s something to the idea that somehow joining the B10/CIC will somehow limit ND’s administrative independence.
How? I don’t know. It seems not to be public information.
LikeLike
zeek Says:
“After all, the 1999 talks for Notre Dame largely fell apart due to the CIC and institutional fit issues that Notre Dame had. There’s not really any reason to believe that those reasons have changed.”
As I recall, when ND turned down the Big 10 offer in 1999, they specifically asked if they could be a member of the CIC, but were told it was both or neither. I’m not sure why the CIC would be an issue now?
LikeLike
In 1999 the CIC was spun as the #1 positive of joining the Big Ten. I don’t think anyone outside of the internet has mentioned any potential problems that ND has with CIC membership. I think that’s the conclusion some reached looking for specifics in re ND’s concern about becoming less Catholic/more secular.
LikeLike
I still don’t see how the CIC makes one less Catholic. I don’t think you really understand what the CIC is.
All it does is make cooperation within your field of study easier and opens up easier ways to perform your work. If you’re a history major, (as you were), you’d have access to a ton of extra resources.
The 2010 issue of your favorite publication, the USNews & World Report states that 8 of the top 25 history programs in the US (graduate level) are at Big Ten schools. If they join, Rutgers and Texas are also in the top 25.
I wasn’t a history major, but I’d have imagined that having access to 8-10 of the top history programs in the US, including professors, documents, papers, libraries and classes, would seem to be an opportunity to enhance your knowledge. Not a threat to Catholicism.
LikeLike
Link to the rankings, if you’re interested:
http://worldranking.blogspot.com/2009/06/top-history-programs.html
LikeLike
I don’t understand how the CIC threatens the Catholic character either. It kills me that people keep trying to argue with me when I agree.
That said, there appears to be significant downside on the administrative side to joining the Big Ten that has never been adequately described. If there wasn’t, the ND99 turndown would have been phrased in purely athletic terms.
When my fellow students and I marched against Big Ten membership we did it with the same information I have now. Even the kids who actually stood benefit felt the perceived cost outweighed that benefit. Likely the half of faculty that was opposed to Big Ten membership knew even better and still opposed. Personally I defer to them. I told you that you wouldn’t understand.
LikeLike
I’m actually OK with MU joining the Big 10. It is, however, a “complementary” addition, not the main course. But this relentless and phony leaking must wear on Delany’s nerves and actually decrease MU’s chances of being included.
LikeLike
It plays into his hands.
Delany’s goal is Texas. Missouri is a prop to that goal even if it does qualify for membership in its own right.
Missouri’s constant leaks about being offered or considering the possibility of a Big Ten application do nothing but help Delany’s cause in targeting Texas since it lends an air of urgency to the decision making process at Texas and A&M.
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
This whole thing is getting borderline ridiculous.
If I was the Big 10, I wouldn’t need Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, or anyone. It would just be a matter of who we WANT. Any school thinking WE need THEM necessarily does not fit our profile.
And, frankly, I’d be a little concerned about schools that need us too badly too. It sure seems like Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers want IN to the Big 10 quite a lot.
LikeLike
I would rather have a team that wants in then one that feels forced to join, reluctantly, because times have changed.
LikeLike
I know what you’re saying. Though I have to admit that it sounds a bit funny to say that we don’t want any school that thinks we want them too much, and we don’t want any school that we think wants us too much.
LikeLike
Reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line, “I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member”. The Big Ten needs to focus on what it really wants and not worry so much about coming up with perfect candidate school.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn,
I have enjoyed getting the perspective from a Texas fan / alumni on Big 10 expansion. Earlier, you asked what B10 fans thought about adding Nebraska, Rutgers, and Missouri, based on the recent rumor emanating out of Kansas City. While the actual story may be false (especially the part about a certain school in Indiana having an “open invite,”) the schools mentioned are all logical choices. That said, had this story been accurate, I would be less than thrilled with this proposed expansion trio, and I’m surprised so many people are excited about it.
Here are my thoughts on the potential candidates: (I’m going to focus mainly on football and basketball. I know there are other factors, such as academics and non-revenue sports, but for the most part the most logical choices all fit in academically, and the non-revenue sports are exactly that, non-revenue.)
Nebraska:
Pros:
++Traditional powerhouse
+Rabid fan base
+Possible rivalry with Iowa, but the Cornhuskers actually have a little known historical rivalry with Minnesota
+The ‘Huskers seem more than willing to make a move unlike another school in Indiana who the conference would have to drag along kicking and screaming
+As a Michigan fan, I personally would love to see Michigan vs. Nebraska on a fairly routine basis after what transpired in 1997
Cons:
-To my knowledge, the ‘Huskers do not field a men’s basketball program. Seriously, have you ever seen Nebraska on TV? Normally, this wouldn’t concern me, but considering the B10 is already home to two of the worst BCS basketball programs historically in terms of Penn State and Northwestern, and you have two more tradition rich programs in Michigan and Indiana bumbling along, it is worth mentioning.
-This isn’t your older brother’s Nebraska. It has been 8 seasons since the ‘Huskers finished in the top 10. Yes, they gave Texas all they could handle in the B12 title game, but they also put up what 118 yards of total offense?
Overall:
Nebraska is a good choice, and certainly a must in any multi-school expansion scenario, but I’m not going to get too excited. While the league is gaining one of the sport’s blue blooded programs, is it still on that level and if not, can it get back to that level?
Missouri:
Pros:
+Once a historically average football program, Missouri has risen up in the past several years, (probably because Nebraska has fallen off)
+Pretty good basketball program historically
+Missouri TV markets. While I find it hard to believe that the Big Ten doesn’t already have a sizable presence in the state of Missouri, maybe it’s not the case. This move at the very least solidifies it
+Fits in nicely geographically, almost like a kid looking at a map of the earth and wondering whether South America and Africa were once connected
+“Braggin’ Rights” game with Illinois is probably intensified
Cons:
-Once a historically average football program…
-I could be wrong, but “Braggin’ Rights” seems more basketball oriented. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the two schools have only met 23 times on the gridiron.
-As a B10 fan, I would watch Missouri vs. Indiana, but for a non-B10 fan, I don’t see much “allure” with Missouri, regardless of whether they are playing Purdue or Ohio State
-Fan support seems to be pretty lackluster, hence Missouri getting snubbed three straight years during the B12 bowl selection process.
Overall:
I think geography alone gets Missouri into the B10, which is basically how I feel about the addition.
Rutgers:
Pros:
+I have a soft place in my heart for the Scarlet Knights as I grew up in northern New Jersey, and it’s been cool to witness Rutgers’ rise the past several years.
+New Jersey TV market. Whenever I hear Rutgers mentioned, it’s in connection with bringing the New York City market. Maybe it can and maybe it can’t, but people seem to forget that New Jersey is a state of 8,000,000+ people. From a pure business perspective, Rutgers is a no-brainer.
+Gives PSU a fellow eastern conference member. I’m not going to say rival, because let’s be honest Pittsburgh is PSU’s rival (see below)
+B10 championship game at the new Meadowlands stadium. Just imagine the media coverage this would get. (I suppose you could also get Rutgers to host the big conference match ups there as well, but I think that would be a Notre Dame style move and I hope the conference would not stoop that low.)
+Surprisingly strong fan support.
Cons:
-Despite being the oldest college football program in America, you can basically tell the story of Rutgers football by replaying the last 5-6 years.
-I personally thought Greg Schiano was on the verge of building another “U,” but he seems to have hit a plateau, and has yet to win a Big East title.
-Rutgers basketball is not as bad as Nebraska, but the Scarlet Knights are pretty inept.
-Like Missouri, there isn’t much “allure” to Rutgers
Overall:
I’m intrigued by Rutgers. I think the football program has potential, and at the very minimum, you are picking up a lot potential subscribers for the BTN in New Jersey.
So, the Big Ten now sits at 14. What are the next steps? I feel like the Irish would decline their “open invite” in about 5 seconds, because has anything changed for them? The Big East stays intact. If ND wants to play Nebraska they can schedule a home and home. Michigan, MSU, and Purdue stay on the schedule and the status quo is maintained.
As it stands, the B10 has added one traditional, but faded power in Nebraska, and two “upstart” programs in Missouri and Rutgers that would probably be mid level B10 programs in the long run, but capable of challenging for the title every few seasons. Neither selection would be an Indiana, (perennial cellar dweller) which is good.
However, an important fact to consider is that basketball wise, you will have added one solid but not great program in Missouri, but two flat out awful programs in Rutgers and Nebraska. This is why this proposed league of 14 in my opinion is not really a game changer and must go to 16.
So who gets those two final spots? I’m going to focus on the most realistic candidates, so while Maryland and Kansas have been mentioned, I think Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn are the most realistic options (assuming Texas is off the board.)
Well, I have long maintained that Pittsburgh must be brought into the fold:
Pros:
+Tradition rich program (top 20 all time wins)
+Pitt basketball has become top notch, or just below top notch
++Pitt-PSU. There are a lot of naysayers that say this rivalry doesn’t mean much. Well, I have to disagree. Despite Pitt falling off the face of the earth for much of the 80’s and all of the 90’s, the Pitt-PSU game remains one of college football’s most storied rivalries. Even though the game has not been played since 2000, the two schools have met 96 times, with an all time series record of 50-42-4 in favor of PSU. Pennsylvania is a proud football playing state, and these two schools should be playing every year. In fact, I think this game becomes the Big Ten’s second biggest rivalry, (at least from a national perspective.) In some ways it’s a poor man’s version of the Iron Bowl.
+Heinz Field. Even though it’s a pro venue, it is a great place to watch a football game.
Cons:
-Tradition rich program, but one that hasn’t done much for almost 30 years
-Fan base is disappointingly lackluster. Maybe it’s true what they say about the city of Pittsburgh only caring about the Steelers and high school football.
-No new TV market. I still think that this is offset by Pitt’s strong TV ratings, but from a business perspective this must be looked at.
This leaves one spot. Again, as long as there is some sort of basketball league for ND to put its team in, they will decline. A catholic school league highlighted by Villanova and Georgetown, isn’t the juggernaut that the current Big East is, but as long as it’s a decent league, that’s where ND will play. So now you’re talking about UConn and Syracuse for that final spot.
Syracuse:
Pros:
+Once proud program, with a fair amount of tradition and history
+Top notch hoops
+Upstate NY TV market, possibly NYC market as well
Cons:
-Program has simply fallen off the face of the earth
-Carrier Dome is a miserable venue, and it would suck to have to start watching B10 football being played there
-Syracuse probably faces the most difficult rebuilding job of any current “once proud” program, recruiting in a talentless state and convincing recruits to come to upstate NY, home to perhaps the country’s most inclement weather.
Overall:
I go back and forth with Syracuse, I personally think that the football program is dead and incapable of resuscitation unless it can get a new outdoor stadium built, and that is just a pipe dream right now. However, based on basketball prowess, I feel that Syracuse would be a good addition.
UConn:
Pros:
+Program was a middling 1AA team and has been on a meteoric rise ever since moving to the 1A level.
+Top notch hoops
+In a trifecta with ‘Cuse, and Rutgers, you have effectively surrounded the New York City media market
+Small stadium would have to be addressed, but the Huskies seem to have a decent fan base
Cons:
-Lack of tradition / history
-How long will UConn hoops be UConn hoops without Jim Calhoun? Remember, this program did not exist prior to Calhoun.
-Small state population in the event that NYC does not succumb to the BTN
-Not an AAU member, which may kill the dream for any school not named Notre Dame
Overall:
I am starting to warm on UConn. I think their football program has a ton of potential and seems to be improving each season, and you give B10 hoops a shot in the arm.
Assuming that ND declines, (which they will,) and that Texas is not an option, for me, I feel the best bet would be for the B10 to grab Nebraska, to go along with Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and UConn. I am just not a fan of Missouri, but I could see the logic in swapping UConn for Missouri.
I am with the camp that says go straight for 16. It’s all about content, and more teams = more content. It would be one thing if the league was adding 3 big time programs, but that isn’t the case. Plus, if 10 years from Texas finds the new B12 unappealing and appraoachs the B10 to become the 17th member the B10 would throw a welcoming parade for the Longhorns.
The problem the B10 faces is that there aren’t really any brand name programs in or near the Midwest that can be plugged in easily. Unlike the SEC, who in theory can not only could go after Oklahoma and Texas but can also go after Florida State, Miami, and possibly Virginia Tech. The only “helmet” programs that the B10 can go after are Nebraska and Notre Dame, and possibly West Virginia if academics weren’t an issue. In the case of Nebraska and Notre Dame, both are not what they once were, especially Notre Dame.
What does this mean for the B10? In my opinion, it means that it can not trump the SEC in terms of raw power schools, but as my expansion proposal shows, it can add some power to the football side, while at the same time adding some “jersey” programs to the basketball side.
Now, Texas is the only possible “helmet” program that the B10 could conceivably add, but whether this is realistic or not is for another debate. Anyway, this brings me to my main question, and this is directed to any Texas fans / alumni out there:
Is there a group of say 4 realistic schools that the B10 could add that would make Texas say, “hey, we got to get in here as the 5th school?” I feel that the three mentioned in yesterday’s report don’t really move the needle. I also feel that the opinion among Texas fans / alumni is divided, with some wanting the B10, some wanting the Pac 10, some want to say in a reconstituted B12, etc. While I find the Northwestern message board rumor pretty ridiculous, I did find it interesting to hear the ND / Texas part of it. Is Notre Dame that much of an attraction that Texas would consider joining the league assuming ND would be part of it? I get the feeling that a B10 with Texas would cause the Irish to come running, but is the same true for Texas?
LikeLike
The only thing more fun to think about in the comment section than Texas is the Rutgers fait accompli.
Rutgers is the beer goggles candidate. That NYC market looks so sexy, doesn’t it? But once Rutgers enters the B10 (and I agree that they are almost certainly part of any 14 or 16), sober reality will set in.
Like you said, Tom, Schiano gave the program a big boost, but they have flatlined. Last year they were 3-4 in the BEast — uh, that stinks. OOC? A blistering 6-0 — toughest opponent? Maryland. Schiano has padded his record against a roster of cupcakes (I would too in order to get to some bowl games and start establishing some winning).
When Schiano has to face off against some real competition it could be ugly. What would 3-4 BEast mean in B10? 2-6? Worse?
It may be the case that Schiano improves his teams and puts together some 8-4 and 9-3 campaigns, decent bowls and makes PSU-RU a real contest.
A more likely scenario would be 5-7 or 4-8, and creamed at least 2x a year in your own stadium. The NJ recruits who don’t go to Penn State start going to tOSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, rather than Rutgers.
It’s been mentioned before in the comments, but it does bear repeating — if the product stinks, no one is going to watch. The B10 will be taking a big risk with Rutgers.
On the bright side for the league — someone’s got to lose, right?
Check out this anti-Rutgers rant from bleacherreport:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/387896-the-rutgers-compromise
LikeLike
Rutgers being bad isn’t necessarily bad for the Big 10 Network in NJ or slivers of NYC.
1–You still give tons of Big 10 alumni in that region (technically from Boston down to D.C., but particularly NYC to Philly) an occasional chance to see their favorite midwestern team locally. How many times has Michigan played east of State College in the past 20 years? That will fill up seats in a 1-11 Rutgers stadium.
2–While the Rutgers fans may stir up half of the pot for getting the BTN on NJ/sliver NYC cable, other Big 10 alum will stir the other half to make it happen. If ND indeed joins, you’ll have them PLUS PSU alums PLUS the other traditional Big 10 school’s alums in the area PLUS general fans of college football desirous of Texas/Nebraska/Big 10 football rolled into one. It’s an attractive package even with a frustrated Scarlet Knight fan base lamenting 3-9 seasons.
3–I guess my last point is that Rutgers could/should improve upon entering the megaBig10. While their home recruiting ground may be invaded, they should have a stronger pull up and down the coast (and into Big 10 country to a small, small extent) as a “city-friendly, Eastern Shore-flavored” way of playing in the Big 10. I don’t think they’ll become perennial contenders, but they could continue to grow and be mid-tier Big 10 schools (kind of like Purdue and MSU). It’s possible.
LikeLike
It is interesting to see support building on this blog for consideration of Maryland to the Big Ten, yet they are lumped in the “cupcake” category because Rutgers beats them. All the while Rutgers is generally considered somewhat football-challenged.
LikeLike
In addition, Rutgers is 4-1 against Pitt in the last 5 years. I don’t consider Pitt as cupcakes. Both Rutgers and Pitt should continue to improve their programs and most likely would consistently be 2nd tier finishers with the likes of Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU. They have more in common (with the state of their current program over the last 5 years) with those 3 than Illinois, Purdue, NW, Indiana, and Minnesota.
LikeLike
Maryland split with Rutgers in its recent two-game football series, each winning on the other’s field. But as an all-around athletic program, Maryland has it all over Rutgers, with NCAA titles in men’s and women’s basketball, men’s soccer and field hockey over the past decade. The closest Rutgers came was a runnerup in women’s hoops.
LikeLike
Rutgers a ‘beer-goggles’ candidate? By what standards?
If someone was saying Texas or Rutgers is a toss-up because the media markets are similar then your comment would have some bite. As it is, this is a straw-man focused on a football fan centered perspective. The article is just that and not worth the read.
As this blog has worked out in detail, expansion is based on many attributes. Whether or not candidate X’s football team will be mediocre in all future competition is not the primary feature (and basically unknowable in any case). I think it is fair to talk about national brand appeal as that has a direct impact on advertising revenue — and everyone can agree Rutgers is not a national brand. There is a cost to building a brand and one can ask whether that is likely to happen. I think it is possible for Rutgers to build a strong football brand (excellent recruiting grounds — both football and btw, basketball). A Big Ten affiliation would be a big help.
In any case, NYC is a market too big to ignore when one is playing with the knowledge that this period of expansion determines the cards one has going forward. Even with a Big XII-centered expansion, leaving out Rutgers –the single best bet to get into NJ/NYC and leverage the conference’s assets — just doesn’t make sense. If it fails, the downside is not so bad (NJ), if it does work the upside is Texas-like in impact (perhaps even more so given the influence of NYC in media and advertising circles).
Apart from those media considerations, Rutgers is a solid choice by any measure. After Texas and Maryland, Rutgers is the best available academic school (along with Pitt). It is a state school and a large alumni (another 10,000 graduate next week) and a good cultural fit with the Big Ten. Even if Rutgers was not the closest Big Ten-like school to NYC (by Midwest standards New Brunswick is suburb distance to NYC) it would be a logical candidate.
LikeLike
“Beer goggles” candidate by the standard that the program isn’t that good. Their record has been fattened up by a weak OOC schedule and the BEast has some good teams, but nothing compared to the B10.
The point is that they may have good demos, academics, etc., but what happens if they get into the B10 and get creamed every week? How will expansion look then? BC to ACC hasn’t worked as well as the participants hoped and BC is a better program.
LikeLike
I’d say they look a lot like Indiana…bad team in a populous state with excellent academics.
LikeLike
As an IU fan, I feel that I’m well qualified to comment on bad football programs….and I don’t think Rutgers will be an IU in BT football. The big difference, imo, is that Rutgers is the only D1 program in a state that annually produces perhaps twice the # of D1 prospects as Indiana. IU has to share those recruits with Purdue and, occasionally, ND. At worse, I see RU as an Illinois-type program, at best, an Iowa or Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I agree. Here are the facts about Rutgers that everyone seems to gloss over:
Fan Support
– 2009 average football attendance of 49,100
– 2009 average basketball attendance of 4,600
– Ranked 48th in NCAA licensing sales (lower than every other rumored expansion candidate)
– 2009 average television ratings of 1.51
Can anyone identify where this “large” fan base is hiding? Because they don’t appear to be attending games, buying t-shirts or watching their team on television.
Athletic Success
– Since 2005, during the “modern / golden” era of Rutgers football, the program has averaged 4 losses per season.
– Rutgers has never won more than 5 conference games in a season.
– Their five year Directors Cup average ranking is 85th, 32 spots below the lowest Big Ten team.
Are we to expect that in the face of increased competition, Rutgers will be anything other than a lower-tier Big Ten team?
Additionally, the academics of Rutgers have been trumpeted on this site, yet Rutgers will be below the Big Ten average in endowment, research spending, academic rankings.
If the Big Ten wants to add Rutgers, fine. They will be a solid addition to the CIC and offer Big Ten alumni on the east coast an opportunity to see their teams. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that Rutgers offers anything other than average (by Big Ten standards) academics and below average athletics.
LikeLike
Many valid points here. But I think 49K is a sellout at Rutgers Stadium. And they have a waiting list for football season tickets.
LikeLike
No such waiting list back when it was Miami, Va Tech, and BC coming to town.
http://www.techsideline.com/newsarch/2001/20010426news.htm
LikeLike
@Charles C
Your analysis strikes me as shortsighted and a bit disingenuous. Let me restate the case and add some context to your points about the apparent lack of a rabid fan base.
After Texas and Maryland, Rutgers (and Pitt) are the best available academic schools. They are much better than the next tier of expansion candidates, all of whom would be below every school in the Big Ten (edit: TAMU would be above a couple of Big Ten schools). All four of them are amongst the best universities in the world. In terms of Big Ten academics, to be ‘below average’ (BTW my count Rutgers/Pitt would be 6th in the current conference and so ‘above average’) is hardly a ‘meh’.
Rutgers is the best option to reach into the NYC market. It is the local (geographically speaking) team.
Your points about the lack of indicators for a rabid fan base are well taken, but benefit from some context. First, the football attendance figures are actually pretty good — the stadium holds 52K now — and the home schedule was far from attractive this year (with some horrible weather — cold and rain — to boot).
Rutgers football history for the last twenty/thirty years has had no success until recently. The school was independent until 1991 when the Big East was formed. It has never been a football power (to put it kindly). A serious investment in building a football program has been in place for less than a decade. New Jersey is a rich recruiting grounds for both football and basketball and in the past its best players have gone elsewhere (and a good many have had an impact in the Big Ten).
The media coverage of Big East football is pathetic. If the Rutgers game is not on ESPN, you probably cannot watch it. I’m in NYC and the Big East cable outlet shows one game a week (for the conference) and it is not HD.
I’ll note that BB history of success (men’s that is) has been consistently nonexistent.
It is hard to whip up a rabid fan base when one has no established history of winning and the team is practically invisible in its viewing area. An attendance of 49K/52K and sold out season tickets tells a story of real potential, I think.
As others have argued, I believe moving to the Big Ten will change everything. Recruiting NJ players will continue to improve and the fans will be much more interested in the Big Ten teams than the Big East competition, whatever the outcome on the field. Generally, I expect Rutgers will be middle of the pack in the Big Ten, but capable of rising and challenging from time to time (think MSU, Purdue). In the longer term, Rutgers could be a solid member of the upper division — it certainly has a better local base for recruiting than most of the Big Ten schools. Gaining national access will depend on success and exposure.
LikeLike
Rutgers football did average 94% capacity last year. That is very respectable, but would still rank 9th in the Big Ten.
As you’ve stated, the enhanced TV presence and media profile offered by Big Ten membership may assist Rutgers in continuing to build its program. But winning is what ultimately builds a fan base. Indiana and Northwestern have been hosting games against Michigan and OSU for 100 years. What’s that done for their attendance and fan interest?
My point is that it is a huge gamble on the Big Ten’s part to add a school with zero record of sustained athletic success. Especially when that school is located in a pro-sports market that only cares about winners.
LikeLike
As a Big East fan… taking Rutgers is the best case scenario. The Big East survives that hit.
I think the Big 10 is better off either going East and taking Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Notre Dame (if, of course)….. or going west and taking Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (and hoping for Texas/A%M).
Maybe you could take Nebraska or Missouri if Notre Dame declines the eastern expansion.
But I don’t see Rutgers + 1 Big East school mattering to the Northeast. The other two schools will likely end up in the ACC, dividing the NE corridor (BC and PSU). From there, success would matter more than school name. Who is more likely to be successful… a Big East team joining a loaded Big 10 or a Big East team joining a possibly depleted ACC?
LikeLike
Fair enough, but another point would be who has more non-local alumni in the area…ACC teams or Big10 teams?
If PSU/OSU/UoM come to town to play Cuse/Rutgers/UConn (whichever get in) do you think they’d be a bigger draw (for ABC/ESPN and BTN advertisers) than any of the ACC teams?
I do.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten already has the presence in NYC, why is ANY school needed?
Moreover, unless Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn are able to compete with OSU, PSU, and U of M, the game will get ratings until it is out of reach.
We don’t know whether Rutgers can compete with OSU or PSU because they refuse to play any type of schedule. UConn will play U of M this year, played Notre Dame last year. Syracuse played Minnesota, Northwestern, and Penn St.
If you add UConn, Syracuse, and Rutgers… you get the local flavor of all those schools competing against each other AND the aforementioned visits from other schools.
I just think taking one school… any school really… does very little to capture the market. And if the only school the Big East loses is Rutgers… that’s a win.
Heck, look at Paul Tagliabue’s comments. Brer rabbit?
LikeLike
@edzone
One simple reason…BTN.
Without schools in the states of mention the BTN will never be a basic cable channel in those areas and its carry rates will be comensurate. The ad rates the BTN could charge for games in those areas might be higher since it could sell the fact it has built in alumni base, but it would be losing money that it could have access to.
If Syracuse could get the BTN the $.70 carry rate for all of NY, not even NYC just the rest of the state, thats still 12 million people (less for tv sets) you’d be adding to the Big10 footprint. Even if PSU or OSU aren’t coming to play (to capitalize on the alumni prescence in the area) a Syracuse game on the BTN would be a considerable local draw that the BTN could sell the heck out of. It wouldn’t be a national concern, and as such the BigEast can’t leverage those teams / population centers to ABC/ESPN, but it could be very lucrative to the Big10, but again, only because of the BTN.
LikeLike
I think there are two universities that must be included in any expansion. Those two universities are NU & Pitt. NU brings, among other things, a National FB brand and they appear to be increasing their amount of research. Pitt brings everything, but new markets.
From there, the BT has to decide whether they want to go East or West. I don’t think they can do both.
If they go East, they should invite SU, RU & UConn/MD. As ezdozen mentioned, they could try to grab NYC by bringing the National Brands (NU, UM, OSU, PSU…) into the NYC area and by having the “local” teams (Pitt, PSU, SU, RU & UConn/MD) playing each other there on a bigger stage (in the BT). The Sub-Divisions would look something like:
* West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
* South: IL, IU, NW & OSU
* North: UM, MSU, PU & SU*
* East: PSU, Pitt*, RU* & CT/MD*
The “home run” in this scenario is surrounding the tri-state of NYC. I believe each of SU, RU & CT/MD has a lot of athletic potential. But, that potential may, or may not, be realized.
If they go West, it would be more of a “home run” in that the BT would include universities that are National Brands right now (and have been historically). The three Western universities that should be invited are UT, TAMU & MU. The BT would look something like this:
* West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
* South: IL, MU*, UT* & TAMU*
* North: UM, MSU, NW & PU
* East: IU, OSU, PSU & Pitt*
The BT needs to choose… East or West.
LikeLike
@ Sportsman,
I used to think that too. The more you think about it though, the better a mixed strategy looks.
The reason is because – East or West – in adopting five teams you´re talking about adopting dead weight in one form or another. And since with each strategy you are only talking about one or two big fish, we´re all better off if you can reel those in without the extra frills.
At this point, if you can´t get Texas, I´d give up Missouri. Likewise, if you can´t get ND, I´m not letting in Rutgers.
The Big 10 brand is too powerful at this point to expand just for the point of expansion. There´s no reason to dilute the brand with schools that aren´t going to bring in either Texas or NYC.
However this turns out – both goals, one goal or neither accomplished – I think the next strategy is to look Southeast – from D.C and Tennessee down to Florida.
LikeLike
The fact remains that Rutgers is the best fit for the Big Ten as an institution when compared to ANY other expansion candidate. If you remove geography, Texas is obviously a better fit, but geography does count for something.
LikeLike
Remove geography and Pitt would be the obvious fit. Damn, if only Pitt had Maryland or Rutger’s location…
LikeLike
@Kyle – I’ve always thought that about Pitt. If it were located almost anywhere other than Western Pennsylvania, it would be a Big Ten school already.
LikeLike
Yeah. I agree on Pitt.
The Big East could probably survive losing only Pitt.
But losing Rutgers is still the best case scenario.
LikeLike
Pitt’s 17 varsity sports would be the least of any athletic department in the Big Ten. Rutgers supports 22 varsity sports, which is much more in line with the rest of the league. Like the vast majority of the Big Ten, Rutgers is a flagship land grant institution. Pitt is not. Rutgers would be the 7th best school in the Big Ten according to the rankings of the national research council (which are admittedly dated at this point, but were at one time the best measure of a research university) and 16th overall among public universities. Pitt would be the lowest Big Ten school, and 33rd overall.
I could go on, but Pitt’s fit in the Big Ten is overstated as compared to some other options, particularly Rutgers.
LikeLike
::eye roll::
In sports, Rutgers has NCAA Men’s & Women’s golf, Men’s & Women’s Lacrosse, women’s field hockey and women’s rowing. Lacrosse isn’t a Big Ten sport, and not every Big Ten school has Women’s field hockey women’s rowing. They’re still relatively inexpensive sports for Pitt to bring up from club status.
Sorry, but this non-flagship university still has twice the research budget of Rutgers and three times the endowment. There may be an argument if you can prove the UMDNJ would be joining the CIC too, but I haven’t heard anything to support that idea.
LikeLike
Re Big 10 options (Tom)
Interesting summary of options with positives and negatives.
1) A while ago more than a few posts were suggesting the benefits USC and UCLA would bring to the Big 10. Those posters have gone and in their place are posts about how ND or Texas can be brought into the expansion by the right strategy. Is it possible that ND and Texas and Maryland have behind the scenes said “thanks but no thanks”?
2) If Texas or ND or Maryland are quietly in play, then no one should be concerned that the Big 10 is going to expand without them or wouldn’t do anything reasonable to work with them with respect to timing or package of schools or pods or whatever. It could be an extended timetable for expansion is precisely to allow those target schools to analyze their options or decide what they want to do.
3) Back to reality, if the pool of actual candidates are the ones you mentioned in your post and frequently mentioned by Greenstein and others, including Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, RU, SU, UConn, Kansas, then the question is what is the strategy.
My personal opinion is the Big 10 might choose to select quality schools in the northeast markets, including some strong BB schools along with an historically strong football program in Nebraska.
The reason for 16 is to add additional quality live programming for the Big 10 channel that will appeal to the various expanded markets.
While I understand the appeal of Missouri to Presidents of large midwest state schools, and specifically to the western members, I believe Missouri absent Texas is a bridge to nowhere.
One of the lessons of the current financial problems of the Big 12 may be that even with great traditional teams like Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, that conference is in trouble because they lack large markets within member school footprints.
LikeLike
Tom,
Re: “Faded Power” Nebraska’s winning % compared to the other BT powers OSU, PSU, & Wisconsin would rank 3rd in this decade, and 4th over the last 5 years. So in Nebraska’s worst period in 50 years, their football would still be BT top tier.
Incidentally, Nebraska’s had a better winning % than your Wolverines in both these periods 🙂
LikeLike
ChicagoRed,
I’ll be the first to admit that the Wolverines’ struggles the past few seasons have been nothing short of disgraceful. Going back to 2005, Michigan has been flat out awful, (with the exception of 2006.) So, Nebraska having a better winning percentage during this period doesn’t really wow me. (I still think the Cornhuskers are a good addition, but I don’t think they are a great addition.)
And let’s be honest if you had to pick one program most likely to “return to glory,” I think most people would pick Michigan. While the state of Michigan isn’t exactly a hot bed for recruits, it is far better than what Nebraska is working with. Ann Arbor is a much better college town than Lincoln, and sits closer to the B10 recruiting hotbeds of Ohio and Pennsylvania. In terms of national recruiting, Michigan has and always will have the better reach and cachet than Nebraska. Whether it’s Rich Rod or Jim Harbaugh turning the ship around remains to be be seen, but I think most people believe that Michigan will be back to its top 10 ways relatively soon.
Either way, Michigan is already in the B10 so there is really no point in comparing them to Nebraska, who in my opinion has faded. If they haven’t then their winning pct. should be right around OSU’s winning pct. right?
When the B10 added PSU, it got a dominant program. Right now, Nebraska is not dominant, and like I said, it’s been 8 seasons since their last run at a title. The only program that was more dominant than USC in the 2000’s was Nebraska in the 90’s. I want that Nebraska in the B10. The current Nebraska is not that Nebraska.
LikeLike
No, you really don’t. That Nebraska went 60-3 over a five year period. I imagine you’d like to win the conference once in a while.
LikeLike
True, I would like to win the league, but my thinking is that a Nebraska team going 60-3 over 5 years would help lift up the rest of the league, sort of like what USC has done recently in the Pac 10.
LikeLike
In fairness…I don’t think the Big10 wants that team in the league due to the notorious nature of its program…I mean does Lawrence Phillips ring a bell?
LikeLike
Tom,
I’m not cherry picking Nebraska’s success vs other Big 10 powers.
By decade compared to current BT, Nebraska winning % ranks:
1960-2009: 1st
1970-2009: 1st
1980-2009: 1st
1990-2009: 2nd
2000-2009: 3rd
My real point is that the Nebraskas and Michigans are always good and bounce back from low periods–certainly Michigan will. But in Nebrask’s case, even their worst decade or 5 years in 50 years is top tier BT.
LikeLike
For the basketball side at Nebraska, it looks be getting better.
The city of Lincoln just passed a 344million dollar arena project which will be completed in the fall of 2013 and seat 16k people.
Also the university is building the first ever practice facility for basketball, total cost for that is around 10.5 million.
First time ever Nebraska is putting a large sum of money into basketball, they really want to turn the program around.
—
So hopefully if we go to the Big 10 they can bring in a whole new attitude and team in.
LikeLike
The arena looks pretty amazing and is badly needed. Not only because the Devany Center is dated, but it will be a good recruiting tool and should spark some fan interest.
LikeLike
Of all the teams in the conference expansion mix, Nebraska and Missouri do look like they’ve put the most effort into becoming like Big Ten schools. From Missouri’s renovations to its stadium, to Nebraska’s research spending, etc.
(Obviously they’re doing it out of their own schools interest, but it also plays into getting Big Ten invites).
LikeLike
RU just completed a $100 million stadium expansion last fall, further expansion capability up to 70k built into the design. Plans currently in place for BB arena upgrade and expansion.
LikeLike
@Rick
I wasn’t aware of a commitment to upgrade the BB facilities. Certainly about time. How can they possible expand the RAC? Looks to me a new BB arena is needed.
LikeLike
Tim Pernetti the AD has expansion plans and drawings for RAC expansion which will include building addition, boxes, practice facility, and new office for Olympic Sports coaches and administration. A new arena is not in the plans but upgrading the current Rutgers Athletic Center RAC. Financing arrangements are in the works.
LikeLike
Gotta love what architects can do with CGI. Is this on the NU campus, or downtown Lincoln?
LikeLike
Neither, actually; it’s the old State Fair Park northeast of the Devaney Center. It took me a couple of watchings and some google-mapping recognize it.
LikeLike
The State Fair Park is reserved for the Innovation Campus. http://innovate.unl.edu/
You can see in the video they start out at Haymarket Park and work their way south to meet the Haymarket. Both projects will be great additions to the area.
LikeLike
The campus is pretty much located right off of downtown Lincoln. The arena will be located just south of Haymarket Park and west of Memorial Stadium (on campus). The west part of downtown Lincoln is called the Haymarket. It’s really a nice area with some good restaurants and bars. I believe the plan is to have the Haymarket develop north and connect with the new arena.
Here’s an overview of the area:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.82024,-96.709653&spn=0.007169,0.009516&t=h&z=17
As far as I know, it’ll be called the Haymarket Arena. While the University is an active partner in its development and the Huskers will be the main tenant, it’ll be owned by the city.
The big project that the University is currently working on is the Innovation Campus that will be built on the old fair grounds on the north side of the current campus.
LikeLike
And you gotta know they’re going to call it the Osborne Center.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
Kevin Keitzman was on Omaha’s local sports show today. I’m really starting to think this was just the Big Ten making those initial contacts. It does make sense and still allows for all sides to deny the story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4645700
LikeLike
Oh, the interview starts around the 1/3 into the segment.
LikeLike
8:30 mark or so.
LikeLike
Actually, for KK being described as a “hack” by others in this thread, he comes off as sounding quite reasonable and he makes some good arguments. (Then again I am used to Atlanta sports radio, which tends to be uninteresting and unprofessional.) Combine his comments with the San Jose paper comments below on MU (and UNL by association) being “hell-bent” on getting out of the Big 12 and more pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Those who have not listened to the clip from the show should, the ideas presented are very illuminating. I’m not sure I’m ready to buy into the Memphis/Cincinnati/Louisville to the Big 12 idea, but everything else is more than reasonable.
What I get out of all this is that MU and UNL started the process of initial backchannel contact with Big Ten admin folks some time back, probably late last year. Now the Big Ten backchannel contacts have come back and said to MU and UNL, “we’d love to have you, submit your apps online and you won’t be disappointed.” Undoubtedly Rutgers has done something similar. And, at the same time, backchannel contacts have suggested ND also apply if they want to.
As with any application, I’m sure there’s a time limit and my guess would be that UNL, MU, and Rutgers probably had their applications in before the WHB story broke. When the Big Ten heads meet in June, they will have those three formal applications and if KK’s analysis is anywhere near correct, those applications will be approved then. At that point the official invites go out and UNL, MU, and Rutgers say yes, in time to meet KK’s “July” timeframe. My guess is that all three schools could play Big Ten schedules as early as 2012, certainly 2013 at the latest. Although, Rutgers will have to cancel that OOC home-n-home with Penn State in 2014 and 2015 – it won’t be OOC anymore! My further guess would be that if UND declines to submit an application, the B10 will stand pat at the Big Fourteen for awhile.
Dang, this is fun! Don’t know if it’s time to uncork the bubbly yet, but maybe we ought at least to be making up the tub of Gatorade (who shall we douse, Jim Delany?). Big 14, here we come!
LikeLike
I simply don’t see why the Big10 would jump the gun this summer to add Neb, Mizzou, Rutgers and call its quits on expansion when it doesn’t know (officially) what the Pac10 will do and how unstable the Big12 will get.
If they wait until at least the Pac10 makes its play (and makes it known Texas will be welcome in the Big10) and they take two solid markets from the Big12 the Big10 says “these three are officially in and we’re looking for two more…” while saying “Texas, want an in?”.
At that point there’s one last slot…its ND if they want it, and would allow the Big10 legitimate play in New England while adding another national brand, but if refused (again) could add a final NYC team to go to 16…with the final tally being two national programs (Neb, Texas), two high population “solid” athletics/academics programs (Mizzou, Rutgers) with one last school either being another national program (ND) or the “end cap” to try and solidify the NYC DMA (Syracuse/UConn).
LikeLike
Going to 14 now doesn’t close off future expansion. It seems pretty clear that Texas wants to make a go of it with the Longhorn Sports Network and cling to the Big XII. It also seems pretty clear that ND wants to cling to independence. Fine. The Big Ten can go to 14 now, it can continue to increase it’s revenues through the BTN. It can sign a new 5 year hoops deal with CBS. And it can sit and wait.
The ESPN contract would then be up in 2016 and the new CBS deal would be up in 2017. So in 2015, the Big Ten can revisit the expansion situation. They would have been playing with the new setup for three years, and it would give Texas and ND more time to see where things stand. It would also give the other conferences more time to shake things up. If UT and ND still aren’t interested, then Big Ten will have a better idea of the future of the BTN, and the effect that the first round of expansion had. At that point, it might behoove them to go after UConn, or SU, or UMD, or Kansas. In any event, the league will have much more information available to it than it does now. And so will everyone else.
LikeLike
I disagree slightly…right now there are only two conferences looking to expand and no teams looking for a home (at least officially).
If the Big10 went to 14 and “waited for the dust to clear” the Pac10 still needs to make its move. I have to believe they are going to expand (television alliances are nice, but membership in a conference can be depended on, the Big12 cannot) and will go for at least Colorado. Even if they don’t go for another Big12 school (I still think they make a play for TAMU) the Big12 has lost every major market in the north and just about every major market / team with the exception of Texas. Even if Texas starts its own network, that will be several years in the making and all the while the SEC will be making serious overtures for them to join (with or without TAMU). And even if Texas decides to stick with the Big12/independent how likely is it going to join a conference after its finally got said channel up and running?
Point being, after the Big10 / Pac10 makes their plays teams and conferences will be scrambling and that’s no way to guarantee an optimum solution.
What’s more I really think a realistic schedule for starting to play a Big10 schedule for the new teams is 2012. With contract negotiations probably starting 2014 (to ensure their finalized prior to the 2015 season and 2016 when the contract is up) you only have 1-2 seasons to show the impact having these schools in the Big10 has and what ABC/ESPN needs to pay because of it.
Personally, I still wait until the Pac10 expansion is officialized. Everyone already knows Neb, Mizzou, and Rutgers are all but in right now, the Pac10 will be the signal of whether the Big12 is going to be nothing or just a diminished conference.
If it looks to survive, the Big10 can easily sit or push for the north east, but if it looks to be on life support bumping the expansion to 16 by adding Texas (maybe TAMU)looks very easy to do (and why would they gamble on a tv channel not even started against once already created and a conference falling around their ears?) and could easily be sold to Texas Legislatures as a “survival” move with schools like TT and Baylor could possibly be sold to the MWC (now with possible BCS tie ins) in a round of expansion for it.
Point being the Big10 has already detabilized the Big12 with the understanding of 3 likely additions and until the Pac10 makes its move (and they NEED to move soon) the Big10 runs the risk of leaving valuable programs up for someone else to grab.
LikeLike
Nothing more fun than talking Texas …
This blog is B10-centric, so most of the commenters look at Texas and think of reasons why THEY should join US. But to Texas it’s the reverse. Since there are so many boosters for the US crowd, I will pass on repeating their arguments.
Consider some contra arguments from a Texas POV:
1) As it stands today, Texas faces only one real football power (OU) on its way to a national championship game. A&M, Tech, and OK State may be able to pull the odd upset, but OU is the big obstacle. In the B10, there may not be a program stronger than OU, but the depth is greater and thus the possibility of a loss or two. So, joining B10 drops the potential for playing in the BCS championship. How do you put a dollar figure on a weakened chance at the BCS? I don’t know, but that’s gotta be worth a few million.
2) Might be able to make more money with own cable network.
3) Donor/alum opposition. Today donors get to see UT in Austin and can easily get to Waco, College Station, etc. And every year they see the big tilt with OU in JerryWorld — followed by the championship game in said JW. B10? Much bigger pain to haul your ass to Lafayette of Lansing. Not to mention a championship game in Detroit/Chicago/Indy. That’s a long way from JerryWorld.
(Throw in BBall games, too).
What happens when the boys in the luxury suites hear that they’ll be headed to Detroit in December, not Dallas?
4) Loss of rivalries. Want to win a natl championship? Then your OOC schedule better all be cupcakes. So, maybe they keep A&M. But OU is gone as a game. Does Texas’ fan base want to lose that?
Maybe Texas picks up $10-$15 million from the B10 in TV — but what if they lose $10 million from ticked off alums? Maybe Hopkins knows if the big $$ donors for Texas would put a kibosh on this, but it seems to me that loss of donor support could be a very real possibility.
Is a major donor revolt worth $15 million? As long as the four core schools stay in the B12, it survives as a BCS conference and gives Texas a launching pad for the natl championship. They can figure ways to make more $$ as TV contracts expire. Any move is really permanent — so you better be sure it’s the right move for the next 20 years, not just for the duration of the current TV contract.
LikeLike
@PensfaninLAexile – Looking at the general comments that I’ve seen from Texas alums on message boards and blogs (which I understand is not necessarily representative of the views of everyone), they are WAY more concerned about Texas sitting around and doing nothing while the Big XII falls apart and there’s a lot of support to go to the Big Ten. There are also others that like the prospect of the Pac-10 or Western Alliance. The point is that there isn’t any rumbling at all of a donor revolt and, in fact, the main revolt might be that Texas is too willing to let bad things happen around them. The worry is that Deloss Dodds wouldn’t want to destroy the conference that he helped create and, as a result, it’s coloring his objectivity on the subject. This is in direct contrast to virtually all Notre Dame fan outlets, where you will see 99% opposition to joining the Big Ten. Unlike ND alums, Texas fans saw what happened to the SWC, so they are much more aware that the status quo may not be a viable option much longer. I have full faith that there would be a donor revolt if ND were to join the Big Ten, but I don’t think that would happen at Texas (especially among the academically-minded people).
LikeLike
Let me also put the caveat here that the assumption is that Texas A&M would come along with Texas to provide a geographic rival. OU would be played in the non-conference schedule just like it was for 80 years. I think that you’re wildly overestimating how much Texas fans care about being able to travel to Waco and Lubbock (or at least if the alternative is to remain in a crippled conference). The other Texas alums that are commenters can speak better to this issue.
LikeLike
Yes, few Texas fans would shed any tears over not going to Lubbock every other year.
But I am not talking about people who post on message boards. I am talking about people at the Trustee level and their friends. What does the crowd in the luxury boxes think? If anyone out there in the Texas universe knows, let them post and comment — maybe they reflect your analysis. I don’t put much stock in the influence of the internet hoi polloi.
If Mizzou and NE leave, that’s not good, but is it fatal? Only if a subset (or all 4) of OU, OK State, A&M, Texas leave. And their only logical destination in the near term is SEC. (Or do you disagree about the challenge to getting PAC-10 to expand?)
You posted earlier that any B10 addition would have to be a net contributor. And SEC will likely expand in pairs. So, who could be a net contributor to SEC? TX, OU, A&M, OK State (State is debatable). I suppose Kansas might be, but would the SEC reach that far?
The SEC has three natl contenders (FL, AL, LSU) and two possible contenders (Auburn, Georgia). Do they want another natl contender in the mix? Will any additional money really be worth it? I am guessing Florida wants to play Texas in the BCS, not in Atlanta. I am dubious about the SEC being so hot for Texas or Oklahoma. Maybe A&M.
What I was trying to get at originally is that the I don’t think the B12 is in such dire straits. Losing Mizzou and Nebraska may be bad, but is not the death blow so many commenters seem to accept as an article of faith. As such, Texas is not in some box where joining the B10 is the only way out.
And the PAC-10 is still stuck in neutral.
LikeLike
Who would you consider the 4 CORE schools in the Big XII?
Looking at it from Wisconsin I would think it goes Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State, then Baylor.
LikeLike
The Cyclones are part of the core of B12?
The criterion of core would be the same for any conference: Any school that is a critical component to the success of the conference AND has departure options.
ISU, Kansas, KState, Baylor, TTech have no option other than B12 (unless MWC becomes a BCS conference).
Colorado is replaceable.
TX, A&M, OU, OK State are the best known and wealthiest programs. Plus they have options (SEC).
LikeLike
Let me amend that, given my other post. TX, A&M, OK, OK State have both other conference options, and in the case of OK and TX, wherever they go they strengthen a conference.
ISU, KS, KState, Baylor, TTech are all programs that have no option but to watch the process unfold and hope for the best.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with Kansas being lumped into the ‘no options’ group. They’re AAU with top 25 athletic revenues and profitability and have a top 5 basketball program.
If the Pac-10 whiffs on the Texas schools, what are their options? Colorado and…? Utah is not AAU and BYU has political issues. Their options are slim.
LikeLike
I was more ranking how I see the current Big 12. I wasn’t trying to define a core group. But say TX, OK, A&M, and OK State are in that “core” group. Where are Nebraska and Missouri? How do they fit from a Big 12 perspective and what is the Big 12 losing?
I see it as TX – NU – OU – A&M – MU – OK ST…. but I would like to know your thoughts.
LikeLike
Maybe ‘core’ isn’t the best word choice. I look at Texas, OK, OK State, and A&M as teams whose departure would most hurt the B12. The best way to look at it is probably a sliding scale, with TX and OK at the top.
I could agree with you on NU.
But Mizzou? From an eastern/now west coast perspective, my reaction to Missouri is, uh, who’s that? Can’t they easily be replaced by Utah?
LikeLike
Think of the Big 12 in tiers. Utah could probably replace anything but a tier I school.
I – NU, OU, UT, TAMU
II- KU, MU, TTU, OSU
III – CU, KSU, ISU, BU
LikeLike
In terms of a University’s value to the conference:
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas A&M
Kansas
Missouri
Colorado
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Iowa State
Baylor
That’s from a KU fan’s perspective. Any of the top four would be impossible to replace. The next three would hurt. Okie State is in purgatory between a have and have-not only because of T-Boone’s money. Most would say the last four teams could go in any order and could be dumped for upgrades.
LikeLike
The 4 core schools of the Big 12 are clearly Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Oklahoma. There’s a reason those 4 are the ones voting for uneven revenue sharing (because they typically top the $ charts due to TV appearances, etc.).
Mike’s tier system is probably accurate as is Patrick’s rankings, but I would exchange TTU and CU between the 2nd and 3rd tiers…
I would put Colorado and Missouri both around the middle though because of their in-state markets. Kansas might be a bit higher than Missouri simply because of its pull on KC.
LikeLike
I didn’t take into account market size when I did that. Colorado could probably go either way. I included them in the bottom tier because of their small football stadium (54K), their low number of sports (min required for D1), and their overall current fan apathy. If it weren’t for T. Boone, I would have put OSU in tier III. The more I think about it, if you want to think of importance to the Big 12, OSU is probably a tier III school and should switch with CU.
LikeLike
So, basically, Texas is ND with a love of playing Texas teams instead of teams from all over the country?
Dood…
LikeLike
The San Jose Mercury News is passing on stuff they heard at the Commissioner’s meetings in Phoenix.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/11/bcs-expansion-boise-state-to-the-mountain-west-missouri-out-of-the-big-12/
The bullet points:
1) The B10 is also looking at Maryland, Vanderbilt and Georgia Tech for expansion. (Andy Katz also reported this.) From both reports, it sounds like the schools were included just to be thorough, but we’ve talked about the appeal of Maryland before. GT is interesting someone that’s been mentioned in passing around here. They certainly fit academically and they’re located in a big market, but I question if the fan base is there. Vanderbilt makes no sense to me, academic rep or no. They’re the #2 team in their own city, and they’re a joke in football. The one sport they’re great at is baseball, and playing bad B10 baseball would hurt that.
In any case, no one actually seems to think these schools will be included in expansion
2) Missouri and Nebraska are “hell-bent” to get out of the Big 12. No surprise to any of us here. Being in California, they float the “Is Mizzou to the Pac 10 possible?” angle.
3) In a related note, Boise State is likely to go to the MWC and soon, if only to secure an automatic BCS bid for the conference. If BSU is playing in the MWC in 2011, then BSU’s record from 2008-2010 count towards the automatic bid.
LikeLike
To clarify, only Missouri’s is “hell-bent” to get out. Nebraska’s administration (specifically Perlman and Osborne) have been playing it a lot cooler than Missou’s admins.
LikeLike
That isn’t to say Nebraska doesn’t want to or won’t go if invited, they will. Agreed though Missouri has been acting like the child screaming pick me pick me! Nebraska has been handling things more professionally.
LikeLike
Can you blame them? Their best teams in years were passed over when it came down to bowl selections.
LikeLike
Yes and no.
1) the Big 12 bowl selection order isn’t locked in. Missouri has traditionally not traveled well to bowl games. From a bowl organizers perspective, I can see picking a lower team that you believe will travel better.
2) related to this, the only times Missouri regularly sells out their stadium is when Texas or Nebraska visit Columbia. For a school located almost inbetween KC and StL that doesn’t instill a lot of confidence.
3) Missouri’s bogus outrage over the inequality of the Big 12 revenue sharing is borderline lunacy. The majority of years they are better off under the current system than they would be under equal revenue sharing.
My thing against Missouri is that it appears they are about to get one heck of a deal given their circumstances. Sit back and act like you deserve it instead of acting like a child saying pick me, pick me and leaking confidential information to the media.
LikeLike
Well, color me unimpressed. Maybe it comes from being a Big East fan and having the constant threat of a 7-6 Notre Dame team take our hard-earned bowl invitation, but I think bowl considerations should be based on record, not expected fanbase turnout. Anything else is just perpetuating the system of haves and have-nots, stifling Mizzou’s potential to grow and reward their fanbase.
Miami was the beneficiary of the Big East’s unequal distribution, but they still recognized that it was fundamentally flawed and decided to take the lesser, but more stable ACC check.
LikeLike
If we are to believe the 4 schools (Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, ND)were in fact invited, and I tend to think they prob were, then it would seem Texas has either said no already or won’t receive an invite. If there was a chance Texas would join the Big 10, they would have been invited up front ahead of Missouri and probably Nebraska. To think they are the consolation prize if ND says no doesn’t make much sense to me. Wouldn’t the Big 10 prefer both ND and Texas? Even if it meant they had to take Texas A&M instead of Missouri or Nebraska?
LikeLike
The most likely possibility is that the 16th spot is left open for Texas as soon as A&M finds its own path to the Pac-10 or SEC.
It matches the other rumors that Texas would join if Notre Dame did, and it allows Texas to look like it was the last one to escape the Big 12 going bust (after Colorado/A&M/Missouri/Nebraska).
LikeLike
Heard the sportswriter for that story (from KC) on a Nebraska radio station– says he’s not backing down from the story and says his sources are reliable, fwiw. Said again that the BT hopes to have this “done” by the end of July….
LikeLike
Texas would likely be the most coveted team of all. If TX comes to the Big Ten, Notre Dame Nebraska and Missouri would beg for membership. I think that Rutgers is a slam dunk.
LikeLike
An interesting post from Texas A&M site: This is an email so the truly relevant part is at the bottom of the post.
I have been reading some of the posters on the TU site and on Frank the Tank site. Texas seems to want the Big Ten really bad and really seem to want to go by themselves. They don’t really care where we go. Not relevant to them, just their own self satisfaction. About the same as we feel about Tech. Tech can make their own deal with whichever conference they want as long as we get what we want.
Now if you give this talk with the president of A&M credibility and I think that I do, I think there are three things important.
1. The powers that be are very aware of conference realignment and want to make sure their school, our university, cuts a good deal.
2. Politically, TU goes nowhere unless A&M has a good deal with a conference of their choice. Big Ten, SEC or Pac Ten.
3. “Now your are thinking like me” could just as easily mean the Pac Ten as much as the SEC. As a University President, it would be my guess that Bowin might like the academics in the Pac Ten better. A lot of better thinking Aggies do.
The fact is that the SEC travels and would probably, regularly fill up a 100,000 seat stadium and the Pac Ten might not? And the money and the TV ratings would probably be higher annually. But Bowin did not say SEC. He just confirmed that the AGS could go their separate way. Two bad things about the SEC. They are not nicknamed the South Eastern Cheaters conference for nothing. If the SEC expands by one team in the West and one team in the East, the AGS are looking good. If the SEC goes two and two, the land thieves would probably go too and no other school is in their league when it comes to cheating.
Should TU go Pac Ten, then I think that we go with them. Maybe even TU, A&M, Colorado and (Utah????????????) I believe we will see more and more concrete statements before June is ended. I don’t think there is any question that change is coming. The very, very, very worst scenario would be to just keep the Big Twelve intact minus two or three schools.
——-Original Message——-
From: charlie WOW
Interesting…BUT I see no way tu goes to the Big 10 or Pac 10 while we go SEC. They know that would give us a huge recruiting advantage over them. Maybe we can hope they are just too arrogant to think it will matter.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From:
You don’t get Scout but this is today’s post
Posted: Today 12:58 PM
There is DEFINITELY something going on (big 12 dying) (14 votes)
I just visited with Bowen loftin (A&M Prez) and I asked about the situation. He took a long pause and said, “we are comitted to the big 12 as long as we can. But I am already working to make sure that we have the best options possible for Texas a&m when the time comes.”
he added that the big 12 has had issues since it formed because Texas has all the TV sets and schools like Nebraska and Missouri are upset and have always been upset because they don’t get an equal piece of the pie…which spells out why they’re the first to leave.
Posted: Today 1:24 PM
Re: There is DEFINITELY something going on (big 12 dying) (9 votes)
I’ll add more now that I’m in front of my computer.
I’ve interviewed a lot of people over the years, and you can just tell when someone is holding back from saying what they want to say, and that’s how he responded to my question.
He even came up to me after the meeting and TOLD ME that “I had to be careful what I could say right now” and we visited as he walked to his car. I asked him how joined to Texas we are. He asked “Did you read Burka’s blog yesterday? About Perry not allowing Texas to get a better deal and leave A&M in the cold?” I said, yeah, I understand that, but if we could get a better deal with the SEC and they go to the Big Ten, why would we not do that?
His response: “Now you’re thinking more like me.”
LikeLike
The Paul Burka blog referenced:
He’s a longtime Texas political writer who sometimes gets it wrong but is very well connected in state politics.
LikeLike
Hard to take him seriously when he says the BT wants Neb. to come in and be non-competitive with OSU and UM…..
LikeLike
Odd, I thought the only real headscratcher in the post was the idea of Oklahoma to the PAC-14.
LikeLike
Yes, didn’t you notice the tremendous difference between Texas and Nebraska in the Big 12 Championship a few months ago? Colt McCoy laughing so hard at the weakling Suh that he had to fling himself to the ground? Nebraska is a cupcake and you want no part of Texas!
LikeLike
@Wes:
Interesting. Making the assumption here that Texas is, in fact, looking at the Big Ten positively, is A&M interested as well? I guess I’m just confused why A&M would see the Pac10 as a better fit than the BigTen w/Texas/Nebraska/Missouri. Better money, built-in rivalries, and better time zones.
Maybe this has been covered and I just missed it.
LikeLike
Making the assumption here that Texas is, in fact, looking at the Big Ten positively, is A&M interested as well? I guess I’m just confused why A&M would see the Pac10 as a better fit than the BigTen w/Texas/Nebraska/Missouri. Better money, built-in rivalries, and better time zones.
Splitting up and going to a P14 or P16 could help A&M escape the ‘UT’s little brother’ label. After a decade of success, A&M has had a decade of supreme frustration in football while their hated rival has won a nat’l championship. Pragmatism suggests the path to renewed success is more likely through a Pac16 then a B16 or SEC. Not as many power schools to compete with, so getting to the conference championship is more realistic out west. Playing in the conference title game of one of 3 super conferences will do more for recruiting than mediocrity in the SEC.
LikeLike
Playoff, I sure cannot find fault with this logic either.
LikeLike
I can’t see Stanford and Cal wanting A&M on board, at least without TX….
LikeLike
Academically I can’t really see how they could complain…they’re a Top100 ARWU (world ranking, not US) with tons of research. Maybe they’re not Texas, but they are VERY respectable.
Culturally I could maybe see a difference, but if you believe the rumor TAMU was listening when the Pac10 came calling.
Personally I think the above poster was right…TAMU see’s its chances for success as being better in the Pac10 and the Pac10’s academic prestige will help elevate its considerable standing even more…neither would happen IMO, in the SEC.
LikeLike
Manifesto, I don’t think you missed anything. I have a theory that, rather in line with this board’s thoughts, that the Big Ten really wants Notre Dame and Texas. Personally, I don’t think ND will fit, but I think most of you have wanted ND for a long time and, deep down, you still do. So, if ND and Texas are your prize catches but ND is still holding off, no real directions can be made. If ND comes aboard then you can announce Texas as the 16th university to be added. If ND does not then you can announce Texas and A&M as the two additions. No brainer to me even though a lot of my peers are blinded by the sizzle and geography of the SEC. Guess June will start spilling some secrets to us all.
LikeLike
BTW, my easier schedule argument is not intended as a slight of aTm. It surely is also a big factor in UT’s interest in the P10.
And now for something completely different. Here’s a chance to follow on Twitter, um, Coach Leach:
http://twitter.com/Coach_MikeLeach
LikeLike
Interesting… Personally, I’d love A&M in the Big Ten, but if not, I’m sure they can look after itself just fine. Like Oklahoma, they’re a big-time school and will find a home if the B12 collapses.
LikeLike
I would have less than no interest in A&M being in the BT if TX was not attached…..talk about a different culture….
LikeLike
Interesting article: “To go, or not to go? That’s the question for expansion candidates”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/05/12/expansion-candidates/
With respect to Texas: they are said to be exploring a statewide TV channel which could feature Texas A&M as well as other Texas schools. Such a channel could deepen the connection between state supported schools and Texas voters.
Why the SEC or PAC 10 may be of interest for Texas:
“For the SEC, which dominates the TV markets in the south, westward expansion would open up huge markets in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.
The league would try to woo Texas with the fact that SEC schools retain control over local television rights, and it probably would mention the fact that Florida — located in a state with six million fewer citizens — has a local TV deal with Fox Sports that pays $10 million a year. Texas could command significantly more.
Of course, the Pac-10 probably wouldn’t pass up the chance to take a shot at Texas. Since that league is entering TV contract negotiations in the next year, it probably could give Texas favorable terms. Pac-10 officials also might mention that while Texas would be only the third AAU member in the SEC, it would be the seventh in the Pac-10 (eighth if Colorado is already on board).”
————–
Another possible reason Texas might want to be linked to Texas A&M: a statewide channel would be more likely to be successful if they were cooperating.
——————–
Somehow I also believe if Texas wanted to join the Big 10 they would want a fellow Texas team. The rumor that Nebraska, Missouri, ND, RU were given assurances makes no sense if Texas is still in play.
LikeLike
Now isn’t THAT interesting…the only problem is if the SEC expanded with Texas, they’d probably only want Texas and TAMU, but with only those schools Texas would be cutting off a significant number of Texas based schools from its possible programing. Then again if they were making a deal through the local Fox Sports Network they probably wouldn’t need so many schools for content.
Then again (again) with Fox Sports Net they wouldn’t be making nearly as much money as they could with their own channel (due to advertising) which might not be up and operational for quite some time (let alone profitable)…
LikeLike
Re Texas channel option (PSUGuy)
Hopefully someone far more knowledgable than I will comment.
However, as an outsider, my impression is a Texas channel might feature not just Texas and A&M but even high school sports in Texas and perhaps other Texas schools if their conference membership permitted it.
In short, my impression is such a channel might be viewed as not simply a revenue stream which could be significant but a way to achieve a deeper connection with voters and fans that could be a platform to win ongoing support for higher education in Texas.
LikeLike
Like I’ve said before, getting their own channel would be a fairly large undertaking and take years (5+ ?) before it was up and running, let alone profitable. And if it is their own channel, the SEC might look down on one of its teams including other conference teams on it. Higshcool might not be an issue (couldn’t see how it would).
On the other hand if it goes the (apparently) Florida route and signs a deal with FSN it will not have the ability toleverage other teams and lose out on the advertising dollars vice what it could get with its own channel.
Point being, the only true “optimal” choice at this moment is for Texas is to join a conference with its own tv channel. Whether that’s true for its long range goals is another matter.
LikeLike
Point of clarification…
“another conference’s teams”. Ie putting a MWC or Big12 (what remains) team on the Texas (in the SEC) channel.
It just strikes me as a “ND-esque” type of deal that the SEC would frown on.
LikeLike
Re clarification (PSUGuy)
This is purely speculative,
but if Texas was to consider a Texas channel,
the channel might be about promoting all Texas sports featuring Texas and A&M, but also including Texas Tech and Houston as future tier one schools where the goal was to promote a connection between the publically funded schools and the fans and citizens of the state.
In short the revenue aspect of the channel might be supplemented by the broader goal of PR and connection to promote Texas schools on a statewide basis.
The article cited above simply points out the PAC 10 or SEC might offer more flexibility IF such a channel was a big deal to Texas.
LikeLike
I get it, I just don’t buy the SEC allowing any school to join forces with teams outside the league to create a product that would probably be in direct competition with it and not allow the sharing of its profits with the league (speaking to football here).
The Texas channel, with teams outside the conference, is a far cry from getting FSN to host some local content like Florida has. I mean if people think Texas runs the Big12 now, what will they say about that in the SEC?
LikeLike
The question about this news regarding Rutgers, Notre Dame, Missouri, and Nebraska joining the BT is whether this was a conjecture that got out of hand, a real news story someone really uncovered or a planted leak.
I don’t think it was something uncovered, in that none of these schools could have been invited before the BT presidents vote. So if someone uncovered something, they got it wrong and don’t fully understand the process.
The fact is that only four teams were mentioned, yet an odd number of schools will almost certainly be added.
So unless this story was simply made up, my guess is that this was a purposefully-planted leak. It may have been put out to let Texas and its alums know that the B12 is collapsing. And that a couple big-time programs (Nebraska, ND) were coming to the B10. And that a foray was being made into New York-area TV markets. And there was just one spot left.
You could make case, too, that the leak was meant for ND eyes. They’re being told Rutgers is leaving the BEast and that if ND isn’t interested in the BT, UConn and Syracuse will likely come on board, which will adversely affect ND’s home conference. Again, the idea being expressed could be that the BT is the preferred home.
In fact, you could make the case that this one leak serves both purposes–to grease the wheels for both Texas and Notre Dame to join, which, if true, would be a bit of genius on the part of whoever may have dreamed it up.
Finally, the story was also worded in a way (ie, that invitations were given out) that can be truthfully denied. Which makes me, again, think it was a leak.
LikeLike
I think this story was pretty obviously an MU plant. Look at the names dropped: ND (which got the story onto national outlets like ESPN’s crawl), Nebraska and RU represent two of the strategic plays we’ve been talking about (RU=the NYC dream; Nebraska, along with ND, the “home run” name school). MU, for all of its virtues, is the “brussels sprouts,” the side order to the steak represented by the other 3. And of course it was leaked to a KC radio station. Delany, ND and RU would not have chosen that outlet. A source out of Nebraska would be more likely to have broken the story locally.
LikeLike
If the story is just a plant by Missouri, what’s the purpose? What does Missouri gain by either planting a false rumor or leaking a true story? All it would seem to do is jeopardize a possible invitation.
LikeLike
Only way you´d see a Missouri plant in this situation is if they weren´t getting the attention from the Big 10 that they wanted. Maybe – but that doesn´t seem to be the case.
That leaves us with either a Missouri leak or a Big Ten plant. I´m going with the latter, since Missouri´s inclusion in the first place seems to be a bridge to Texas.
From the Big 10´s perspective, if you´re planting this story, KC seems like the logical place to do it – closest and most connected to Texas and the Big 12 within the expansion area. The goal here, as other posters have described, is to destabilize the Big 12 and get the gears in motion for a UT move to the Big 10 . . . Seems to make sense
LikeLike
At what point in time does Missouri hurt their chances by continually leaking information to the press? It’s clear the Big Ten wants to do this out of the spotlight, but is seems that every leak is attributed to Missouri officials. How long before the Big Ten decides that despite all its plusses, the University isn’t run like Big Ten University? Is there a possibility that the Big Ten decides that Kansas will bring roughly the same market as Missouri without all the headaches?
LikeLike
Mike — best Mizzou-related post of the day!!
If this were a lineup of chicks at a bar Mizzou would be in a halter-top, mini-skirt, and mouthing ‘… I’m not wearing panties.’
I am guessing that they have already been told to stop their shameless flirting. The B10 will probably still invite them if the numbers work.
But think about it from this perspective: What if they don’t get an invite? Answer: They are so screwed!
You think Texas and Oklahoma are sticking it to them now? Just wait and watch what happens if they have to crawl back into the conference. In the interim, the odds of teams with worse records getting to better bowls is approximately 100%.
MIzzou is a classic example of 1)emotion getting the better of logic; and 2) the inability of keeping everyone on the reservation.
What have they gained from their whining? Nothing. At least nothing that could not have been achieved by privately telling the B10 that they would accept an invite. Of course it’s possible that elements in Mizzou have just ‘gone rogue.’
For entertainment purposes only, I hope Mizzou doesn’t get an invite.
LikeLike
>>
If this were a lineup of chicks at a bar Mizzou would be in a halter-top, mini-skirt, and mouthing ‘… I’m not wearing panties.’
<<
I see you've been to Harpo's (www.harpos.com) before…
/zing
LikeLike
From the beginning, Missouri had the appearance of begging to join the B10 for various reasons, including academics, more equitable revenue sharing, previous bowl snubs, and the Missouri gov being open to the B10. Essentially, most of the roadblocks for other teams are not their for Missouri so they become the obvious choice. For this reason, it makes sense for the Big 10 to plant information coming from Missouri because everyone assumes that: a) Missouri has informally been in contact with the B10, b) they aren’t shy to deny their interest, and c) due to previous leaks that someone has a source somewhere in Missouri.
From the B10’s perspective, this is very advantageous because: 1) Missouri cooperates to enhance their chance of joining the B10, 2) with the Nebraska rumor, it carries more weight coming from a B12 brethern, 3) basically indicates to any other B12 team that Missouri and Nebraska have more leverage as they are considering other options, 4) means that no matter what, the effort by Beebe to call the question is meaningless because who is going to trust whatever Missouri says, and 5) serves to let the nation know that ND’s fate is in their hands.
With regard to ND, if they do want they want now (remain independent) then it doesn’t take much to read between the lines that the B10 will look elsewhere since only 4 invites had been given (theoretically). Meaning that the B10 has at least one other school in mind to get to 16 if ND comes. Thus, only one more school will be needed if ND doesn’t join. But if they remain independent they may set off the chain of events that forces them later to be reactive rather than proactive. Its that delicate middle road like in the Cold War where you didn’t want to get left behind but too much aggression would get you obliterated to.
For me, the leak was brilliant…gives Texas and ND some idea of who we are looking at. Doesn’t put pressure on Texas so it allows them to remain a choice down the road. It does raise the concern to ND though that they aren’t the only ones coming and so that the realignment is massive and will touch the Big East. Simply gives more people more to consider the realities of each solution.
If ND
LikeLike
President of U Conn is taking over as President of Illinois effective 7/1.
Wouldn’t hurt U Conn’s chances, I would think……..
LikeLike
True. Illinois’ president in the 1980s, Stanley Ikenberry, went to UIUC from Penn State. His relationship with PSU President Bryce Jordan was what brought the Lions in to the Big 10. But UConn will still have to qualify for AAU status within a certain time frame as a condition of a Big 10 invitation.
LikeLike
I don’t have a link for an actual article or anything but did anyone else hear this?
ESPN Radio reporting that Mike Slive has been in preliminary discussions with 4 schools: FSU, Miami, GT, and WVU.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=434733
Makes me think that this is in response to a perception or knowledge that the Big1o will pull a coup with Texas, ND, Nebraska, Rutgers and 1 of (UCONN, PITT, Mizzou or Syracuse).
LikeLike
Makes me think that this is in response to a perception or knowledge that the Big1o will pull a coup with Texas, ND, Nebraska, Rutgers and 1 of (UCONN, PITT, Mizzou or Syracuse).
Or UT and aTm to the P10, or both to the B10, or split between them, or UT’s SEC negotiating demands being way too high, or…
For example, one rumor had UT wanting to bring aTm to a SEC West of LSU, AR, Ol’ MS, MSU, and Vandy. We can presume AL, AU, TN, GA, SC, KY, and FL were not amused.
LikeLike
Well if what the Memphis AD said about Texas not taking the Pac-10 calls is true, then most likely Texas is focused on a Big Ten invitation if Slive feels like he has to go to those 4 schools.
Plus, those 4 actually make sense for the SEC even with the overlap because they can command national ratings, which is what Slive is after if he can’t get Texas’ markets.
LikeLike
Oh the other possibility of course is that Texas has told everyone that they’re staying put in the Big 12, but it doesn’t seem logical for them to make such a move before knowing how things will shake out…
LikeLike
Far be it for me to discredit such a rumor, but I’ve been streaming ESPNradio today, and Colin Cowherd’s just finished several hours of gassing on about LeBron. The link is to ncaabbs, and there’s nothing on http://espn.go.com/blog/sec (Chris Low’s blog) at ESPN (at of 4pm ET 5/12) about this.
LikeLike
If the SEC shows interest in picking off ACC schools, then Maryland is in play as a Big Ten expansion candidate.
LikeLike
I would be shocked if MD ever gave any serious consideration to joining the BT. IMO, they are joined at the hip with Clemson and the NC schools….
LikeLike
I tend to believe that too, but it depends on how it all falls out as to whether there is an opening.
Sure it’s mostly a pipe dream right now, but if the SEC moves while the Big Ten is at 14, then there might be an opportunity to grab Maryland if the ACC falls apart.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod I think you mean Virginia, not Clemson. Right?
LikeLike
Frank, I think this SEC rumor will keep you busy through the June BT Presidents’ meeting…
I definately see the SEC making a play for some ACC teams, even if the $s might be questionable. I have a feeling they don’t want to behind behind the BT, even in # ot teams….a pride thing….
AS for interest, I went to the GT, Miami, and FSU sites….the FSU site had a poll where it was almost 50-50 SEC/ACC. I’d say the sentiment on the other forums was similiar.
I do find it very curious that was no mention of TX, A&M, or Oklahoma…does make you wonder if the TZ Pres. expressed no interest, and the others are tagging along with that—otherwise, OK and A&M would seem like obvious candidates, certainly over and above WV and GT.
Also found it curious that Clemson and VT were not mentioned…Rumor is that Clemson reported it was not interested. Clemson was an original member of the ACC, and that might make sense from that angle. As far as VT goes, they may be unwilling, due to political pressures, to seperate from Va. That was my operating assumption prior to the report, and there absence may be some confirmation of that…Or…the report may be bs…..
If there is fire here, it will be interesting to see if BT expansion is affected…certainly U Conn, Syracuse, and Pitt would all be strong ACC expansion candidates…..
LikeLike
Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, and UConn to the ACC would be a significant grab for the ACC.
LikeLike
Also… assume any 4 schools leave the ACC, now you can add USF, L-ville, or Cincy.
I suspect that perhaps the ACC would dance with Notre Dame as all-sports-except football. Why not? Now it is the ACC that has Syracuse, Notre Dame, and UConn. Tell me an ACC conference doesn’t get viewers in the Big Apple with that.
LikeLike
Still posting remotely, so I’m unable to do more detailed posting and responding, but I do have to say that I’m amused that Paul Burka had a blog post on this the day after I posted the anonymous comments of one of the “keenest observers of the Texas political scene” who seemed to be making many of the same obervations Burka did in Texas Monthly. 🙂
LikeLike
The espn breakdown– nothing new here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5181741
LikeLike
Defending the B12 is such a thankless job.
I don’t know the TV numbers, but I’ve worked over 15 years in politics, so I’ve seen more than a few instances when the economics of a matter failed in the face of egos, competing (and incompatible) agendas, and miscalculation.
Universities are political places. Money matters — a lot. But there are competing power centers that have different agendas and may find that they will net a loss from a move that profits the university. University presidents are not all-powerful (just ask PSU Pres Graham Spanier — I think Paterno has Spanier’s testicles stored in his freezer).
Consider this — what does Mack Brown think? Does Mack Brown want the challenge that would go with competing in the B10 and a larger natl stage? Or, does he want the easiest path to the BCS championship? I think Wyoming would vote for the former. Now, Mack Brown can’t move the dial on his own. But, is he able to rope together enough boosters to make his opinion count? Can he collect enough financial and political backing to derail a trip to the B10? Are there enough big $$ boosters who value a natl championship over joining the B10?
What does Bob Stoops think? Are Brown and Stoops of the same mind — save the B12? Can they pull together enough like-minded TX and OK boosters?
Continuing with the ‘B12 is alive theme’ — would Texas or Oklahoma to SEC really b possible? Do Saban or Miles want to deal with Texas intra-league? I doubt it. Does Urban Meyer want to play Texas in Atlanta? I think these guys have more than a little pull.
Money is powerful, but there may be more powerful political interests that keep the Big 12 going. Maybe the forces of reaction at Texas and Oklahoma miscalculate and end up stuck in a Big East of the Plains.
The thing about politics is that the majority of it is opaque to the public — and university politics is no different. What’s really going on at these schools won’t be known until the dominoes start falling. I just think the comments on this blog have not considered all the political forces and agendas.
Money doesn’t always win — no matter how important it is. If money always won, the B10 would add Texas and ND in a second (and both schools would accept), then pick either Nebraska or Rutgers for 14.
The demise or decay of B12 may happen, but I think that story is far from certain.
LikeLike
Bitterness from the Big 8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051102473.html?hpid=news-col-blog
LikeLike
I read that. Ashamed she’s a KU grad. Doesn’t know that Marquette and Depaul are west of Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I kind of laughed at most of that. The Big 12 doesn’t even claim the Big 8’s history, so the Big 8 is dead as far as Nebraska/Missouri and even Kansas is concerned.
LikeLike
That was pretty ripe hackery. Look lady, most people don’t give a damn about Neb/OU on Thanksgiving. None of us really care who’s playing that weekend as long as someone is. That’s why I cheer for the Lions every year on T-day, because I don’t give a shit who wins. Priorities:
1 Turkey
1.5 Pie
2 Football
LikeLike
Not that I care about this article or its writer, but she did say that Notre Dame is west of most Big East teams.
And if people don’t care about Nebraska/Oklahoma, good luck making people care about Nebraska/Indiana.
LikeLike
HoosierMike – that’s the difference between the SEC and the Big Ten.
In SEC country, our priorities are:
1. Football
1.5. Pecan Pie
2. Turkey (smoked or fried)
LikeLike
Man, pecan pie is good.
LikeLike
You know another pecan-based sweet treat that is amazing and that I’ve only seen in the south? Pralines. Dear God.
LikeLike
Really? One day a year you can’t give thanks and pay honor and deference to a massive bird that will complement football watching in a way that only chili on Super Bowl Sunday can rival? Perhaps we should have parted ways 150 years ago, because that is un-American. I said good day! 🙂
LikeLike
HoosierMike – we actually shoot turkeys in the wild. Does that make things better or worse?
LikeLike
Uh, being that killing you own turkey for Thanksgiving is completely badass, I would say better!
Previous statement rescinded.
LikeLike
I think she really overstates the geographical difference between staying in the Big 12 and moving to the Big Ten. If you are Nebraska and Missouri, does it really matter if you are flying to play four schools in Texas or flying to play UM, MSU, PSU, and OSU? The flight times can’t be all that different. Also, especially for Missouri, there would be new rivals in the neighboring states (like Illinois, NW, and Iowa). Plus, if Neb and Mo come together, they would have each other still.
LikeLike
That was a terrible article. She’s all over the map and talking out of both sides of her mouth.
If you want to make a fan-based, impassioned plea, that you don’t like change, that’s fine.
But don’t do that, and then blame everything on Jim Delaney. “This is what college football has become: mergers and acquisitions. Just like Wall Street.” Seriously? There have been earth-shaking moves ever since Penn State came to the Big Ten twenty years ago, but only NOW is shifting conference alignments a bad thing.
And of course, she blames Jim Delaney for ruining some precious rivalries, and saying “to hell with”… Kansas-Missouri, and Nebraska-Oklahoma.
Addressing Nebraska-Oklahoma; I think the Big XII did a fine enough job of ruining this rivalry, SINCE THEY DON’T PLAY EVERY YEAR AND HAVEN’T PLAYED AROUND THANKSGIVING SINCE 1996. Yet, Jim Delaney is evil and ruining this rivalry.
But seriously. That’s not even the most laughable part of this story. Jim Delaney is evil and ruining the college football experience for everyone because this means the end of the Kansas-Missouri football rivalry. The KANSAS-MISSOURI football rivalry.
SURELY THIS IS THE END OF THE PURE AND INNOCENT STUDENT-ATHLETE ERA AND WE ARE NOW IN A TIME WHEN COLLEGE SPORTS IS ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY SINCE KANSAS AND MISSOURI CAN NO LONGER HAVE A RIVALRY!!!!
There are exactly 932 better arguments against expansion in the comments section of this post alone than what she has presented in her article.
LikeLike
I’ve said before on this blog…we should start releasing these posts to the AP. More research goes into most of these posts than most of the crap that comes out of the talking heads!
LikeLike
@djinndjinn and greg:
I want to thank you two for illustrating some more examples of why being part of the CIC is so beneficial to member institutions.
Those are some very important things to me, and I believe if Notre Dame turns down an invitation to join the Big Ten, they are saying football is more important than academics. Fr. Hesburgh helped ND shift from being a school with great football to being a school with solid academics as well. If football can again allow ND to improve as an academic institution on all levels, then why not do it and join the Big Ten?
LikeLike
I can’t relate to the staying independent mindset. If that’s the desire there, okay by me, but I can’t say I quite get it. There’s almost a fervent irrationality about the independence obsession (at least from my non-domer perspective).
It’s hard to do everything well–even for a university 3x as large as ND. So if all these BT schools (larger than ND) feel it’s productive to cooperate–and if this CIC cooperation has inspired some 1,000 similar cooperative inter-university alliances (according to the CIC) with some 200 more in the works, I don’t understand why ND feels they’re better off alone. But I’m not in their shoes, I suppose.
LikeLike
Independence allowed Notre Dame to flourish in a time when, as hindsight taught us, the conditions were perfect for a school like ND to grow. America has changed. College football has changed. Catholicism is not the “weird cult foreigners belong to.” Notre Dame is firmly established as a strong Catholic university with a proud football tradition.
We don’t have to go it alone in the same ways we used to anymore. It’s not necessarily “us against the world” (as in the ways of the past) anymore. We can join a conference and still live by our virtues and commitment to excellence.
I think the problem facing most alumni and fans is misunderstanding. Joining the Big Ten/ CIC and engaging in academic exchange with other institutions does not mean Notre Dame has sacrificed its Catholicism on a grand, secular altar.
ND is unlikely to strike a sweetheart deal with the Big Ten, but I don’t think the Big Ten would have much of a problem with ND joining on the condition that ND must be allowed to maintain its Catholicism, wholly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Big Ten will force ND to engage in research it doesn’t want to. If I am wrong, I apologize. I just believe ND has an incredible amount to gain from the partnership.
LikeLike
Feeling the need to jump in. Even last time expansion was publicly discussed, the CIC was generally considered the single greatest PRO for joining. For those of us against it, the CIC was the only real PRO about the Big Ten. I think the issues re “instituional independence” and “maintaining the Catholic character” are not attached to CIC membership per se. Perhaps with the AAU? IDK, something had to make CUA so uncomfortable they resigned.
Perhaps behind the scenes, TPTB are negotiating a Bill of ND Rights to answer such concerns. If not, they should be.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – Yes, I don’t know why there have been some intimations that ND didn’t want to join the Big Ten because of the CIC. I was always under the impression that it was exactly the opposite where the CIC was the biggest draw on the academic side.
LikeLike
Consider this — what does Mack Brown think? Does Mack Brown want the challenge that would go with competing in the B10 and a larger natl stage? Or, does he want the easiest path to the BCS championship? I think Wyoming would vote for the former.
I take it that you are unaware that WY was a last minute replacement after both Arkansas and Utah dropped Texas from their 2009 schedules. You know, the Arkansas that needed ref intervention to stop an upset at Florida this season. The Utah that had just humiliated SEC West champ AL in the Sugar Bowl, the SEC’s backyard. That would have been coming off an undefeated season where they likely were the best team in the country, added to UT’s schedule when Urban Meyer was still their coach and drawing the notice of schools like FL. UT had a great OOC schedule last year, until the 2 best teams on it dropped out.
Last year’s meme of the whiners that UT only schedules weaklings was an urban myth.
LikeLike
Playoffs — you didn’t address the main issue. The point is that Mack Brown MAY have a different agenda than the AD or the university — an easier path to the BCS and that he might be able to muster the political clout to derail going to the B10.
Do you disagree with that?
LikeLike
Sure but he’s going to toe the party line.
There’s no way Mack Brown or Bob Stoops wants to sit around in a conference with a shrinking national stage.
The fact is we take it for granted that a 1 or 2 loss SEC team can go to the national championship right now.
Based on what Big Ten expansion looks like, the same may be true of the Big Ten if Nebraska and Notre Dame are at play.
Do Texas and Oklahoma want to sit around in the Big 12 if everyone’s going to be talking about the SEC and Big Ten every year?
You still want to go to the biggest stage and win there even if it becomes more difficult, if it guarantees you the best shot at the national championship…
Sure, they’re more likely to go 13-0 in the Big 12, but post-expansion 13-0 SEC and 13-0 Big Ten teams will be favored…
LikeLike
Well it has been fun, but adios. The last post gave me a message of “You’re posting too much. Slow down.”
Let’s see, 5 posts yesterday, 5 today (this will make 6) for me, while another person made literally 3 dozen just yesterday.
Seems misdirected, but I’ll respect the owner’s wishes.
LikeLike
I think that just happens if you post more than once within 60 seconds. I got that message after my “Adding” post, but just reposted about 30 seconds later and was good to go.
LikeLike
Yeah Playoffs Now!, I don’t think that’s directed at you personally…
LikeLike
@Playoffs:
It’s a spam feature for WordPress. Usually it’s a 60 second timer, that’s all. No personal. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for the info, guys.
Ya’ll have probably covered this before, but here’s someone noting how quads could be played in just a 5 game conference season:
http://www.hawkeyenation.com/football/how-four-big-ten-divisions-can-work
Basically your quad plays an entire other pod plus 1 protect game, for 8 total games (3 your pod-4 rotating pod-1protect.) Equivalent of having 4 protected games and playing the other schools once every 3 years. Existing teams may grumble, but it can protect pretty much all the major rivalries and limiting to 8 conference games may be the only way to lure in ND. Seems like a decent compromise.
Say TX, aTm, ND, MO, and Rut are the 5 invites. Here are a couple of options:
Example A, if ND prefers a game in Texas every year:
TX, aTm, ND, PU
MN, WI, IA, NW
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
MO, IL, PSU, Rut
Protect games are ND-Rut, MN-MI, IU-PU, IL-NW, PSU-OSU, and perhaps TX-MO, WI-MSU, IA-aTm
Example B, if ND prefers playing PSU annually and in Texas every other year:
TX, aTm, MO, IL
MN, IA, WI, NW
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
ND, PU, PSU, Rut
Protect games of TX-ND, MN-MI, IL-NW, IU-PU, OSU-PSU, IA-MO, and aTm-Rut
I’m ok with either.
LikeLike
Oops. Ya’ll have probably covered this before, but here’s someone noting how quads could be played in just a 5 game conference season:
Should read 8 game conf season
LikeLike
For my dream B16 scenario, additions of TX, aTm, ND, GT, and Rut:
TX, aTm, PU, and NW (Chicago trips!)
MN, WI, IA, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
ND, GT, PSU, Rut
Protect games of TX-ND, IL-NW, IU-PU, MN-MI, PSU-OSU, and perhaps aTm-GT, IA-MSU, and WI-Rut
Could be ND’s preference schedule given the format and 5 new teams.
IMHO this is the best B16 expansion combo and schedule possible. Some could argue NE over GT, but I like the geographic dominance for the conference with a school in the heart of SEC country. Rut puts the B16 in the NYC national media hub (I’m not talking about cable penetration.) Two of ND, GT, PSU, and WI every year available to play in the Meadowlands, plus MI, OSU, and TX every 6 years.
LikeLike
Let’s say the rumors are true and MU and UNL become B10 members sooner rather than later. If that happens what does that do to the possibility of Texas joining? My question is, would MU and UNL support Texas to the Big Ten, or actively campaign against them? Would MU and UNL even have a vote?
In the scenario that the B10 is 14 teams strong, by my math if the threshold is 70%, that means 10 votes will be required to confirm any new member(s). If we assume that MU and UNL both decide to vote “no,” and successfully persuade 3 other schools to vote “no,” is that a legitimate concern for Texas? Or might MU and UNL support Texas becoming a Big Ten member?
In the scenario that the new B10 members don’t have a vote, how would the existing B11 members vote? Remember, all that is needed is 4 “no” votes and new members remain on the outside looking in.
Frankly it would be very…interesting, to say the least, if UNL and MU were to wind up, again, in the same conference with Texas. I really think that if Texas was the preferred or ultimate B10 target that the B10 would work to get Texas in first, then let UNL and MU decide whether they want to rejoin with the Longhorns in a different conference.
The question is, if UNL and MU do become B10 members, are the prospects for Texas joining the B10 diminished?
LikeLike
They would have a vote on later additions when they’re a part of the conference; I don’t think that would happen till 2012 though.
But Texas is likely to join right after them or not at all, in which case it will be up to the original 11 members to vote on Texas.
I would think that Nebraska and Missouri would support Texas’ application since their goals are also to increase $ payouts.
Note that only Nebraska voted against staging the Big 12 CCG at Cowboy Stadium the next couple years, and both Missouri and Nebraska understand that the Big Ten treats equality as the most important goal in decision making, so maximizing Big Ten payouts would be their goal.
Also, let’s be honest, Nebraska and Missouri probably would abstain from any campaign for or against Texas because they’d want to defer to the original Big Ten members as to whether they want Texas. I don’t see either school trying to tip the boat as they’re getting integrated into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
As to your main question, the prospect of Texas joining the Big Ten can only increase with the inclusion of Nebraska and Missouri because of the hit that the Big 12 takes from their loss.
The addition of Nebraska and Missouri makes it more likely that Texas would want to join if it feels that a Longhorn Sports Network would not be as profitable as joining the Big Ten…
LikeLike
Mo and Neb would strongly support TX in the BIg 10…their beef is about TX making all the rules and keeping more of the $. Presumably that wouldn’t happen in the Big 10…….
LikeLike
No way in hell NU or MU would be so presumptuous as to weigh in against anyone being considered, much less proven commodities like Texas. We’re not crazy. How the Big Ten runs itself would be more than enough assurance to balance off any lingering concerns about Texas.
LikeLike
Exactly right, mushroomgod. I don’t see Delany as the type of person that would just roll over and let Texas interests run the conference. So I don’t think Nebraska or Missouri would care if Texas was invited one way or the other.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten wants to make inroads into NYC metro, instead of wasting their time and resources with a Rutgers invite, why don’t they schedule 4 Big Ten games a year at Giants Stadium? Or Yankee Stadium for the atmosphere. Every 3 years, each team gives up one game at home, and plays in NYC. Add Nebraska as the 12th team, and it’s an even 3-year rotation.
LikeLike
What team would give up home games to hold at Meadowlands Stadium other than Rutgers?
That’s partially the point of inviting Rutgers…; you’d get them to schedule all of their big games like Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/Nebraska/Notre Dame/Texas at Meadowlands Stadium.
That would bring you the NYC focus, but you need Rutgers to pull it off.
I could easily see Rutgers scheduling 1-2 home games at Meadowlands every year for the big name Big Ten teams…
LikeLike
Heh, I misunderstood what you were saying. Regardless, I think it makes the most sense for the Big Ten to add Rutgers while stipulating that Rutgers will hold 2-3 games at Meadowlands every year.
I do like your idea though and the way the J puts it.
LikeLike
That stipulation seems to go against the all-for-one, one-for-all ethic that has made the Big Ten a strong conference with happy members. If such a schedule ever happens, it ought to be at Rutgers discretion, just as next season’s Indiana vs PSU game in DC came at Indiana’s discretion.
LikeLike
Yea, it wouldn’t be implemented as a requirement, since that would be contradictory to the whole notion of the Big Ten, more of as a nudging from Delany as being in Rutgers’ best interest.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten ever goes to a 9-game conference schedule, I could envision it. 4-4-1 (home-away-neutral)
LikeLike
Because home games are worth way more money to the individual schools than a neutral game in NY could ever be. Schools like PSU, OSU and Michigan make upwards of $8 million on home football games, and that’s not counting the huge boost to the local economy in a place like State College. There’s no chance PSU ever gives up a home game for a neutral site game.
LikeLike
Ever?
1983 Kickoff Classic, Meadowlands.
Nebraska 44 Penn State 6.
LikeLike
Whatever happened to the Kickoff Classic? Great way to start off the season with two big teams. I miss it.
LikeLike
I think it was around 2000 that they were “outlawed” by the NCAA. At the time that basically amounted to ending the Kickoff Classic and the Pigskin Classic.
LikeLike
Now we’ve got the Chick-fil-A college kickoff, but that’s always ACC vs SEC in the Georgia Dome.
LikeLike
Pre-season classics don’t count, they were outside of the regular season scheduling allotment and they don’t exist anymore.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct on the kickoff type games. There are still instances of neutral site games, though, OU-BYU at JerryWorld just this last year for a recent example. Depends on the teams (generally involving one have and one not-so-have) and the payday that can be arranged. It’s not impossible that Penn State would give up a home date for one at the Meadowlands if the payday was better.
LikeLike
What I don’t understand is how Notre Dame fans think that joining the expanded Big 10 would make them a “regional” team. Are they really that stupid?
If the conference broke into two division and played everyone in the division and a couple teams from the other division, Notre Dame’s schedule could look like this:
Navy
USC
Georgia Tech
Nebraska
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Ohio State
Rutgers
Penn State
Indiana
Missouri or Texas
Are you telling me that top recruits wouldn’t be salivating to play a schedule like that? Even the lesser conference games would be two local rivalry games (IU, PU) and a game played in a major market (Rutgers). And most of those games would get lots of national attention.
LikeLike
It has to do with the % of their schedule that is open to play games with teams in other regions.
Considering that they are locked into playing USC and Navy, their scheduling would be by far the most locked in if they join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
But if you were playing the schedule I posted, which is very possible, why would you need to play more games in other regions?
You would be playing games in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Atlanta, Nebraska, Maryland, Los Angeles and possibly Texas? How much more national can you get than that?
LikeLike
Are there any games against Mountain time zone teams? Pacific Northwest team? Southwestern teams? Games against most of the BCS conferences?
Sorry, Domers are not interested in playing a Big Ten schedule. Why is this so hard to wrap your brain around?
LikeLike
It’s tough for me because they play 60% of a Big Ten schedule every year.
Take 3 games against B10 opponents, choose 4 others that would count as OOC – say, USC, WMU, Army and Navy – and that’s 7 of 12 games.
If there is such a need for a national schedule, why play UM, MSU, and PU year in and year out?
LikeLike
3 games becomes 60% of the schedule how?
Oh! By counting OOC games that every team in the country takes. Wait, still not enough. Oh! And you rounded up 58.3%, too.
Weak, dude, weak.
Apparently here’s the prototype Big Ten schedule
8 Conference games
1-2 MAC games
1 Div I-AA/FCS game
1 legit OOC game
No wonder ND scheduling confuses and frightens you.
LikeLike
I think that most observers understand the appeal of playing national powers from around the country. The problem is the difference between that and the reality of what ND is playing. You describe a typical Big Ten conference schedule as
“8 Conference games
1-2 MAC games
1 Div I-AA/FCS game
1 legit OOC game”
This schedule from a strength perspective is very equivalent to ND’s actual schedule (not the imaginary one that Domers think they play when they use this as an anti-conference angle). To wit:
1-2 MAC games=EMU and Tulsa (CUSA)
FCS game=Army
8 conference games=the seven games against BCS opponents and Navy
1 legit OOC=Utah?
The fact remains that needing 8 home/neutral site games a year for the NBC contract forces ND into 3-4 buy games a year. No BCS team has 4 buy games in a year.
I suppose my point is that independence from a scheduling perspective has become a glass cage. It provides the illusion of flexibility, but the hard facts of the television contract substantially constrains the possibilities to the point where the actual schedule is indistinguishable from what you deride.
LikeLike
“[I]ndependence from a scheduling perspective…provides the illusion of flexibility, but the hard facts of the television contract substantially constrains the possibilities to the point where the actual schedule is indistinguishable from what you deride.”
I don’t mean to insult the B10 schedules…except for the FCS games. You guys are better than that, seriously. I went over this more in the discussions in Frank’s last post. The standard B10 sched is great for both getting to bowls generally and the Rose Bowl particularly. I know those are every B10 team’s preseason goals.
The NBC scheduling demand changes are slowly being felt by the fanbase. We’d have probably noticed earlier, but we were distracted by our coaching issues of late. Y’all may laugh at the NDNation folks, but they were among the first to notice the problem. I’m not even sure if it’s fixable in the foreseeable with the BCS like it is.
P.S. Utah’s played in a couple BCS bowls, better than the overwhelming majority of BCS schools FWIW.
P.P.S. Army = SIU, Towson, EIU, UMass, No. Colorado (Isn’t that where the #2 punter stabbed the #1 punter?), S. Dakota U., Illinois State, WIU, YSU, and Austin Peay? Really?
LikeLike
Utah is a very quality opponent, especially for a buy game. I am somewhat surprised they agreed to it without even a 2 for 1. I think that Utah ranks well with the “legitimate” non-conference opponents of the top Big Ten teams (Alabama, Miami, Arizona).
You’re also right about the goals of Big Ten teams. Most in the conference view non-conference games as exhibition/pre-season games, which helps explain some of the scheduling.
Just for fun I looked at the record of Army over the last 10 years:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2000&end=2009&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct
They have the second worst record of any FBS team. I am certain there are many FCS teams that are better than the second worst FBS team. I realize there is a lot of history between Army and ND, but pretending that on a football level they are not currently FCS quality is disingenuous.
LikeLike
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=5598641&p=9&sto=MS_76858914
I wrote out a “sample” schedule for Notre Dame if they joined the Big 10. It certainly doesn’t have the geographical variety that they currently have as an independent but it does have yearly variations that keep it from being mundane like Big 10 schedules of the past.
Go down five comments on the link to “micahandme’s” post.
LikeLike
1. All ND games already get national attention…or at least national coverage.
2. The fact that’s there’s only one non-rivalry potential OOC game in that list is pathetisad.
3. I live in the Midwest, and I don’t want to watch that many midwestern teams. I can’t imagine being a Texas or Florida Five-star and wanting to play that schedule annually forever.
4. You left off *all* the traditionally deficient Big Ten squads.
5. I think about 1 in 6 Domers are from Indiana, so there’s no attraction to a “local” rivalry with IU, and minimal interest among Domers with the annual Purdue game.
6. How do you figure that’s not a heavily Midwestern schedule. Do you even know what ND schedules look like?
LikeLike
This year they play 5 non-bcs schools in a row. National schedule or not, that is a boring schedule.
LikeLike
Everyone knows ND fans are unhappy with this year’s schedule.
Just because y’all are used to Big Ten schedules doesn’t mean ND fans should be excited for them.
LikeLike
3. I live in the Midwest, and I don’t want to watch that many midwestern teams. I can’t imagine being a Texas or Florida Five-star and wanting to play that schedule annually forever.
See my schedule below:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/conservative-expansion-or-super-death-star-conference/#comment-63724
New teams are ND, TX, aTm, GT, Rut.
ND in a quad with GA Tech, PSU, and Rut.
8 conference games: 3 in your quad, 4 in 1 of the other 3 quads (rotated each year) and 1 protected annual rival game.
ND’s protected game is with TX.
Over 3 years under that schedule you’d play 4, 4, and 3 Midwestern teams per year. That’s 11 times over the 3 year cycle. ND is already playing a minimum of 9 Midwestern team per 3 years: MI, MSU, Purdue annually. So the conference schedule would not be much of an increase in Midwestern teams.
Plus those games would now be played in conference season when it is hard to book OOC teams. That leaves September open, when more schools are available to schedule.
Obviously not as many OOC games as being independent, but in conference you’d get the equivalent of 4: 2 games in Texas, GA, PA, or NJ every year, states ND has played in at least 12 times in the past 8 years (almost double that if you consider games in the Northeast within a few hours of NYC: MD, CT, and BC.) 2 more games with those 4 schools in S. Bend each year.
Leaves 4 or 5 games for USC, Navy, and others. You’d lose 1 or 2 home games, but that’s the compromise.
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB and Playoffs Now!
You both start with an aggressive regionally diverse 16 team line-up. Interesting, 4 of 11 potential opponents are outside the “Midwest”; five if you wanna count Penn State in Micahandme’s. Playoff’s has one fewer.
While preparing my reply at:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/conservative-expansion-or-super-death-star-conference/#comment-63746
I came across a Big Ten schedule grid off their official site
Click to access 2010fbschedulechart.pdf
It seems that Big Ten teams have very similar formulas to scheduling OOC. Every B10 team will only play 11 FBS opponents this year. Only NU plays more than one true OOC road game. 13 games league-wide are played against MAC opponents. The average is a 7-4-1 breakdown. Every B10 team plays a noted Homecoming game (ND has not required a homecoming game in decades). Do you see ND’s schedule doing the same in a few years?
I’ll try putting together some potential 2011 and 2012 schedules for a B10+ND, B10+ND+2, and B10+ND+4 later.
@ ATYCLB
The reason ND has been playing so many Big East teams for the last few years is because the Big East asked us to. I don’t think you need to include Pitt in the future OOC schedules for ND. They have not been considered even a second tier rivalry in decades IMHO. UCONN is a similar thing.
Why did you propose SDSU and Vandy? We played SDSU once as a season opener that no one was excited about. ND’s played Vandy a few times, but it is rare for ND to play SEC teams lately, and Vandy had agreements in place to play Northwestern.
Of course, I concur that it is an improvement. Further, I confess that the traditional rivalries + the added Big East games puts ND in a de facto conference schedule straitjacket. Then again I still think rotating 2 BE games among 8 teams, and the remaining 5 games among well, the rest of the FBS is better than 8 games rotated around 15 teams and 2 games likely rotated against the MAC (1 rotated among 13) and a random BCS team.
@ Playoffs Now!
If I’m reading you right, and I may well not be, ND will play GTech, Rutgers, Texas, and PSU annually in conference? Navy and USC OOC annually? For the remaining conference games we’d rotate TAMU and the current Big Ten every 6 years leaving 2 OOC games?
Not bad. Loss of home games is kinda tough, as are the loss of MSU, UM, and OSU at the same time for two years.
Not bad.
LikeLike
If I’m reading you right, and I may well not be, ND will play GTech, Rutgers, Texas, and PSU annually in conference? Navy and USC OOC annually?
Yes.
For the remaining conference games we’d rotate TAMU and the current Big Ten every 6 years leaving 2 OOC games?
Every 6 years at home, but you’d play each team at least every 3 years. You have your own pod, call it pod A (3 games) and then play 1 of the other 3 pods each year, pods B, C, and D (4 games.) Then every team gets a protected annual rivalry game outside of their pod. For ND that would be TX, the 8th conference game. In the years you play the Texas pod (pod B) you’d play a team from either C or D to make up for that. That’s where the 11th Midwest team per 3 years comes in.
Also I expect an attempt by multiple conferences to get a 13th regular season game added. That would allow for 5 OOC games, 3 after subtracting USC and Navy.
Or I guess instead of playing pod B, C, and D once every 3 years in a rotation, they could play each twice every six years. Home, away, then off 4 years. I would think that wasn’t as good, but whatever. The point is I think a compromise is doable. However the buzz I’m hearing down here is that Texas is most likely going to the P16.
I bet we know by July 1st.
LikeLike
As I promised, here’s my guess as to what a typical ND Big 1x schedules will look like. I went with the 2011 and 2012 seasons alone because they already have their OOC games in. Curious as to y’all’s reactions.
2011 – 12 teams
ND added, eight conference games
09/10 # @ Michigan
09/17 # MSU
09/24 x Minnesota
10/01 # @ Purdue
10/08 x @ Wisconsin
10/15 * “@” Army
10/22 * USC
10/29 * NAVY
11/05 x Illinois
11/12 * “@” Maryland
11/19 x @ NU
11/26 x Iowa
2012 – 12 teams
09/01 * “@” Navy
09/08 # Purdue
09/15 # @ MSU
09/22 # Michigan
09/29 x Minnesota
10/06 * “@” Baylor
10/20 x Wisconsin
10/27 * ! Oklahoma
11/03 x @ Illinois
11/10 x NU
11/17 x @ Iowa
11/24 * @ USC
x Western Div Games
# Eastern Div Games
“@” neutral site games
* OOC games
! shifted from away to home game
—–
ND, Nebraska, Rutgers
eight conference games
2011 – 14 teams
09/10 x @ Nebraska
09/17 # MSU
09/24 x Minnesota
10/01 # @ Purdue
10/08 x @ Wisconsin
10/15 * “@” Army
10/22 * USC
10/29 * NAVY
11/05 x Illinois
11/12 * “@” Maryland
11/19 x @ Northwestern
11/26 x Iowa
2012 – 14 teams
09/01 * “@” Navy
09/08 # Purdue
09/15 # @ MSU
09/22 # Nebraska
09/29 x @ Minnesota
10/06 * “@” Baylor
10/20 x Wisconsin
10/27 * ! Oklahoma
11/03 x @ Illinois
11/10 x Northwestern
11/17 x @ Iowa
11/24 * @ USC
x Western Div Games
# Eastern Div Games
“@” neutral site games
* OOC games
! shifted from away to home game
—–
ND, Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers
nine conference games
2011 – 16 teams
09/10 $ @ Michigan
09/17 # MSU
09/24 # @ Pitt
10/01 x @ Purdue
10/08 x Nebraska
10/15 * “@” Army
10/22 * USC
10/29 * NAVY
11/05 x Wisconsin
11/12 x @ Mizzou
11/19 $ @ Rutgers
11/26 # Northwestern
2012 – 16 teams
09/01 * “@” Navy
09/08 x Purdue
09/15 # @ MSU
09/22 $ Michigan
09/29 x Mizzou
10/06 * “@” Baylor
10/20 BYE
10/27 @ Nebraska
11/03 # Pitt
11/10 $ Rutgers
11/17 # @ Northwestern
11/24 * @ USC
# Central Pod Games
$ Eastern Pod Games
x Other Pod Games
“@” neutral site games
* OOC games
LikeLike
That’s one tough schedule you’ve got there. OU and USC as your two OOC games…plus a Big 10 schedule with Wiscy, Neb, and UM (usually tough, although who knows how long ’til they’re back). Yikes. If USC stays strong and you can schedule one other tough OOC game (like OU or any other strong BCS team) AND PLAY A BIG 10 slate…!?!?! Yikes.
I’m trying to find your other posts. This WordPress format is tough to navigate through 500+ comments.
LikeLike
I’m sure there’s at least some concern about the SOS given ND’s OOC obligations. Yet another reason to pursue independence as far as I’m concerned.
Anything specific you’re looking for?
LikeLike
NDROX wrote about my schedule proposal…
“Uh, while neither look great, I’ll take what we already have, thanks.
Between who the Irish have scheduled 2002-2010, and who we think will be on the schedule 2011-2016, here’s who we play by conference:
7 different ACC teams (of 12)
6 Pac-10 teams (of 10)
5 Big East Teams (of
2 BXII (of 12)
1 SEC (of 12)
9 non-BCS teams
and only *4* Big Ten Teams out of 11.
that’s the scheduling diversity in a bad 14 years. To get that kind of scheduling diversity in a conference will take the better half of a century.”
First off, 12 years doesn’t sound like a fluke. That sounds like past, present, and future reality. Your schedule is what it is b/c every other school is tied down with conference scheduling restraints. There’s a good chance that you won’t like your schedules for the rest of your life, friend.
Secondly, you have a nice variety from many of the other BCS conferences but with three SOLIDS from the Big 10, there’s really no reason to schedule any others from this region. You might find that you like Camp Randall and games against Illinois at Soldier Field and versus Indiana at Lucas Oil Field. You talk about some of these Big 10 schools like they’re lepers rather than legendary (top 50 all-time) college football programs. A bit unfair.
I picked Vandy and SDSU and Duke to give you some national schools who wouldn’t require a 1-1 with you but would simply come to South Bend for a home game. You’ll always have USC…Navy will play you anywhere…you’ll want another 1-1 with someone decent. Your 12th game will be some scrub.
LikeLike
@FLP
You keep mentioning ND’s OOC obligations, but I can’t locate a post where this is covered in depth. You mind shedding a little light for me?
I know that USC and Navy are non-negotiable. I also know that ND & UM signed to play through 2029 or something like that.
Is there something else to which you’re referring? Thanks
LikeLike
@ Hoosier Mike
Basically, yeah, it’s Navy and USC.
During WWII, Navy opened a training center @ ND that kept the place in business during the war. Ever since then, there’s an understanding we will play them as long as they want the game. Considering that the ND and Army games are what balances the athletic books in Annapolis (or at least that’s what I’ve heard) the series will continue indefinitely.
The USC game has been going since 1926. It gives us a definitionally big game in SoCal which is great for all kinds of reasons. It remains ND’s great long term rivalry, and one of the rare ones at ND where the feeling is mutual.
Michigan State and Purdue are historical match-ups (not quite a rivalry, since all three schools have teams they spend waaay more time thinking about) that I’d bet ND’d make an attempt to keep especially if ND doesn’t go Big Ten. Maybe not as an every year thing, tho’. Michigan would be, too, but since that game so rarely gets played…
I know ND’s played Pitt a bunch, but it never really feels like a rivalry. It’s just…a game. Like:
“Who we got next week?”
“Pitt”
“They any good this year?
“I don’t know, let’s google it.”
@ ATYCLB
Perhaps ND scheds aren’t a fluke. Then again, if the BCS is tweaked back to factor strength of schedule relative to being merely undefeated, I think ND may get some better games. But that’s just me.
It seems to me that ND joining a conference merely due to scheduling issues is using a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Y’know, like suicide.
As for the general Domer “indifference at best” attitude toward the non-Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania Big Ten is likely historical more than anything. Let’s face it, for decades it’s the “Big Two, Little Eight”. During those years, Big Ten football was often and accurately described as “three yards and a puff of dust”.
Yeah, and this is according to my Dad who was there during Purdue’s glory years.
Basically, there’s no established ND history with large swaths of the Big Ten. Domers internalized the accepted National stereotypes of the Big Ten. And ND has traditionally enjoyed longer travel than the B10. Heck, our current biggest rival is over 2000 miles away.
Sure, you say I might like these other Big Ten games, but that’s the same crap my mom pulled about veggies. She was wrong.
And let’s remember that great Big Ten PSA where Joe Paterno had to remind fans to not riot.
Man, I’d forgotten that. So yeah, that’s the basic “Why ND Fans are Blah on the most Big Ten teams” overview.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s extremely cool about the Navy game. I definitely learned something today AND the normal shit-talking I engage in about ND playing Navy every year stops… now. 😦
Now you’ve just got to talk me down from trashing the frequent Army and occasional AFA matchups 🙂
LikeLike
ND’s all time record is 837-291-41, for a total of 1169 games. 29.8% (348) of all games were played against Big Ten teams, with a record of 220-113-15 (26.3% of all wins, 38.8% of losses and 36.6% of ties). Of the 25 teams that ND has played at least 10 times, 9 (36.0%) are Big Ten teams. Ohio State and Minnesota are the only Big Ten teams that ND hasn’t played at least 10 times.
I really just don’t see the issue with playing a Big Ten conference schedule.
LikeLike
Well, 1 in 6 Domers being from Indiana is a hell of a lot of Domers. A lot more than I’d like to deal with…
When IU played ND at ND (perhaps 20 years ago), I thought there was considerable local interest…
Carry on.
LikeLike
ND’s a really small school. I don’t know if there’s a 125,000 living alumni in the US.
Down there, I’m sure the ND/IU tilt was huge. Especially since IIRC, it was a September game. Lotsa time to kill before basketball season and all.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox –
Re #4
If the conference were split into two divisions, the schools that ND would probably play every year would be in the Eastern Division: the other Indiana schools, Michigan, MSU, tOSU, Penn State, and Rutgers.
Their games against the Western division teams could include Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin. I don’t think any of those games are unappealing. Illinois has been bad for a while, but ND recruits Illinois heavily and I see that game helping them.
Are you telling me that ND-Iowa, or ND-Wisconsin would be unappealing games? Wouldn’t they be more interesting than ND-Army or ND-Washington?
LikeLike
@ Stephen
You think so?
It continues to surprise me how Michigan and Ohio State are viewed differently depending on whether you’re a Big Ten fan or not. Inside the Big Ten fans are confident it’s all for one and one for all. Outside fans believe that UM and OSU will do what’s good for them and force the rest of the conference to go along. Outside ignorance and/or bias or Insider Stockholm Syndrome? You decide.
As a believer that UM and OSU run the conference for their benefit primarily I broke down what I thought the divisions would be when I was putting up potential ND-Big Ten schedules at
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/conservative-expansion-or-super-death-star-conference/#comment-63779
I figured OSU, UM, and PSU would be kept together. I also figured UM would prefer MSU in their division for many reasons: political, geographic, and competitive (some national name has to “go out west” to get national interest in the B10 title games). With those four linked for any B10+2 or B14 scheduling purposes, it seemed to me to make more sense to pair it with the Old Oaken Bucket rivalry (IU-Purdue) to maintain both that rivalry and the Northwestern-Illinois rivalry. Even better for the UM/OSU/PSU triumvirate is that it keeps them playing out east annually (esp. good for the NYC area games if Rutgers, UCONN, or ‘Cuse is added) and ND only visits x times outta y years kneecapping the Irish.
For the B16 sched I put Rutgers, PSU, OSU, and UM in the pod together for the reasons above. I put ND in a Pod with Pitt, MSU, and Northwestern for mainly geographic reasons, and because I figured that the Triumvirate had no desire to want them in their pod for obvious reasons.
ND doesn’t need games against the Illini to maintain a presence in Chicago. It’s not like ND recruits downstate heavily. “Unappealing” is too strong. I save that for non-BCS games like WMU. Army has historical significance and Washington not only gives us a presence in the Pacific Northwest but has been a power in the Pac-10 when USC is down. Of course even they could not survive having Willingham as a coach.
ND-Iowa, ND-Wisc., ND-Wash, and ND-Army are probably all about the same interest wise. To get folks excited about a change, that change has to be a noticable improvement.
LikeLike
I think it’s mostly the fact that Delany’s been around for so long and runs the Big Ten independent from any individual school’s influence.
Also, he was probably the driver behind not allowing the schools to negotiate their own local rights and centralizing everything in the Big Ten offices.
LikeLike
@FLP:
I’d be interested to know what examples there are out there where Ohio State and Michigan colluded to move the conference in one direction against the wishes of the rest in the Big Ten.
The only issue where I know they stand together is pertaining to the Game. I don’t believe either was particularly fond of moving it to Thanksgiving weekend, and Tressel often said he enjoyed giving the kids the holiday off to be with their families. However, they lost that fight, and this season the OSU-Michigan game is November 27th.
Additionally, I’m unsure either has been super-positive about a BigTen championship for fear of it reducing the impact of the OSU-Michigan game. A CCG is coming though, we can all agree on that I think, and Tressel has appeared to be on board with it.
Both schools seem to be reacting positively to this expansion, even though there’s a significant chance the rivalry will be impacted if the OSU-Michigan winner has to face, say, Texas or Nebraska the following week in the BTCCG.
The next biggest challenge I can see was the addition of Penn State 20 years ago, which Michigan voted against but Ohio State voted for. Michigan was apparently worried a PSU-OSU rivalry would dull the impact of the game, since Ohio-Penn. football is a nice regional rivalry with the Big33 game. A silly concern imo.
Earlier in the decade OSU wanted to sell The Game sponsorship to AT&T but Michigan refused. It would have netted both schools quite a lot of money. One of the few times in my life I’ve sided with Michigan over Ohio State, and I was appalled that it was even being considered.
I guess my point is, both parties view that rivalry game as incredibly significant, both to the schools that participate and the conference as a whole. Most conference-wide changes will be looked at through that lens.
I assume the BigTen’s adoption of instant replay was probably unanimous, despite Michigan having previously purchased every official in the midwest. 😛
Does that mean OSU and Michigan might see things differently than the other 9 schools? Sure, sometimes. But, like every other school, the two will split if there’s a difference of opinion.
LikeLike
@FLP:
Side thought. I know that recruiting is often brought up as an important issue for keeping a national schedule for ND. A couple years ago SI put together a database of recruits by school over a four year span (2004-2008, or classes 05-09) and averaged them out. Also included are percentages within a school’s state, and percentage within 200mi. Wanted to give toss out the link and see if you had any thoughts.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/01/20/recruiting/
There are Google maps at the top and a table at the bottom. Some interesting data. I would love to take this data and produce percentages for conference footprints, but I don’t have time at the moment. 200mi radius though barely covers Ohio.
LikeLike
@ Mani
It really doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong on this. No, really, it doesn’t. The question I was going at was how ND would be slotted into a larger Big Ten. Then I tried to think like the Big Ten would.
Sure, I let my biases scream, but I stand by my conclusions. Outside of Illinois, all the major populations states are in the eastern portion of the Big Ten. The conference will likely give preference to established in-conference rivalries over the newcomers’ rivalries or potential rivalries (see also Land Grant Trophy). Moving from the outside in, PSU, OSU, MSU, and UM are a natural grouping. Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin are as well. That leaves five southern teams left: ND, NU, IU, Purdue, and Northwestern. Considering the historical rivalry twixt IU-Purdue and their football history, I figured the conference would prefer to keep them together and near the traditional powers. Take that as you’d like. ND then moves west with NU and it’s in-state rival the Illini.
Adding a team to each end doesn’t alter my thinking on the teams in the middle. Hell, for the 14 team sched I just replaced Michigan with Nebraska.
With 16, I kept the same general idea. UM, OSU, PSU are a good rivalry grouping. Rutgers give JoePa his eastern Buddy and the traditional “Big 2” permanent Bi-annual trips to the Big Apple for hype purposes. If you wanna disagree fine, but I just know that UM is more than OK dumping MSU (they still aren’t a protected rivalry, are they?) out of the pod. If Pitt is brought in as I anticipated, I can’t imagine a PSU that offered the Panthers a 2-for-1 last time out would want them in their annual NYC pod. And who do MSU and Pitt play practically every year? ND! Keeping ND out of the NYC pod is merely bonus.
Like I said, maybe I’m wrong. What do you think the pods would shake out as?
—
I know it’s often quoted on the ND message boards that former ND and Michigan recruiting coordinator Bob Chmiel has stated that Independence is ND’s greatest selling point on the recruiting trail.
200mi of ND barely covers Chicago, NE Ohio, and SE Michigan. ND *must* recruit nationally to merely be average. Indiana, despite significant increase in football participation since Manning arrived in Indy, doesn’t have enough Div I recruits for one BCS school, much less three.
I wouldn’t bother with conference recruiting footprints, according to my recruitnik buddy it’s so dominated by the SEC footprint and Texas it’s not funny.
LikeLike
Michigan’s two protected rivalries are OSU and MSU. I’d have a hard time seeing UM give up an annual MSU matchup, but I suppose it’s *possible*.
LikeLike
@FLP:
I have no clue on the pods thing. Most of the speculation feels like voodoo to me, so I’ve just stayed out as best as possible. I expect everyone will have to make some minor concessions. For example, OSU might lose its current protected rivalry with PSU, which has been a good game and helped both schools recruit each other’s states. PSU and MSU can finally stop their sham of a manufactured rivalry.
As far as I know, Michigan and MSU are still a protected rivalry. Does that change if ND enters the Big Ten? Again, possibly. My understanding of that rivalry is that it’s always mattered more to MSU than Michigan.
If ND joined and only 1-2 eastern schools are added, perhaps it could be a requirement to go into the eastern pod. PSU-ND-Rut-(Syr/UConn/UMD) could be a terrific pod imo, especially if you could keep Michigan as an out-of-pod protected rival. It’d also give ND yearly access to the northeast.
It’s all speculation really, so you could be wrong or you could be right. My initial comment was just to say that OSU and Michigan are like every other school — they look out for their own interests. Sometimes those interests coincide with each other and/or the rest of the conference, sometimes it doesn’t. In the end, each has 1 vote out of 11, and neither is going to pull a hissy-fit if they don’t get their way, ala USC and the Arizona/ASU vote.
—
Regarding my recruiting link, I should’ve more explicit with what I was talking about (was running on 3hrs of sleep). To be honest, you can ignore the article itself. I was interested in the database of information.
It has a list of every ND recruit for the 2005-2009 recruiting classes (and UM, OSU, etc), including their state, which is independent of Rivals and its southern bias. I agree that the 200mi radius is too small and can be largely ignored. But I wonder what percentage of ND recruits come from the Big Ten’s current footprint, or from the northeast. I will say that ND recruits California better than most Big Ten teams, although Michigan has often recruited well from there as well. ND also competes occasionally with USC in Hawaii, which just isn’t happening for other Big Ten teams.
But, yes, your recruitnik friend is correct. The recruiting services favor the south and California. But there are just more recruits in Florida, Texas, and California.
LikeLike
FLP:
Alright, went ahead and looked at that table to see where ND got its players during that time period. Bear with me:
2005-2009 RECRUITING CLASSES (2004-2008)
AR: 1
AZ: 1
CA: 11
CT: 3
FL: 8
GA: 5
IL: 9
IN: 6
KS: 1
KY: 2
MA: 1
MD: 2
MI: 5
MN: 3
MO: 3
NC: 3
NE: 1
NJ: 7
NV: 1
NY: 1
OH: 9
OK: 2
OR: 1
PA: 6
SC: 1
TN: 3
TX: 3
VA: 2
TOTAL: 101
CURRENT BIG TEN STATES
IL: 9
IN: 6
MI: 5
MN: 3
OH: 9
PA: 6
TOTAL: 38
ASSUMED EXPANSION CANDIDATES
MO: 3
NJ: 7
NY: 1
NE: 1
TOTAL: 12
NORTHEASTERN STATES
NJ: 7
NY: 1
CT: 3
MA: 1
MD: 2
VA: 2
TOTAL: 16
Roughly 38% of Notre Dame’s players come from states already within the Big Ten footprint. Assuming the one rumors are true, and Rutgers, Missouri, and Nebraska are BigTen-bound, 50% of ND’s recruits come from these states. 16% came from the northeastern part of the country (or ~58% total when adding BT+XP+NE states).
Now, I think the quick reaction is to say, “look at California at 11 recruits (~11%)! Clearly that’s from playing USC yearly along with other west coast teams.” And there might be some truth to that. However, during the same period Michigan grabbed 10 recruits from California as well. Making the same argument for Florida, where ND signed 8 players, is countered by the fact that Ohio State signed 11 Florida recruits during this period. ND and OSU are tied in Georgia, with 5 each. Michigan signed 8 recruits from Texas compared to ND’s 3.
It looks like I’m doubleteaming OSU/Michigan against ND here, which is somewhat true I suppose. But it’s to illustrate the point that I think the “national schedule leads to national recruiting” argument is somewhat overblown for modern day football. OSU and Michigan both play within a conference and perform as well or better than ND in the big western/southern recruiting hotbed states, despite the fact Ohio State gets the bulk of its talent from within Ohio.
Lastly, regarding Bob Chmiel, that’s a strong endorsement. The man knows recruiting, far better than I ever will. However, he was Michigan’s recruiting coordinator from 88-93 and ND’s from 94-97 (per http://www.und.com). During that period, yes, being independent would’ve been a tremendous advantage. Not the least of which was because ND was on NBC and the Big Ten was fighting with other conferences for regional coverage.
However, with cable proliferation and the BigTen Network (for our conversation anyway), most of that advantage is neutralized. In fact, I would argue that cable proliferation has as much to do with the rise of “mid-pack/mid-major” schools as the 85 scholarship limit.
LikeLike
IIRC re Chmiel, his theory was that if ND joined the Big Ten, ND pitch would change to be much more similar to UM’s, and he always found it more useful to have a differing pitch. ND::Big Ten like 7up::Coke or something.
IDK, I’m not a recruitnik.
LikeLike
@FLP:
I admit to being one of those sad souls that follows recruiting, at least somewhat loosely.
I agree it’s good to have a different pitch. Thing is, at least when ND’s recruited in Ohio, the majority of the recruits seem to be more interested in ND because they go to a Catholic high school or are Catholic themselves, not necessarily that they played an assortment of conferences. That and ND’s outstanding academics has always been a major selling point for Ohio recruits from what I understand.
I’m sure there are exceptions, of course. The Hawaiian LB Weis nabbed from USC (Te’o?) was probably thrilled ND plays west coast teams, for example. But most care for playing for a winning program, usually a big name, getting a good education, and almost always having the best chance for the NFL.
LikeLike
I love the look of that schedule, but I can’t imagine Notre Dame would want to go 3-9 or 4-8 every year. Independence would probably be better for them.
LikeLike
The NCAA just released their Top 10% Public Recognition Awards for 2010 for the APR (Academic Progress Rates). This is the rolling multi-year rates for the combined 2005-06 thru 2008-09 academic years. Each year it looks back over the last 4 years and releases the Awards for schools, by sport, that are the High-performing top 10% scores. All the APR scores for all schools are released soon.
“The APR provides a real-time view of a team’s academic success by tracking the progress of each student-athlete during the school year. By measuring eligibility and retention each semester or quarter, the APR provides a clear picture of the academic culture in each sport.”
Summary:
7 D1 FBS Schools were honored:
Duke University
Northwestern University
Rice University
Rutgers University
Air Force Academy
University of Miami (FL)
University of Notre Dame
1 Academy, 5 Privates, 1 Public State University
Link and searchable database:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+i/ncaa_honors_teams_with_highest_marks_in_class_05_12_10
LikeLike
On the “Big Ten expansion could affect everyone” front, here’s an article discussing its potential impact on Siena and Albany.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=930241&category=SPORTS
So yeah…
LikeLike
First, a quick, personal note… thanks to all of you who have spent your time posting comments on this blog, though I am an addict, I am definitely thankful for the brain trust that has been assembled.
Now, I live outside Kansas City, and Kevin Keitzman of 810 WHB, the individual who “broke” the most recent speculation, just interviewed Dan Beebe, Commissioner of the Big 12. He got the following out of him:
1) The Big 12 will meet in KC in three weeks. Beebe says that at this meeting, “We need to call the question, and figure out who is going to be going with us.” He reiterated this at the end of the interview, saying, “we’ve got to make this happen soon.”
2) A big issue in Missouri and Nebraska’s expansion thoughts is academics. “There is a big issue besides athletics… there is an interest by those in the faculty and others to take a look a what possibilities lie there.”
3) The Big 12 will not share revenue. Speaking to the opinion of “significant” institutions, “This was the deal when we came together. If you try to go back on it, you’re reneging on the deal. We’re not going to stand for that.”
4) According to Beebe, “The Big Ten has clearly stated, any institution that comes into the league is going to have to buy-in and probably have a lot less revenue distribution than the other institutions.”
5) As an answer to the following question from Kietzman, “Do you honestly believe that no representatives from the Big Ten have spoken with either Missouri or Nebraska?” Beebe answered, “The Big Ten, either through the conference or its members, have probably been in communication with others in the country that they have an interest with just to send out feelers and get responses back.”
6) “I’ve talked with Jim (Delany) directly, I understand what he’s doing and what he’s coming from, maybe I would do it similarly if I was in his situation, maybe I wouldn’t.” [Sounds a bit like Conan O’Brien on 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago]
7) A couple of months after he took the commissioner’s job in the Big 12, “I talked to our media partner Fox… about the possibility of a joint network, perhaps, with the PAC-10 or others.” Expansion is just a convenient time to bring the subject up, but it has been cooking for a while. Also, the Rose Bowl is not on the table.
8) “Whether we have the twelve that we have, or we expand in some fashion, or replace members with others, there are going to be plenty of candidates who want to be a part of this association of univerisities.” Beebe has given thought to all scenarios, “If our membership said, we don’t want to be at 9, or 10, or whatever, or 11, we want to be back at 12, I’ve thought about possible replacements.” Beebe would want to look outside of current states where they have schools. He tried to make the case that other schools in current Big 12 states wouldn’t add anything because the Big 12 has already captured those markets. If it was just for numbers, maybe they would add a school in a current state (i.e. Texas), but otherwise they are looking to add more value by looking to markets that the Big 12 does not currently have.
That’s pretty much everything of value, here’s the link so you can check it out yourself
http://bit.ly/b2HtNY
I’ll be interested to hear what you all think.
LikeLike
Interesting interview.
In the past couple weeks he’s sounded fairly confident that Texas isn’t going anywhere otherwise he’d be more nervous about all of this.
Beebe seems to only expect to lose Nebraska and Missouri and for the Big 12 to reload. Perhaps he doesn’t expect to lose Colorado, but I guess we’ll see.
I still don’t see how the Big 12 keeps going if Colorado walks away and Nebraska and Missouri follow it out… Oklahoma and A&M would have to want out if that happens…
LikeLike
Beebe says a lot of things. He’s perhaps most infamous for claiming the NFL is inferior to college football because it has a playoff. (Yes, I know, a few kooks truly do believe that.)
TX and aTm are leaving, it is just a matter of when and where. Most likely to the P16, taking CO, KS, and OU with them. TX turning down the B10+ likely puts NE and MO in the B16. SEC could grab OK St and/or TT, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Beebe will probably have 3 to 5 current teams to rebuild upon. (Maybe 7 if TX and aTm choose a P14, screwing CO, OU, or KS.)
First off, he’s got to expand the Texas footprint. TX and aTm brought the state, TT and Baylor do not. However adding TCU and UH, and maybe even SMU could help the conference. Since the B12 is now going to be a leftover conference the strategy is different. They aren’t going to get on basic cable and no one or two teams will carry the state. But an aggregate strategy can add up, enough to still broker deals with regional sports channels or Versus, NFL Network, etc. TX and aTm may command 70% of the market, but you can still go after the remaining 4, 4, 5, 7, 8% and get another 25% of sports fans who will watch other local teams or good match ups. You can still sell the conference if you have good teams. The money will just be somewhere in between WAC/CUSA and what they have now, though closer to WAC.
So beyond Texas schools (and the SEC might grab TCU or even UH, though unlikely) BYU out west and S. FL and UCF to the east seem the next logical targets. Lou, Cin, WV if any of those are available. Fresno, perhaps Boise, and even CSU or UNLV. Sorry, but NM is just too small and iffy, unless the NeoB12 go to 16 and regional pods or the BEast survives.
My guess is three 16 super conferences. ACC replaces SEC raided holes with BEast schools but probably doesn’t drop its academic standards and thus won’t get above 12 or 14 schools. BEast BCS football disappears, NeoB12 takes the best leftovers to get back to 12. A chance they go to 16 if they can make the numbers work. That’s a big IF, but with the big dogs gone the thresholds will be quite different.
So probably 72 BCS AQ schools in 5 conferences feeding 4 bowls, 73 if ND stays indy. Maybe as high as 80 if they withdraw from the NCAA, in five 16-school conferences with some fill out additions to the ACC and NeoB12 from political pressure.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about a different arrangement for the Texas schools to join with the Pac 10.
How about 2 conferences that join together to have a Western Alliance Championship game only for football?
Pac 8-Stanford, USC, UCLA, Cal, UW, WSU, OSU, Oregon
New SW-UA, ASU, UT, A&M, TT, OU, Colorado, BYU
-Because they’re separate conferences for non-football sports, Texas Tech and BYU might be acceptable to the California schools
-The 2 conferences would sell their TV rights together and form their own cable network
-There would be legal agreements that if the Alliance fell apart, Arizona and Arizona State could rejoin the Pac 10 instantly without a vote.
-Because Arizona and Arizona State University are giving up their Pac 10 rivalries, UCLA and USC each would agree to an annual series against one of the Arizona schools in football and other sports
-Other teams can schedule a permanent series against a member of the other conference if they wish.
-In addition to any permanent series, every team would play a member of the other conference. This opponent would rotate every 2 years. If they already have a permanent series, this team would come from a different region of the other conference. (For example, Arizona’s extra game would rotate between Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Stanford, and Cal)
-At the end of the football season, only games against your own conference would count in determining who plays in the Alliance championship game.
-For the 2 Arizona and LA schools, they will each have 9 games per year determined by this setup. This is the same number they have now in the Pac 10.
-Everyone else will have 8 games fixed, so the Big 12 teams would still have 4 games they can schedule. The other Pac 10 teams would have 1 more game to schedule than they do now.
-The 2 conferences would also agree to games in non-revenue sports against each other.
Using Wikipedia’s population numbers, these 16 schools bring states that total 32% of the US population (assuming BYU brings Utah). While they would still get more joining the Big 10, the Texas schools should do OK with their TV contracts in this arrangement.
LikeLike
Very interesting.
Few thoughts…
1) Beebe is behaving as if the Big Ten is indeed on an accelerated timeline and is targeting Nebraska and Missouri. This may just be his doing due diligence as the Big 12 commissioner. However, he does have a relationship with Delaney. Beebe feeling the need to “call the question” publicly just adds to the smoke.
2) “The Big Ten, either through the conference or its members, have probably been in communication with others in the country that they have an interest with just to send out feelers and get responses back.”
…pretty much what we’ve all been figuring.
3) Beebe dogged the Big Ten’s revenue distribution to new members. Tagliabue straight up dogged Rutgers.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure we are arriving at over-analysis, especially concerning Notre Dame.
Notre Dame is a good football school with a rich tradition but this is the BIG 10. A collection of schools that individually have traditions that rival ND, and collectively is something much bigger. I believe they should ask and that is it. If ND doesn’t want to play, great…. more power to them.
So I did some checking on the teams.
Expansion Canidates FB Wins last 10 years…. PLUS the top and bottom of the current Big Ten
#2 Texas 110
#4 Ohio State 102
#19 Nebraska 84
#32 Pitt 74
#40 Missouri 70
#40 Notre Dame 70
#57 UConn 62
#71 Rutgers 58
#92 Syracuse 46
#103 Indiana 39
Last 20 years….
#2 Ohio State 193
#3 Nebraska 192
#4 Texas 184
#21 Notre Dame 154
#46 Syracuse 128
#61 Missouri 113
#64 Pitt 111
#85 Rutgers 95
#90 Indiana 90
Last 40 years…
#1 Nebraska 393
#2 Ohio State 366
#6 Texas 345
#15 Notre Dame 321
#36 Pitt 256
#51 Syracuse 237
#64 Missouri 217
#64 Rutgers 217
#92 Indiana 171
Last 80 years….
#2 Texas 620
#5 Ohio State 611
#7 Nebraska 603
#8 Notre Dame 595
#41 Pitt 446
#42 Syracuse 443
#47 Missouri 429
#51 Rutgers 419
#98 Indiana 307
LikeLike
Very interesting, Patrick.
Texas and Nebraska have been the winningest programs among candidates, followed by ND. I think we knew that in the past 10 or 20 years, but I’m surprised they’ve out-performed ND as long as its been.
Interesting to see how Nebraska has ranked in the past 10 years, at about the weakest its been.
And one can’t help but notice that Indiana has been pulling up the rear for the past 80 years. But I’m pretty sure they’re turning a corner in 2010! 😉
LikeLike
I was also suprised that Ohio State was leading Michigan at every slice. In many cases Michigan was just a few wins or spots behind Ohio State. How about this …
Record versus the Big Ten over the last 50 years….
Nebraska 36 – 5 – 0 0.878
Texas 6 – 3 – 0 0.667
Notre Dame 98 – 59 – 2 0.623
Missouri 25 – 22 – 3 0.530
Rutgers 6 – 6 – 0 0.500
Pittsburgh 11 – 13 – 1 0.460
Syracuse 15 – 27 – 2 0.364
Texas A & M 3 – 9 – 0 0.250
LikeLike
As an Ohio State fan I’m not surprised. 😉
In all seriousness, Ohio State has been pretty stable with good coaches that won, even when we were considered “the graveyard of coaches”. A couple hiccups here and there, but largely solid winning percentages since Paul Brown.
Michigan had (roughly) two decades of mediocrity prior to hiring Bo, followed by almost four great decades with Bo/Gary Moeller/Lloyd Carr. Since World War I the rivalry has been even, with Michigan’s dominance in the 90s all but canceled by OSU’s dominance this decade, although prior to 1918 Michigan was 14-1. 😛
That’s kind of why no one really knows how to take this RichRod situation — he has the worst winning percentage of any Michigan coach in history at this moment. When I look RichRod’s Michigan teams I see Nebraska with Callahan, ie. a square peg and a round hole. Maybe that’ll change, I dunno.
LikeLike
Manifesto,
I also share your confusion on the whole RichRod situation and totally agree on the Nebraska comparison.
Michigan brought in RR to “cure” their previous ten years of mediocrity (ranking 7th among D1 schools at .766). Nebraska felt the need to replace a coach who ranked 12th at.753.
Both schools were guilty of hubris and suffered.
LikeLike
@ChicagoRed
Who should Michigan have hired?
There were no acceptable internal candidates. Ferentz runs his program similar to the way Carr ran Michigan. Consequently, Ferentz was Michigan’s first target. He said no. Schiano (ugh) also ran a program similar to Carr. He was Michigan’s next target, but he also said no. Only then did Michigan turn to Rodriguez, who simply had the strongest resume by a wide margin. It’s hard to argue that Michigan was looking to reinvent the wheel from the outset.
Les Miles — nonstarter, for a number of reasons I won’t get into. Besides, LSU fans aren’t too happy with him right now.
LikeLike
@Jokewood:
I don’t buy that. It’s Michigan. There are coaches lined up around the block to coach at a place like that. Perhaps in terms of the only big-name, hot commodity coaches ESPN touts that’s it. But if that’s the only category the AD looked at then he was being lazy imo. There were probably other options but the AD didn’t want to stick his neck out, so he went with the popular choice.
LikeLike
@Manifesto.
It’s really easy to say “Michigan could have done better” with the benefit of retrospect. It’s also easy to say so without providing names of who would have done better and who would have accepted the job.
The AD certainly dropped the ball in terms of not landing his first candidate. That’s especially bad since he had known for a long time that was going to retire. Carr dropped the ball by his failure to groom a successor.
LikeLike
A few points about the RichRod hire. Wake Forest’s Jim Grobe was also allegedly offered the job.
If true, that means that the first 5 coaches offered this job were BCS head coaches. I don’t know if it was laziness, but the AD clearly was not interested in promoting a co-ordinator, or a small school coach, like a Brian Kelly or Jim Tressell.
I don’t fully recall the circumstances surrounding the last couple of ND hires, or Jim Tressel’s hiring, but I seem to recall that there was the George O’Leary fiasco before hiring Willingham, and also that Charlie Weis was not the first coach offered the ND job. I can’t recall about Tressel, but I don’t think he was the slam-dunk favorite in the press.
My disappointment with the hiring of RichRod is that I don’t understand how someone can look at Kirk Ferentz track record and offer him the job, and then look at RichRod’s track record, and then offer him the job. I just don’t see it. If RichRod would have been your first choice for a hire, I don’t think Ferentz would have been on your list. Two completely different types of coach and programs. And that’s what puzzles and disappoints me.
If ND and Ohio State were willing to hire coaches that were not BCS Head Coaches previously, why couldn’t Michigan? I mean, they did hire some dude named Schembechler once, and he hadn’t been head coach at a BCS-caliber program.
Also, I think Carr tried doing the grooming, but it just didn’t work out. If you go back 6 or 7 years, most people thought Jim Hermann (our old DC) was next in line. Then it was Mike DeBord, but Martin for some reason wouldn’t even consider it. Some people believe that (the next DC) Ron English only needed some more seasoning. He’s at Eastern Michigan now to get that experience, and I’ve heard plenty of whispers that English is waiting in the wings to “get the old gang back together again” once Rich Rod fails.
LikeLike
@Cliff’s
The “some reason” Martin would not consider Debord was his 0.261 win percentage as head coach of Central Michigan. English is off to an 0-12 start at Eastern Michigan, so don’t expect him back in Ann Arbor anytime soon.
LikeLike
Gary Moeller had a less than stellar run as a head coach at Illinois, came back to Michigan as an assistant, and eventually was promoted to head coach at Michigan.
For better or worse, your prior record may not matter if you are a “Michigan Man”.
I might not have been thrilled with DeBord, but how many coaches need to turn down the job before you look to promote from within?
And even if DeBord was only a “place holder” until someone else was ready (or available), there would have been a lot more consistency in the program between recruits, systems, and the coaching staff.
I know there are some factions at UM that would fully support getting the band back together under DeBord or English, even if it was a return to 8-4.
LikeLike
Should have put Texas A&M up on the list, too:
last 10 years- 55(tied) with 63 wins
last 20 years- 17(tied) with 157 wins
last 40 years- 18 with 293 wins
last 80 years- 30 with 477 wins
You can see the last 10 years have been downright average. Still, from the size of our donations and attendance at games, this is proof the program is supported well even in the worst of times.
LikeLike
I agree with you on A&M. Very strong athletic program, great acedemics. I think I’ll start adding A&M and Texas when looking at stuff, but all indications I have seen is that A&M will either go with Texas or go to the SEC.
LikeLike
The more I think about this whole expansion deal, the more it occurs to me that, because all of the power resides with (1) The Big Ten, (2) Texas, and (3) Notre Dame, these three actors will work in concert to promote their own best interests.
These big three will be the actors. They have the most to offer. The rest of the conferences will be reacting to what they decide to do.
Given the relative freedom of these three entities to act in their own best interests, why should we assume that they won’t work together to reach the decision that makes the most sense and the most money? Why not create the most exciting, big money conference ever? What is stopping them from putting together the “Dream 16”?
The dream outcome would be to take the Big Ten to 16 teams by adding (1) Notre Dame (for national excitement and TV $$$), (2) Texas (for great sports, great academics, and more TV $$$), and (3) Rutgers (to put all of this football glamor on the doorstep of NYC, give some political cover to ND, and provide an eastern rival for PSU). The final two teams would probably have to be two of these three (Texas A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska). While these teams would all bring much to the table in their own right, their addition would also serve as political cover for Texas.
Texas does not want to be the team that breaks up the Big 12 because this cause too much political discomfort in Texas. If Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado leave first, then Texas realistically has to choose between three conferences: Pac-10, Big Ten, and SEC. Of these three, the Dream 16 lineup would be the best bet. More glitz, better academics, better time zones.
Texas A&M may want out from under UT’s shadow, if so, then they can go to the SEC or Pac-10. If they want to stick with Texas, then they too will be in the Dream 16. It sounds like A&M may want to go its own way, which means the last two Dream 16 spots would go to Missouri and Nebraska (though they will likely be the first two announced for strategic purposes).
Notre Dame biggest stumbling block is its fan base, but the seismic shift of losing one Big East team and seeing Texas join the Big Ten will allow Notre Dame to find away to the big money table. More than money, Notre Dame must realize that times are changing and that they will need to get in a conference to keep a decent schedule of BCS opponents. It would be hard not to jump at the Dream 16.
My guess is that most of this has already been decided and we are just seeing the process play out. First step will be the announcement of Rutgers and Missouri and/or Nebraska. Then Notre Dame and Texas (after the Big 12 is further ransacked by the Pac-10 and SEC).
LikeLike
While that might happen in the business world in terms of M&A, the education world has way more competing tendencies for purely optimal $ outcomes to drive the day.
Texas and Notre Dame are both reaches for the very reason that it’s not just all about money, there are a lot of other constituencies that have to be pleased with the arrangement including boosters, faculty, the athletic department, and of course the president and his trustees.
I don’t think it’s possible to get both Notre Dame and Texas in this expansion. It just seems to be too difficult without wrecking the Big 12 or Big East to really wrench them away.
Thus, I’m more inclined to believe that the Big Ten should go entirely after the Big 12 and take Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas/Texas/A&M if we really want Texas because it’s hard to see the Big 12 surviving without Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas and those 3 were the heart of the Big 8 since its founding…
Notre Dame can be gotten later along with Rutgers if Comcast is feeling stingy when it comes around to getting its next TV contract sewn up…
LikeLike
What I mean to say is that Eastern expansion only seems to be worth it at this time if Notre Dame is on the table. There’s a reason they’re the draw for Yankee Stadium’s first football game.
LikeLike
I agree about all of the other constituencies having to be pleased. There are a ton of moving parts. That’s why it takes so long. But in terms of getting things done, the synergy that would result from having the big three players act in concert to create the dream conference would, I think, create a big enough carrot to get it done.
There is also enough of a stick. For ND and Texas, the alternatives are not great. Expansion still makes sense without them, and if they do nothing, they are going to be hurt by it. The Big XII will be gone or diminished and Notre Dame will run out of BCS teams to play.
LikeLike
When viewed from a distance, all logic seems to point to a B10 that adds ND, Texas, Nebraska and 1-3 hangers on. But money and logic get you to the bargaining table, they don’t make a deal happen. Ironically, the power, money and prestige that the B10, Texas, and ND have could lead to a deal failing, rather than succeeding.
In order to figure out what is going on, all anyone has are the profiles of the universities, their revenues (TV and other), history and a few scraps of information that bubble up from time to time. So, we have to take the facts and go from there.
The last two leaks (and they were orchestrated leaks from the B10) were that the timetable has moved up and a list of B10 is putting pressure on its targets. Now, there is no pressure applied to Rutgers or Mizzou – could these two make their intentions more obvious? Likewise there is no pressure on Syracuse, Pitt, Uconn, Kansas, K State – all are guaranteed to say yes.
The pressure would have to be applied to powerhouse schools. Schools who have other options, schools who bring a lot to the table – and know it. In other words, Texas and ND – with NU straddling the line.
Consider Texas. Why was Texas not mentioned? Three possibilities: 1) they’re out; 2) they’re in, but B10 is holding back to make a big splash; or 3) they’re negotiating. #1 and #2 are no fun, so consider #3.
What could the negotiations look like? Two more possibilities: 1) Texas wants in and is working on cutting the best deal; 2) Texas is in talks, but either isn’t certain or they are internally split on moving. When you start to dig into the negotiation scenario, a whole series of paths open up, some leading to membership, some not.
Scenario #1: Texas wants in, and everyone is on board. So, what’s the holdup? Texas could be demanding an outsized share, based on the logic that they bring more to the able and don’t want to subsidize the weaker schools – at least not too much (precedent: that’s how things work in the B12); Texas could want a guarantee that the B10 championship is held in JerryWorld at least once every 3 years; they might be demanding that A&M be brought along; maybe they want A&M in and Mizzou out (wouldn’t that be a riot!); they might want some flexibility in choice of non-BCS bowls, etc.
If Texas really wants in they might accept terms dictated by the B10, with a few face-saving concessions. But remember, Texas is used to being the big dog and having its own way. It is now facing a group that likely won’t want to concede much, if anything to Texas. Both sides could very well miscalculate. B10 might set a deadline; Texas might issue an ultimatum. The clock ticks – B10 wants to move as Nebraska and Mizzou don’t want to mark time in the B12 and Rutgers needs to get out of the B East. (OK, phased expansion takes care of this – I get it)
Of course, both sides could get to the brink and realize they need each other and seal the deal. Probably the most likely result if both sides want each other.
Scenario #2: Texas wants in, but not everyone is on board. Now we are into a tricky situation. Can Texas get enough of its key people to agree on a move to the B10? Can it be done quickly enough to keep on a decent time frame? Does Texas have to appease any opponents to moving with some demands? If so, are their demands too much for the B10? If UT has to come up with a compromise negotiating position to satisfy the relevant power centers within the university, athletic department, and boosters, then getting in becomes much more difficult. The B10 has shown little, if any inclination to give special treatment to anyone. Again, the clock on Texas could expire and see the B10 move on. That might even be a strategy be any dissidents – delay, delay. It’s also possible that there are elements in the B10 that don’t want Texas – could a school that is not keen on expansion use any outsized demands by Texas to blow up the process?
Think #2 is foolish? Scenario #2 is what is happening at ND (with more ambivalence to be sure). ND is split – and badly. My guess is the Swarbrick is simultaneously trying to knit together a consensus to go to the B10, while trying for entry terms that can be swallowed. Logic and money dictate that ND should join the B10 with or without special terms. But that doesn’t appear to be happening. ND’s strength (NBC, BCS exception, natl following) are making it harder to cut a deal, not easier.
Lastly, Texas and the B10 will negotiate ONE time over entry. There are no do-overs on this one. If the B10 miscalculates, not too big a deal – Texas out? B10 is still huge, growing and top conference (with the SEC); Texas in (with inducements)? Maybe some grumbling, but everyone will still get richer.
Texas is taking a big jump – miscalculation could be very costly. They are going to want to make certain that they cut the right deal – which is another impediment.
LikeLike
Let me add one more point to the last —
Texas will NEVER be in as strong a position as it is in right now. Once inside the B10, they are just one vote out of 14/16. If they are negotiating, this is it. This is the only chance they will have to cut a deal that works for them.
Maybe just walking in is fine for them — I tend to doubt it.
LikeLike
Your analysis of Texas and the Big Ten is spot on and why it’s going to be far harder to negotiate a deal than anything else.
I think the truth is probably closer to Scenario #2. There are probably a lot of people at Texas who like being the big dog in the conference as opposed to 1 equal vote out of 16. Another consideration for Scenario #2 is that Texas state politics start coming into play with respect to A&M and TTU if Texas would appear to want to make a move.
LikeLike
This analysis is spot on — but I suggest that we move the analysis to the next level.
Texas, ND and Big Ten are three actors involved in a competitive game.
Scenario 1:
If Big Ten expands to 14: Missouri, Nebraska and RU — why does Texas and ND feel threatened? I don’t see it.
Scenario 2:
If Big Ten expands to 15: Missouri, Nebraska, Pitt, RU — why does Texas and ND feel threatened? I don’t see it.
Scenario 3:
If Big Ten expands to 16: Missouri, Nebraska, Pitt, RU, and Conn — why does Texas and ND feel threatened? I don’t see it — in fact I think they laugh at the idea that group “forces” them to do anything. Instead, it might require a re-shuffling of the deck.
Scenario 4:
Big Ten expands to 14 or 15 and it includes either Texas and ND. That is a dangerous scenario for the other school that does not participate. But, the school that says “yes” in the initial expansion knows this too. So, for example, if you are Texas, the value of your accepting a bid from the Big Ten for the Big Ten is: the Big Ten gains in its brand by the addition of Texas, every current member gains additional TV revenue by the addition of Texas AND the Big Ten is much more likely to add ND.
Contrary to how the board wants to view it – I think Texas gains a much better deal from this situation then “our oceanography doctoral students can spend a semester at MSU” or “you don’t have to pay a fee to join” or “we get to influence our schedule.” Really, is that how you would negotiate? If expansion is about money, then the negotiations will be about money.
As I have written several times (and it has been ignored by this board) — you view expansion fueled by the financial strength of the BTN. It can also be viewed as an attempt to overcome the rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation of most of the states that support the current Big 11. For example in the state of Indiana, the current projection is that there will be a faculty salary freeze for two MORE years (and maybe a tuition freeze for the next two). When the freeze is over will IU and Purdue be stronger or weaker academic institutions?
Scenario 4 leads me to ask two different questions: how much would the Big 11 be willing to pay Texas to join in a Big 14 or Big 15 expansion (either a one-time signing bonus or spread out over a decade) and could the Big 11 hide this arrangement from the general public since for political reasons they would have to do so.
Texas would undoubtedly earn more than any other Big 14, 15 or 16 member from the total TV package (including the original 11) — I say for the first decade. That would be quite a kick in the butt, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
Instead of a payout to Texas, why not waive the buy-in to the BTN?
LikeLike
@rich2:
In your scenarios I think it naive to think that Texas and Notre Dame would take expansion of the Big10 to 14 – 16 teams lightly, especially if the foundations of their present homes are shaky. Notre Dame and Texas would have to react simply to make sure their homes were secure. Losing 2 conference members, 1 the anchor tenant in the opposite division & arguably the 2nd most popular football team in the conference has to cause concern for the Big12 conference. Missouri is in the 2nd biggest market after Texas. The Big East losing 3 members especially with 2 being Pitt and UCONN means the Big East will likely cease to exist or merge with the ACC. That has to cause concern for ND and I doubt they will be laughing. They have to find, form or restructure their conference affiliation to find the best situation for the University. If I were the University President, I would want stability, money, associations with world class Universities, research collaborations that fit with the mission & goals of the institution, overall strong athletics. Arkansas leaving for the SWC threatened Texas stability & thus began the Big12. The Big10 is as stable as it comes. There was a reason why Texas sought membership in the Pac10 and Big10 15 plus years ago. If I am Texas, I want stability, not searching and changing conference members every 15 – 20 years if a reconstituted Big12 were to last that long. Notre Dame wants independence and has to consider themselves lucky regarding the generosity of the Big East & BCS.
Also, the Rustbelt and Midwest are not the only areas of the country reeling from the economy. Come to California. The same problems regarding cuts in education, have swept across the country. The students were damn near rioting at Cal. That simply underscores the reasons and needs for consolidation amongst the major research universities (AAU) who also participate in major athletics (Div I) and thus expansion for the main conference that includes both (Big10).
Lastly, the Big10 will negotiate. However, Texas will not get more than any other team in the Big10 and the Big10 will not pay Texas a signing bonus to join. You act as if the conference has nothing to offer these teams. The Big12 or Big East may not survive expansion especially if other conferences plan to follow suit. You are not being honest if you think administrators for Texas & Notre Dame are sitting in room laughing at the prospects of staying in weakened dying conferences. They are making plans, some of which include seeking membership in the Big10 which has more academic and athletic resources than any other conference.
LikeLike
@Prophet:
I don’t want to bring politics and such into this, but I do agree with you on the whole “Rust Belt is dying” ND argument.
Yes, the population in the midwest isn’t growing *as fast* as the southwest. However, it’s not like the rust belt states are the only ones looking at tough times at the moment, and I’ve seen some anti-ND-to-BigTen arguments on here that act like “why should we join this regional conference when this region is going to look like Thunderdome in ten years?”
Fact is, there are three rust belt states in the top 10 for unemployment rates right now. That’s terrible. But so are plenty of deep south, southwestern, and western states. 5 of the top 6 states for housing foreclosures are Western states, with Florida as #4.
So let’s avoid the “but the midwest is dying” argument, because it’s largely a red herring. Everywhere’s hurting, and it has little to do with conference expansion.
LikeLike
@rich2
Don’t forget the other partner…Pac10.
None of the Scenario’s will scare either of ND or Texas, but the scenario where Neb and Mizzou go to the Big10 and Colorado goes to the Pac10 will scare all the rest of the Big12 because it directly effects likely payouts their tv contracts will give with no attractive replacements to be had…and right before negotiation time.
Truly, I think Texas will walk a fine line, but in the end isn’t going to push because its going to need a home if the Big12 disintegrates and what’s around (other than the Big10) may not suit very well.
ND on the other hand, even if the BigEast as a football conference disintegrates, could just start a Catholic league, or all sports but football BigEast, and keep on with its independent status.
LikeLike
“Texas would undoubtedly earn more than any other Big 14, 15 or 16 member from the total TV package (including the original 11) — I say for the first decade. That would be quite a kick in the butt, wouldn’t it?”
Never going to happen. It’s just not. The Big Ten doesn’t NEED Texas. Is it a nice to have? Of course, but it’s absolutely not a NEED. On the other hand, a situation could be reached where Texas needs the Big Ten. If the Big XII goes away, of course Texas will have choices, but none of them will be as good of an option as the Big Ten, either financially or otherwise.
LikeLike
Just one guy’s opinion on these possible Texas demands:
“Texas could be demanding an outsized share, based on the logic that they bring more to the able and don’t want to subsidize the weaker schools – at least not too much (precedent: that’s how things work in the B12)”
Short answer is no. This approach just goes against the Big Ten way. Furthermore, Texas wouldn’t be subsidizing any Big Ten school to the extent of a Baylor or Iowa State. The point to keep in mind here is that Nebraska is just as responsible for the unequal revenue sharing in the Big XII, but no one is suggesting they would not be amenable to the Big Ten setup.
“Texas could want a guarantee that the B10 championship is held in JerryWorld at least once every 3 years”
If they really want this I wouldn’t be that upset, but I do think it is a bad business decision. Even if we assume that Texas is in the championship game 50% of the time, the conference would have a championship game not involving Texas at Jerry World once every 6 years. This idea sounds ACCish.
“they might be demanding that A&M be brought along”
Definitely do it. A&M would be a great addition regardless of what Texas wants.
“maybe they want A&M in and Mizzou out (wouldn’t that be a riot!)”
Again definitely do it, though this time with a devious cackle. This result would make the story of this expansion worthy of a tragic drama with Missouri as the lead.
“they might want some flexibility in choice of non-BCS bowls”
There is already a fair amount of flexibility in the non-BCS bowls. If they wanted to make it a free-for-all for bowl selection I would be against it, but it would not be a deal breaker.
“etc.”
I would also be okay with Texas having a say in scheduling setup and protected rivalries/divisions/pods, though not to the extreme of having a different number of conference games.
LikeLike
I have to contest your point of “Rutgers or Mizzou – could these two make their intentions more obvious?”
Everyone knows Rutgers will jump at the chance to get in the Big Ten. The RU fans are almost all in favor of it and will tell you so. However, anyone connected with the school has made statements that reveal absolutely nothing, even after they were goaded by Paul Tagliabue’s idiotic comments.
Meanwhile every leak seems to come from Missouri and plenty of writers seem comfortable quoting sources from within that school expressing desire to get into the Big Ten.
Equating how Rutgers has handled this process with how Missouri is comporting themselves is a disservice to RU.
LikeLike
UT can get a different deal when it joins the Big 10 without putting any special demands on the other Big 10 schools. That is because there is one other entity UT may be negotiating with: Fox Cable Networks.
Fox made an investment in the Big Ten Network, and now it’s paying off well. It will pay off even more when expansion happens; if UT joins, Fox will make yet more money.
It is quite possible UT is quite fine sharing everything with the other 16 universities of the new Big 10, but sees Fox about to get a bump in it’s profits for UT joining the league and giving up the Longhorn Network.
Since Fox isn’t really doing anything, UT might think Fox should give UT some of the extra money that Fox shareholders would otherwise receive. (Note, this isn’t about the 51% of the Network owned by the league; this is about the 49% of the Network owned by Fox.)
Now, in the TV world, this sort of negotiation happens all the time. Fox might put a solid sitcom (Missouri) on the air for the standard deal, but not give it any special favors. For a hit like American Idol (UT), it will make special offers on profit sharing or shared ownership.
There are 2 ways Fox could cut a deal with UT:
1) Give UT some of Fox’s shares in the BTN. The value of Fox’s ownership stakes will rise when UT joins, so they can transfer some of these shares to UT and still come out ahead.
This deal doesn’t affect the shares the other Big 10 schools have; it would reduce (or eliminate) the number of shares UT needs to buy from the other schools in order to achieve equality.
2) Giving UT some of the extra money Fox will make off the Big 10 network. This might come in the form of a fixed amount (which could be used to pay for the shares it will buy from other schools). It also could be a fixed percentage of Fox’s profit from it’s shares. If Fox thinks a 16 school Big 10 with UT will produce 4% more profits for it than a 16 school Big 10 without UT, it might be willing to pledge 1.5% of it’s profits to UT for the duration of the contract.
Note, this is only the profits from Fox’s shares in the Big 10; the other schools wouldn’t be affected at all. Indeed, since Fox would only make such a deal if it made its shares profitable, it would definitely be profitable for the other 15 schools in the Big 10 (since they aren’t making any such deals).
So that’s how UT could make a deal that was ‘all in’ to the Big 10, getting no special treatment from the conference, but receiving a little extra value on the deal from the other investor in the Big 10 network.
LikeLike
This idea brings up a good question. Are there any rules on the sale of the BTN equity? Could a school just sell their shares publicly? Could Fox? My guess is that there are some restrictions on it.
Either way, getting Fox to shell out network equity to get Texas is something I could definitely get behind.
LikeLike
Most likely, the Big Ten conference holds the 51% stake in a trust kind of situation and then dispenses payments to the schools.
Also, my guess is that neither side can sell any of the equity without first right of refusal by the other side, etc. Of course there’s no real reason for either side to sell shares, but the idea of increasing the equity position of the Big Ten schools by purchasing more from Fox is an interesting idea…
LikeLike
@Zeek
From my complete lack of experience in television network contracts, that sounds about right. I highly doubt a school could just sell their share.
Presumably, the endgame (10-20 years away?) is for the conference to buy out Fox. They have already gotten further to cutting out the middle man in their rights management and I don’t doubt that they would want to finish the job.
LikeLike
Very, very interesting theory.
Of course that could be also taking place on the ‘Texas to the P16’ side. As in “We at Fox can get you UT, if you make a deal with us.”
F-UT would be a paradigm shift, and piss off all of college athletics.
LikeLike
I can guarantee you that will not happen. If Fox wants to make any attempt to sell any portion of its shares, the Big Ten is going to have a right of first refusal, and there is zero chance they allow Texas to obtain “extra” shares via Fox.
LikeLike
The assertion that incoming teams in the Big Ten would have to pay Backshish to become a member school is laughable. Either Beebe is a liar, or you have embellished. Penn State paid no such dues, but rather entered the league with grace. Notre Dame? Their fan base is firmly against joining the Big Ten. Let them alone. The Big Ten will throw them the occasional bone until they are squeezed into becoming the next Syracuse. Texas? I once thought that the inclusion of TU would be a good thing. I have since turned my back on TU. This program has acted in such a way with respect to the inequities in the sharing of revenues with other members of the Big 12, that I do not wish to have to deal with their whining arrogance. That’s why Nebraska and Missouri would make any sensible move that would increase revenue, while ensuring equality in every league decision. Texas and Notre Dame are those ‘Bright, Shiney Objects’ that attract fish and women.
LikeLike
@Mikeyclaw
I don’t believe it’s the school paying to become a member. The way I understand it, it’s a reduction in BTN revenue for the first couple years. WIth the amount of money the BTN makes, it’s not really than unreasonable. Especially if it takes a year or two for the revenue to increase. Also, as much as I hate defending Texas, Nebraska is one of the four schools that votes to continue the unequal revenue sharing. The Big XII doesn’t bring in the television dollars the Big Ten gets. Nebraska made about 9 million last year for television. With unequal revenue sharing, it’s over 50% less than what a Big Ten school gets. Both Nebraska and Texas would be great additions to the Big Ten and would increase the amount of money all schools would be making substantially.
LikeLike
Well they’re foregoing a small piece of the Big Ten Network in order to build up their stake in it.
That’s all it is; right now the 11 schools each own an equal part of the 51% interest.
Only Texas and Notre Dame could probably negotiate totally free rides into the Big Ten; Nebraska might be able to; Rutgers and Missouri for sure would have to give up some revenue to build up their stake in the Big Ten Network…
LikeLike
@Scott C – That’s correct and there’s absolutely nothing unusual with that type of arrangement. The ACC did the exact same thing with Miami, BC and VT (reduced payouts for several years) and that conference wasn’t offering an equity stake in a profitable cable network. No one is going to turn down a Big Ten offer based on this amount. It may be a negotiating point for schools like Texas and Notre Dame, who would be automatic money-makers.
LikeLike
It’s certainly a possible wedge issue in regards to all this in a conference that shares equitably. Does the Big Ten break precedent by treating the teams invited in differently from the beginning, or will it be everyone pays in the same or no one pays in? You’re right in that no one in their right mind would make inequitable entry fees a deal breaker, but it certainly has the potential to create animosity right off the bat. Not necessarily the direction you want to go in.
LikeLike
Way to have a great idea and then erupt a big huge Ann Arbor Manhattan pussy and back away from it. If you are married, too bad for you. If not, have some beers and “more” and see if you can divine some life direction from this…with NO contact to “woman”.
LikeLike
Back at the home office and can finally make some specific responses…
@HawkfanBeau (May 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm)
but Texas is a “Southern” school.
No no no, a thousand times no. A very quick way to die a message board virtual death is to go on a Texas board and proclaim something about Texas being a “southern” school. You’ll see how quickly you perish in a hail of strongly-written bullet points.
As others have noted, Texans see themselves as Southwestern, or maybe Western, or simply as “Texan,” but we, for the most part, do not see ourselves as “Southern.” Yes, I know about that whole little silly Confederacy bit a century and a half ago, but culturally, only a small sliver of the state (rural pockets east of I-45) have a southern feel to this.
I don’t think this strong reaction against being called “southern” isn’t coming from an anti-southern bias, though. I think geographic proximity has led others to view Texans on occasion as Southern more than we’re mistaken for New Englanders, for example. We need to yell louder about our non-southern-ness than we do about anything else that we’re “not.”
I think this is an unspoken secondary reason as to why I am so confident Texas will not wind up in the SEC. Yes, there’s the academic reasons we’ve all discussed, and I think that’s enough on their own. but an affiliation with the SEC will confuse this whole “are we southern or not” issue. I think a majority of UT alums would like to answer that question “no” and would not like to have a contradictory conference affiliation.
@Frank (May 11, 2010 at 1:50 pm)
“that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea – Texas doesn’t have a Big East-type conference nearby to house all of its other sports”
We’re in agreement. I think Texas fans understand, when the mostly theoretical discussion of Texas independence is raised, that it would be an all-or-nothing proposition. No football-only independence would be possible.
@PensfaninLAexile (May 11, 2010 at 8:03 pm)
“The PAC-10 has had 32 years to add 2 teams and a championship game. Why haven’t they?”
That’s a pretty misleading way to phrase it. No one realized that a conference championship game was possible until those SEC officials discovered the loophole in the NCAA rules in the early 1990s.
@Tom (May 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm)
“Is there a group of say 4 realistic schools that the B10 could add that would make Texas say, “hey, we got to get in here as the 5th school?”
That’s a good question, but I might flip it on its head since I’m not sure there is any one specific set of four schools that would particularly entice Texas if Texas were at least considering this. Perhaps ask instead “Is there a group of four realistic schools that would make Texas say ‘thanks but no thanks’ to a conference it might have otherwise been inclined to join?”
And to that question, I would argue that if it appeared that JoePa’s dream of an Eastern Conference were being realized, and the other four teams looked to be all or mainly Big East schools, I think that would exacerbate the geographic isolation Texas would feel in the conference. It’s already an issue in many people’s minds, both psychologically and practically (as to the extend non-revenues would be affected). If the Big 10 wanted Texas, I think the more the conference appeared poised to grow to the west and southwest, the better for Texas.
@PensfaninLAexile (May 11, 2010 at 11:29 pm)
“And every year [Texas donors] see the big tilt with OU in JerryWorld”
Not sure how seriously I can take an outsider’s analysis of what Texas might be doing by someone who makes that fundamental a mistake.
@Frank (May 11, 2010 at 11:45 pm)
“they are WAY more concerned about Texas sitting around and doing nothing while the Big XII falls apart and there’s a lot of support to go to the Big Ten. There are also others that like the prospect of the Pac-10 or Western Alliance
My read is that there is probably more support for a move to the Pac 10 than there is to the Big 10. But I’m doing what I can.
@Frank (May 11, 2010 at 11:50 pm)
“I think that you’re wildly overestimating how much Texas fans care about being able to travel to Waco and Lubbock (or at least if the alternative is to remain in a crippled conference).”
Well said.
@Playoffs Now! (May 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm)
“I take it that you are unaware that WY was a last minute replacement after both Arkansas and Utah dropped Texas from their 2009 schedules.”
A minor correction that doesn’t take away from your main point: Texas and Utah were never scheduled to play in 2009. They were, instead, scheduled to play a two-and-one between 2006 and 2008. The series was canceled by Utah before it ever started, ostensibly due to scheduling conflicts which arose after TCU was added to the MWC and an extra conference game had to be worked into the schedule.
The canceled 2008 Texas-Utah game has to be one of the most significant cancellations in college football history. All other things being the same, it’s pretty easy to imagine that the winner of the game that was never played would have picked up enough computer juice to leapfrog into the BCS championship game.
@FLP_NDRox (May 12, 2010 at 3:59 pm)
“I can’t imagine being a Texas or Florida Five-star and wanting to play that schedule annually forever.”
Well, no Texas five-stars are playing ND’s current schedule.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn,
Interesting, your comments that Texans don’t see themselves as “Southern” and musings by you and other posters about Texas football conference independence.
Wasn’t Texas Governor Rick Perry quoted earlier this times year about Texas independence: “Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.” Sounds like the Civil War, secession, and “southerness” are alive and well on both sides of I-45 🙂
I just don’t see Texas fitting into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t confuse the idle chatter of the Aggie governor of Texas (remarks for which he was widely criticized inside the state, it must be noted — he didn’t exactly discover an applause line to use on the stump repeatedly) with the sentiments of a majority of Texans and UT alums.
Also, what Perry was appealing to was the spirit of Texas uniqueness, not solidarity with the rest of the South.
A quick historical detour: when Texas entered the Union, its status as an independent nation did allow the would-be state to be granted a few concessions not available to other states. Most Texans know this. But there is confusion about what those specific rights are, and, for the most part, are not relevant today. One example: Texas can subdivide into five separate states without Congressional approval, but no one can ever foresee that option being exercised.
The one special right granted Texas which was very important and yet is rarely cited by those speaking about such exceptions is the fact that Texas, and not the Federal government, gained control over the empty lands of the state. That is why you never see conflicts in Texas about state vs. federal concerns on federal lands like you do in the rest of the West. We don’t have those Federal lands.
Not sure of the exact terminology, but the proceeds (incomes? royalties?) of some of that land were set aside for the benefit of UT and A&M. And, being Texas, on those lands, oil was discovered. That is why Texas has by far the largest endowment of any public university in the US.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
I don’t dispute your take on Texas alums attitude and how they view themselves. I made this point to agree with a previous poster that the world outside of Texas does see Texas as “southern”.
Let’s face it, Gov Perry’s comments might have been “idle chatter” as you put it, but could you see any governor north of the Mason-Dixon line making remarks like that? Any governors from a BT state? He was speaking in Austin, the intellectual and sophisticated center of the state.
Personally, as a Nebraska fan who’s witnessed a decade of losses to the ‘Horns (including the upset in the 1st BXII title game), I enjoy competing against Texas and would have no problem continuing the play them regularly in the BXII or BT.
I still see Texas as a better fit on paper than in practice, but time will tell.
LikeLike
Can I see the same remark being made by a governor north of the Mason-Dixon Line? Well, no. But neither could I see it being made by a governor south of the line, because Perry’s one-time-only, widely-panned line was appealing to being a Texan, not being a Southerner.
And I would argue that Perry is hardly the only governor who has said or done stupid things, and I would be careful attributing to the citizens of an entire state that which you perceive in a state’s governor. Should I assume that most of the residents of Illinois are corrupt given the tendency of that state’s governors to wind up in a heap of legal troubles?
LikeLike
@ Hopkins Horn
“Should I assume that most of the residents of Illinois are corrupt given the tendancy of that state’s governors to wind up in a heap of legal troubles?”
Yes, yes you should. It’s not only governors… it’s mayors, senators, city council, etc.
In college I worked an internship for the Illinois Tollway in the engineering department. Most underhanded place of business I have ever seen. At the time I was there (early 1990’s) all unless in-laws of polititians were put in power positions inside the tollway. But when you’re 20 and making $18.00 an hour you just try to survive in the system. LOL
LikeLike
Thanks for the really interesting Texas information.
I had heard about the “subdivide into five separate states”, but I thought that went away because the original Texas borders have been scaled back (didn’t the original extend up to central Colorado up to the Arkansas River– and four other states have taken pieces of the original borders– CO, OK, NM and KS?
Anyway, good stuff.
LikeLike
Maybe Texas could fulfill its old destiny and start a new Big 5 conference of historical Texas states.
LikeLike
@N.P.B.:
Here’s a map of the borders of the Republic of Texas. As you can see, Texas extended all the way up into present-day Wyoming. The borders were slashed at the same time Texas was admitted into the Union, so perhaps the granting of the right to subdivide in the future was a concession made in exchange for the ceding of a considerable chunk of land to the U.S.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of debate over whether Texas still has a right to divide into 5 states.
The provision was put in for one reason–to keep the number of slave states and free states even, so they would have equal representation in Congress. They look at geography and there was a lot more room in the North to add states than the South. The Slave States wanted a guarantee they wouldn’t be outvoted in the future. (It was also a major reason Congress gave up on “54-40 or fight” that would have put most of western Canada in the US. Southern States didn’t want a Free British Columbia in the United States.)
There are two arguments that Texas no longer has the right to split into five states. One is the claim that they’ve already done so with the parts of Texas that are currently in Colorado, etc. The other is that because the provision was not included in the resolution re-admitting Texas into the Union in 1870, it is no longer valid. The terms of Texas’ re-admission supersede the terms of Texas’ initial admission.
LikeLike
@Josh:
I don’t think that the part about “part of Texas being in Colorado” would be relevant as to whether Texas could still divide into five states. Remember that the provision would have some into effect at the same time Texas would have lost its western territory, so it would mean the provision would have been invailid immediately.
As for the terms of Texas’ readmission, I wasn’t under the impression that they were superseded, but who knows. It does seem clear to me, though, that if Texas ever did try and assert its right to subdivide (and get to 10 senators), there would be one hell of a constitutional fight that would get to the Supremes.
LikeLike
1. What Hopkins is not telling the rest of the board is that Texas had applied for statehood a few times prior to annexation 1845. The USA wouldn’t take Texas until Texas stared cozying up to the Brits. Maybe they’re doing the same thing now regarding conference expansion.
2. As a citizen of a neighboring state who has spent considerable time in the state of Texas, I can say without a doubt that if “southern” is being used as a derogatory term to describe mouth-breathing rednecks with confederate flags in the back window of their pick-up trucks, then the state of Texas is just as “southern” as any other former confederate state, except for Mississippi & Alabama.
3. While we’re on the subject of states’ former footprints, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, I just want to say “you’re welcome” to the Big XII schools not located in Texas and the Big Ten schools west of the Mississippi River. If if weren’t for the Louisiana Purchase, you all might still be trapping beavers and named Pierre.
LikeLike
You lost me at the point you wrote that UT is cozying up to the Brits. Everything else made just about the same amount of sense.
LikeLike
The State of Texas, not UT. After the Andrew Jackson & Martin Van Buren administrations rejected Texas’ requests for statehood, The Republic of Texas and Great Britain started to have closer relations. Great Britain was using Texas to block U.S. westward expansion, and Texas was using Great Britain to make the USA jealous. The USA was in no rush to take Texas as a slave state & knew we could always get the Rep of Texas whenever we wanted. Texas wanted to join the USA immediately.
I’m not sure what UT has up its sleeve regarding expansion, I’m guessing the Pac-10 & it could be using the Big Ten to get concessions that Stanford/Cal may not initially want to give.
LikeLike
PS: You’re the one who associated “southern” with “derogatory term to describe mouth-breathing rednecks with confederate flags in the back window of their pick-up trucks.” Not me.
LikeLike
I wrote “if” you were using “Southern” as a derogatory term, which it certainly appears that you were according the four paragraphs you wrote about Texas not being “southern” like its a bad thing. If you weren’t being derogatory, what did you mean and why are you so quick to say “no, no a thousand times no” to the characterization of Texas as a southern state?
LikeLike
I wrote: “I don’t think this strong reaction against being called “southern” isn’t coming from an anti-southern bias.” There’s an unintentional double negative in there. Please substitute “is” for “isn’t”.
Texans consider themselves Texans first and foremost, and if pressed for a broader term, might come up with a vague “southwestern.” We don’t view ourselves as southern in the same way we don’t view ourselves as midwestern or New Englanders, but because of the closer proximity to the real South, people are more apt to be confused about this, and therefore we have developed an instinctively stronger response to being called “southern” than anything else.
LikeLike
I tend to agree on the point re: Big Ten needing to go more southwest if Texas is interested in getting on board.
Missouri has been viewed as a bridge to Texas, but Texas would probably be in a strong enough position to get Kansas in as well as the 5th team (Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas/Texas/A&M) unless Notre Dame is on board, in which case Texas wouldn’t mind ND replacing Kansas…
Obviously, the Big Ten seems focused on NYC with Rutgers, but a lot of us only think that works if Notre Dame is one of the teams as well. Texas easily has the leverage to shape the expansion if Notre Dame isn’t on the table. There’s no way Delany would turn down a Texas request to making the conference a lot more western/great plains-ish if Texas wanted that…
LikeLike
Obviously with the caveat that Texas would only suggest AAU schools that fit the profile of Big Ten schools. It seems highly unlikely to me that Texas would demand TTU of the Big Ten, since that would complicate the process…
LikeLike
Five Big Twelve teams to join the Big Ten. Spock would say “Totally Logical”.
LikeLike
I’ve yet to see any remark from the UT president or UT AD to the effect that they were genuinely considering the BT. The only remarks they have made are to the opposite effect. I’ve also yet to see intimation from any BT insider that the BT was seriously wooing TX. IMO, if TX were ever to become interested, it would be ‘down the road’ after Neb., Missouri, and Colorado were gone. Even then, UT might focus on getting replacements –UL, Memphis, Cincy et al, as best they could, and then focusing on the TX television network plan. IMO, any ND or TX interest, if ever, is down the road as conference expansion takes place. Odds are very strong that the BT will go with 3 now and await developments.
LikeLike
To be fair, you haven’t really seen any BT official say anything either, so pointing out you haven’t heard anything from UT officials doesn’t mean much. The only people that seem to be really talking are Beebe, Tags, and the state of Missouri. Oh, and a million “anonymous sources” that keep popping up around the Internet.
LikeLike
Fair enough mushroomgod; I tend to agree that right now we’re looking at Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers the most along with possibly prying Notre Dame loose.
I just don’t see Texas sitting around twiddling its thumbs while teams are considering leaving the Big 12. It’s just really hard for me to think that they wouldn’t at least consider their options, etc.
Of course if everyone sees that the Big Ten is only going to 14, then there’s still 2 seats open at the dance and both Notre Dame and Texas can sit around and see what happens with impunity.
LikeLike
@Hopkins: You said in an earlier post:
“As others have noted, Texans see themselves as Southwestern, or maybe Western, or simply as “Texan,” but we, for the most part, do not see ourselves as “Southern.” Yes, I know about that whole little silly Confederacy bit a century and a half ago, but culturally, only a small sliver of the state (rural pockets east of I-45) have a southern feel to this.
I don’t think this strong reaction against being called “southern” isn’t coming from an anti-southern bias, though. I think geographic proximity has led others to view Texans on occasion as Southern more than we’re mistaken for New Englanders, for example. We need to yell louder about our non-southern-ness than we do about anything else that we’re “not.””
I find this evolving “Texas identity” very interesting. As a transplanted Southerner from Georgia I have done a lot of family history research on my family. Many of my people migrated from Georgia to Texas in the 1800’s. My family stayed in Georgia. In looking at the early migration of Texas settlers until the oil boom of 1900’s most of the migration came from Anglo-Americans from the southern states with European background. In fact the S.F. Austin “Old Three Hundred” families came through advertisements for his colony in the New Orleans newspapers. Southerners flocked to Texas for land and the cotton economy throughout the early 1800’s through 1900. In the federal census of 1860 there were 600,000 people, 30% were slaves. Texas was a “southern” state demographically. They seceded from the Union (against Sam Houston’s wishes”, fought in the Confederacy, were a slave state, were primarily a cotton economy. After the war and during reconstruction till 1900 it remained a cotton economy with little growth. It has really been over the last 100 years and 3 generations that it has evolved into what it is now.
I am curious about the current “Texas Indenty” as not southern. I know that as the oil economy grew the population demographic changed to what it is now but how widespread is the non-southern mindset? Geographically I understand the southwestern identity. Culturally I understand the “Texas first” identity, but the historical demographics point to a southern heritage.
Please understand I am not questioning this current mindset and your understanding of it, I just would like to understand how it has evolved over the last 3 generations and how widespread outside of Austin is the non-southern belief? I know that Atlanta where I am from and have many direct relatives still living there has evolved too as the “New South” post reconstruction era unfolded. Much of the current population of Atlanta are transplanted northerners and midwesterners. However there is a very strong core native Georgians throughout the state.
Thanks
LikeLike
@Rick
The non-southern mindset, as Hopkins pointed out, is almost 100% true once you get away from east Texas. Yes, the slice east of I-45 thinks more southern than the rest of the state. And I think most of the demographics you point out settled there. Much of central Texas was populated by true immigrants from places like Germany and Czechoslovakia (as you can see on a map in city names like New Braunfels, New Ulm, Fredericksburg, etc). Geographically, the area amenable to cotton farming end somewhere between I-45 and I-35, about a third of the way across the state. And north Texas (Dallas to the panhandle) is pretty much part of the plains states. No more southern than Kansas.
LikeLike
Seems to me (a layman to the Texas history conversations) you have a large part of Texas history being created by a minority (at least in some sense) and as the state has grown (in the other areas) they are trying to assert Texas is more than the past indicates.
“Texas isn’t southern…its Texas”. Speaking as an American (of Scottish, Irish, German, Swiss, Italian, etc descent), I can totally follow that line of logic.
LikeLike
A few links:
DeLoss Dodds (Texas AD) gets a contract extension through 2011. The article mentions that he’d be around through any expansion issue.
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5185059&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_collhoops_5185059
Missouri’s Governor speaks again. He’s basically pimping the University to the Big 10 again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5184715
LikeLike
To clarify, the ESPN article on Dodds points out that his current contract expires on August 31, 2011, and that negotiations are ongoing, but not completed, to extend his contract beyond that date to make sure he remains at the helm through any realignment issues.
So UT anticipates that we’re still going to be working out the details of realignment 16 months from now? Hmmm.
LikeLike
A few points to consider as you try to assess the Texas options. First the Big XII was not an expansion of the Big 8, but a new conference with new rules, instigated primarily by Texas and Oklahoma.
Texas and the PAC 10 will probably not get together because Texas doesn’t like the unanimous vote rule and WSU doesn’t come close to pulling its own weight. However, an option there is the formation of a new conference with the members of the PAC 10 minus WSU and members from the Big XII and MWC.
Texas is also exploring developing its own network, with some content possibly from other schools. Several ways this could go and they are exploring all of them.
Bottom line: Texas is very aggressively exploring all of its options, Big Ten included, and will choose what appears to be the best option for them for the long haul. The feeling out process, the negotiating to firm those options up, realistically assess them, and set up the necessary politics to allow it to happen, all of which is done behind the scenes, is why this is such a complicated process. And as you say, multiply that times 3 power players.
LikeLike
Texas and the PAC 10 will probably not get together because Texas doesn’t like the unanimous vote rule and WSU doesn’t come close to pulling its own weight.
Do you have any evidence for these assertions? I’ve seen none, but would be curious to see the links if they exist.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Texas wouldn’t like the unanimous vote rule.
USC and Stanford have used that to great effect in terms of imposing their wills on expansion, and Texas would be able to impose its will unilaterally.
In my mind, the Big Ten’s 70% (or whatever it is) requirement is much more of a concern for Texas given that they probably wouldn’t have a faction large enough to exert a veto without working with A&M and at least 2 other schools in a 16 team conference.
LikeLike
Agreed. This is an issue pre-expansion, not post.
LikeLike
Big 10ers, let me run this scenario by you. I’ve had some off-line discussions with a Texas acquaintance of mine.
Just so we have a recognizable template, let’s assume that the rumor of the week (a story broken by an enterprising young reporter at a sports radio station in Missouri that has yet to be confirmed by one of the “big boys”) is true. And let’s assume that this is a pretty clear indication that the Big 10 intends to get to 16.
Now at 15 schools, the Big 10 asks Texas to be its 16th member.
Texas responds, “Let us think about it. We’re not sure yet what would be in our best interests, and, really, what’s the rush?
Big 10: “So how much time do you need? A couple of days? A week?”
Texas: “Um, we were thinking more like five years. Any problem with that? You know you really want us.”
If it reached this point with Texas, how long do you think the Big 10 would wait for Texas to make up its mind before saying “screw ’em” and settling for another school as a consolation prize? Or is the possibility of landing Texas have such an up-side that the conference would wait years if there seemed to be at least a glimmer of hope that Texas would one day accept an invitation?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – If ND chooses to join, then I don’t think that the Big Ten will wait. That’s the whale they’ve been waiting on for several decades and as long as they have 2 marquee names, they have the leverage to go to 16. There are viable candidates that could theoretically lock up the NYC market to the extent that it’s possible to lock them up (i.e. Syracuse or UCONN). If ND doesn’t choose to join, then I’d be shocked if the Big Ten goes past 14 schools. I’d love to see Texas in the fold as much as anyone, but a multi-school expansion for the Big Ten is enough of a freight train already that it’s not going to stop if it picks up ND.
LikeLike
I tend to agree that the Big Ten is only going to wait for 1 of the 2 of Texas/Notre Dame to get on the bandwagon before going to 16. There really isn’t any reason to wait for the other for more than the requisite time needed to negotiate an ascension.
@ Hopkins Horn
Once Notre Dame or Texas is on board, the Big Ten will issue an ultimatum to the other and then go straight to 16 if the answer is anything other than “let’s negotiate a way in”.
While most of us recognize that we can only justify going to 14 with Nebraska, once Texas or Notre Dame is willing to be 15, it’s really hard to see a scenario where we’d wait for the other school to be 16.
If it’s Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Notre Dame, then we’re going to tell Texas: “last shot to be #16 otherwise we’re going for Maryland (or Pitt/Syracuse as backup)”.
And the same thing would happen if Texas is on board to go to 16 but Notre Dame isn’t yet, Delany would probably issue the same kind of ultimatum.
Thus, I guess the Big Ten right now has leverage in that it can play Texas and Notre Dame off one another as long as both are willing to play ball. If Notre Dame or Texas unilaterally pulls out of the Big Ten expansion discussion, then the one that’s still at the table has all the leverage going forward.
LikeLike
I still believe the real pressure is going to be on Texas. The Big12 is now in the trouble everyone thought the BigEast was going to be when the expansion topic first came up. With Neb, Mizzou, & Colorado realistically leaving the conference the Big12 finds itself in a position where it simply cannot replace what it loses and the last major powers start to wonder will they be the last on the ship.
LikeLike
I agree with that view, which is why I think Texas is crunching the numbers on whether it can realistically carry the Big 12 alone along with a “Texas” Network that it might share with A&M to keep A&M happy.
But still, Texas will feel the most pressure if it is hard to negotiate a good Big 12 contract next year, since it knows that’s the result of just sitting around.
I have to believe that Texas is considering all alternatives at this point and that the most realistic scenarios are 1) sit in the Big 12 and supplement the decreasing Big 12 income with a Texas Network, or 2) join the Big Ten and abandon the Big 12.
The reason why the Big Ten has to be at play is that there is an extraordinary amount of risk for Texas if it is left alone to carry the Big 12.
Least of all is whether Oklahoma would leave for the SEC because it faces declining Big 12 payouts with no choice of supplemental income, etc.
There’s a lot of dominoes that will fall if Colorado/Nebraska/Missouri leave and so Texas has by far the most at stake in the next couple months.
LikeLike
So, Texas would like five years or so to see if their Longhorn Network idea makes the big bucks in a recobbled Big 12/SWC II, and they’d appreciate if the Big Ten would be willing to guarantee a reservation in the interim.
Mmmmkay.
LikeLike
It was a hypothetical question. I’m not saying that that is what Texas would want at all.
LikeLike
Why else would Texas need five years?
LikeLike
As I said, it was a hypothetical. Insert “X years” if you like. The gist of the question was whether Texas was attractive enough to be able to buy some time to make a decision. If Texas could buy time, the prudent thing might be to wait a few years to make a decision that is more informed in a number of areas (how well an expanded B10 performs; further research into the viability of an LSN; perhaps seeing how a retooled BXII performs, etc.). If Frank and Zeek are correct that the addition now of ND would reduce the willingness to wait on a Texas, and I tend to think that’s correct, then Texas might have to make a decision sooner than it might like to.
LikeLike
There’s no need to pussyfoot around it. Texas, or a significant portion of Texas interests, think they can pull off the Longhorn Network and make whatever conference they end up in charge of pay off better than what the Big Ten is putting on the table. Otherwise, why bring it up? But these interests would also like the luxury of hedging their bets by retaining a golden ticket into the Big Ten, just in case they’re wrong.
I don’t see either the Big Ten or a new Texas Trial Run Conference being all that impressed with this idea. Maybe I’m wrong, guess we’ll wait and see.
LikeLike
eapg, I think that’s why Oklahoma’s/A&M’s role in all of this is vastly understated with respect to Texas.
If Nebraska/Missouri and Colorado bolt, then Oklahoma and A&M are going to have to wonder why exactly they’re sitting around in the Big 12, and even if Texas offers A&M an overarching “Texas” network, I doubt Oklahoma is included in that.
Thus, Texas is going to have to weigh the reactions of a lot of different groups in determining whether to bolt for the Big Ten. They aren’t going to have 5 years or even more than 1-2 years to really sit around in a shrunken Big 12 because Oklahoma (and A&M if it’s a Longhorn-only Network) will be agitating over decreased paydays.
LikeLike
Zeek, there is an Aggie, who actually worked on setting up the Big Ten Network, and seems to be very savvy in TV deals who is promoting proactive action for A&M and OU to enter the SEC now. Texas can decide on their own what to do for Texas. The above post is on Scout.com if you have a subscription.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten might be willing to wait until it’s time to start negotiating with ESPN on a new contract. The current one runs through 2015. So a five year wait is probably too long, I’d give them three years.
LikeLike
eapg,
Having thought about it (as an admitted outsider to Texas), here’s what I would do if I was UT:
UT helps create the Longhorn Network, and is the majority share-holder.
The Longhorn Network obtains the rights from most other Texas schools (Rice, SMU, TCU, Houston, UTEP, North Texas, etc.), except the pre-existing BCS level schools with conference football or mens basketball agreements.
[For argument’s sake, let’s not fight over a few programs that might not want to join up]
UT also will [pick one: strong-arm / sweeten the pot] by scheduling these schools out of conference in the non-revenue sports if they sell the rights to The Longhorn Network. Maybe even an “away” game in mens basketball against TCU or SMU in the American Airlines Center, or against UH or Rice at the Toyota Center that would be televised on The Longhorn Network.
UT now sells the rights to their sports to The Longhorn Network, but clearly writes in an option to sell their home games to a higher bidder nationally (read: BTN).
The Longhorn Network isn’t a blockbuster, but it does have plenty of programming, some Div 1-AA / FCS football, maybe some lower level FBS football, and a handful of UT road games in basketball and baseball.
Probably enough to get on basic cable in Texas. And enough to make some additional money for UT.
Now, UT can approach the Big Ten. UT still brings to the table just about everything The Big Ten really likes about UT. Research, AAU membership, undergraduate ranking, the BTN on every TV set in Texas, the national power football program for ABC/ESPN viewers and increased Bowl opportunities, a Top 25 basketball program, a brand name national power baseball team, and their two Senators.
The Big Ten Network still gets ANY Texas home game in EVERY sport. But UT has a nice money-maker on the side, and a full time outlet for UT womens volleyball and mens swimming.
I don’t see UT bringing along an existing Longhorn Network that will clearly be secondary to the BTN as any sort of a deal breaker.
However, I could see the Big Ten having reservations about allowing UT to create the Longhorn Sports Network after entering the Big Ten.
LikeLike
All these power games are starting to get a bit ridiculous. Things would be a lot simpler if ND would just join the rest of the modern football world and pick a conference. I understand they value their independence and the tradition it represents. But by sticking to their guns they are very likely to cause the destruction of two conferences, the loss of several rivalry traditions that go back decades (or more than a century in the case of the MU / KU border war), and relegate a number of programs to mid-major status if the dominoes really start to fall. At some point you would think the rest of the college football world would tell them to either play ball or go home. I realize that just because ND joined the Big 10 it wouldn’t preclude the Big 10 from also going after Big 12 teams, but it might help.
LikeLike
You’re probably right that Notre Dame could quash all this speculation if it joined the Big Ten and Delany decided that 12 was good enough.
However, with the Big Ten Network, Delany may even want to go for some more Big East teams like Rutgers and Syracuse to go after the NYC markets with Notre Dame as the lynch pin. So it’s really not that easy to determine where the Big Ten would stop.
Essentially, the Big Ten Network needs a lot more markets and eyeballs for the schools to make a lot more $; that’s why this expansion has the potential to get way more out of hand than any in the recent past.
LikeLike
What makes you think that the destruction of the Big XII and Big East isn’t the desired outcome in some quarters? That’s why no one is demanding ND join a conference. ND is useful. The rich [of the college football world] are always looking to get richer. Why not break up conferences and pick off their best teams at a discount price? Conversely, why not use the break-up of your conference to get rid of poorer and weaker programs and get a better deal for your school? The next step will likely be uneven revenue distribution. “What have you done for me lately?” will be the question each school asks the others. Soon after that, “dead weight” will be shedded and the consolidation will begin anew.
Who wants it? The schools that believe they can gain from it and the TV and cable companies that believe it’s easier to market star players and teams than sports. What is tradition in the face of that kind of money?
If Frank’s taught me anything, it’s that the expansion of the Big Ten will not stop until team #16 joins. ND can’t stop that. Demographics and economics doomed the Big XII, not the Irish.
LikeLike
Maryland and Miami comments
>>
Some of the league’s athletic directors completely dismissed the notion that they’d even entertain leaving the conference. Miami’s Kirby Hocutt, for one. Maryland athletic director Debbie Yow, meanwhile, literally laughed out loud when I brought up the rumors that the Big Ten had contacted Maryland. Yow told a story about receiving a call from a Washington Post reporter several weeks back. This was just after the first Big Ten-contacting-Maryland-rumors had come about, she said. She looked at the caller ID, answered and greeted the reporter with this: “You’re wasting your time and mine!” She knew what the call was about. And knew the Big Ten rumors were bogus.
<<
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2010/05/thoughts-after-the-acc-spring-meetings-how-major-conference-realignmentexpansion-might-affect-the-acc.html
LikeLike
The decision on Maryland and the Big Ten would be completely in the hands of the university’s administration, not the athletic department. If the university president decides College Park goes to the Big Ten for research and academic reasons, Deborah Yow’s thoughts on the matter won’t matter much. (And that’s not a knock on her — she’s been a splendid administrator — but just a realization of who wields the power in this discussion.)
LikeLike
“And that’s not a knock on her — she’s been a splendid administrator”
I think the UMD athletic department’s balance sheet and income statement would beg to differ.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Notre Dame is this huge deal. Sure right now they are a big fish in college football, but they seem to be on a downward slope. They haven’t been relevant since last decade. Their appeal just isn’t what it used to be, times have changed and they are no longer the recruiting mecca. Everyone relates this expansion process to picking someone to marry. Well, IMO, I do not want to be married to Notre Dame. In 20-30 years I do not see them being relevant at all in college football. My age group (early 20’s) has never since a powerhouse Notre Dame team. Sure right now their alum fan base is a monster, but again, in 20-30 years what will it be? Just my 2 cents and my ramblings.
LikeLike
Derek,
I think ND’s main problem has been coaching. This is crucial to college football success, and is what hurt the likes of USC, Alabama, Michigan, Oklahoma & Nebraska in their down years, just to name a few recent examples.
I think the Irish have found their coach and will be back very soon.
LikeLike
“I think the Irish have found their coach and will be back very soon.”
I seem to remember similar comments about Bob Davie, Ty Willingham, Charlie Weis…
The Fighting Irish have yet to play a down under Kelly. In my mind the jury’s still out until we see what he does in the next, say, three years.
LikeLike
For sure it’s only my opinion, but unlike the others, Kelly’s delivered the goods as a college coach, and with way less material and resources.
LikeLike
Same thing michigan said about Rodriguez…I remember it all too well. Kelly may be a good hire, and I will give him credit if he does a good job.
LikeLike
Bob M – at the time UM got RichRod, he was a hot commodity. A year earlier, he agreed to take over at Bama, and then reneged. RichRod is a good coach, but looks like a bad fit at UM.
LikeLike
Big Ten should go to Big 20.
Most definitely add: Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame, Texas, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh….
….and one of the following: Iowa State/Uconn or Maryland as the 20th.
Iowa State doesn’t add much, but is a nice rival and additional Western anchor. UConn gives good basketball. Maryland? Well, good TV market. I don’t care who the last team would be, but winning this conference would be all that matters. All the essential and historical greats except for Bama and USC and frankly, screw both those schools.
Pac-10 could expand and take Utah, BYU, Kansas, Boise State, Colorado, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, and whoever else.
SEC can take all the leftover programs with shady academics!
LikeLike
. . . and championships.
LikeLike
The thing about Texas and the B10 is that there a more possible permutations to what is and will happen than there are possible NCAA brackets. Consider this possibility from a negotiating standpoint:
The Texas+B10 promoters are assuming that the two sides will agree simply because more money will be made.
But what if things play out as an “Ultimatum Game” (detailed info from the fount of all knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game )
This game is about two sides seeking to divide ‘found’ money. Behavioral experiments have consistently shown that if one side feels that it is not getting a “fair” allotment, it will reject – even though both would profit. In the experiment, the experimenter offers two people $20. Person A decides how to divide the loot, then Person B either accepts or rejects. Now, the profit maximizing move is for Person A to take $19, and offer Person B $1. Person B should accept – since accepting means a profit of $1, while rejection means no gain for anyone. What happens? The experiment shows rather routinely that Person B rejects such “unfair” offers, even though it is not the profit maximizing move. Rarely does the game play out this way. Often Person A offers either an even or close to even split and B accepts. The Ultimatum Game shows that people are not purely profit-maximizers. Fair treatment is a really big deal.
In our real world, Texas and the B10 see that a combination will yield a profit (the ‘found’ money). The B10 divides (TV) money evenly among schools regardless of their relative contribution. Texas is used to an uneven distribution, based on the relative contribution of conference members.
So tell me, are UT and the B10 playing the Ultimatum Game? Has the B10 presented an ‘ultimatum’ for the distribution of profits? Does Texas view this as fair?
LikeLike
I don’t really view it as an Ultimatum Game at all.
I view it more as Texas weighing the alternative of 1) a Longhorn Network to supplement a smaller Big 12 payday versus 2) the equal share of the Big Ten.
I doubt that Texas would make that big a deal about unequal distribution because right now a half of the Big 12 TV money is split equally and Texas only takes home like $3M more than Baylor in the current Big 12 situation. The Big Ten doesn’t really have as many deadweights, or if it does, they’re strong enough on the academic side (Northwestern) that it’s a different ball game in terms of prestige.
Thus, Texas is weighing two alternatives, one with far more risk (that other schools like Oklahoma will bolt for the SEC because of declining Big 12 payouts or that the Longhorn Network is not as profitable) but a greater potential for its own localized “southwest” future, or another where it would feel that it could share the TV pay because there are enough big universities that it feels like its finally found a place with enough peers to justify an equally shared pot.
LikeLike
OK, what you are saying may be true. But, I’m talking about the process that could be going on between Texas and the B10. Texas is surely weighing its options as it proceeds.
As for negotiating (or game theory) — this is a huge area of study. Parties engage in different negotiating strategies (or games) based on the background conditions. Prisoner’s Dilemma, Cake Cutting, Nash Bargaining, etc. are different games that can play out. When studying how these games work, very often parties are unable to reach the ideal state (Pareto). Pure rationality (profit maximization) is obviated by each party’s concept of what is fair.
The conditions for the negotiation between Texas and the B10 mirror the conditions for an ultimatum game — if the B10 is rigid in its concept of equal share. So, Texas would weigh all the factors you mention, but may also consider whether they think the B10 is offering a “fair” deal. Maybe they swallow a deal that they think is unfair — that does happen sometimes in Ultimatum (just not as often as rejection of the unfair deal).
My point is that no one should be surprised is Texas walks away from a deal that offers them more money than their current situation — they might simply feel they are being treated unfairly.
Real world example: Penn State offered to re-start a series with Pitt a few years ago. But they wanted an uneven home-away-home split. Pitt rejected. This was classic Ultimatum. Pitt would have profited (sellout at home, natl TV game, maybe a check from Penn State for the effort), but the idea of being thought of as on a par with Akron and Eastern Illinois was just intolerable, so they walked away.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting argument with respect to fairness, but I really don’t think Texas would push too hard on the whole issue of wanting more than anyone else.
Now I can’t speak for UT alums, but Texas doesn’t feel like it’s among its peer schools in the Big 12 other than A&M. The Big Ten is offering Texas a chance to join its peers in terms of large public research universities that mostly dominate their states and can fill big football stadiums.
We’re offering an equal share as an ultimatum perhaps, but Texas’ default situation is an unequal share in a league of non-peers in terms of football draw as well as academic standing.
If I had to bet I’d say the odds of Texas joining the Big Ten are rather low (say 30% or so) even though the odds that the Big Ten’s equal share is greater than a proposed Longhorn Network are significantly greater (probably 80-90%).
Thus, there are other factors that seem to trump the pure TV revenue factor.
But this has always depended on other factors than just TV revenue. For example, Colorado/A&M’s flirtations with the Pac-10. If Colorado leaves, then Texas is more likely to come to the table, and if A&M also leaves without Texas, then Texas is almost certain to come to the Big Ten.
So there are a lot of other factors at play right now, some of which can move Texas closer to the Big Ten or further without really considering the revenue side of the equation even though that mostly points to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Zeek,
You consistently summarize the issues as they relate to Texas about as well as any Texas fan I know.
LikeLike
As to the Penn State/Pitt example, without knowing any details of that situation whatsoever, it isn’t a though Pitt made a choice between profit and no profit. They made choice between profit and perhaps (depends on who else they could get who would do a straight home-and-home) a little less profit, in exchange for not having to kiss JoPa’s ring and more importantly not brand themselves as second-fiddle to Penn State, an important consideration given that they probably battle for the same recruits fairly often.
LikeLike
Choice between “profit” (Pitt/PSU) and “a little less profit” (walk-away) ????
Uh, that’s exactly the point. Pitt chose to walk away from extra money b/c they considered the deal unfair. You just re-stated my argument.
Again, the main point is that parties who engage in negotiation can fail to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial if the result is considered unfair by one (or both) parties. It’s an unquantifiable specter that hangs above negotiations.
LikeLike
No, walking away doesn’t mean they left a hole in their schedule, it means they’re not on the short end of a 2-for-1. It likely means they gained a home game instead of giving that home gate, or the lion’s share thereof, pun intended, to Penn State by playing an OOC game in Happy Valley that they can just as easily schedule, and profit from, as a home game by virtue of the fact that they aren’t, in your words, Akron or Eastern Illinois.
LikeLike
The game theory idea is an interesting analogy. But I think it’s a bit more complicated than the examples you give.
For instance, as attractive as Texas is as a candidate, the Big Ten doesn’t just have two options. They are making more TV money than Texas now, and with or without Texas, they’re about to make a big pile more. The B10 teams might make even more money with Texas as a member, but their worst-case scenario is if any candidate squawks too much, the Big Ten can walk away from the negotiation table and simply cash their new huge checks without the headaches.
On the other side, Texas would be losing out on a guaranteed jump in TV cash.
And as the Big Ten also has the power (if it wished) to crush Texas’ Big 12 league by taking even more B12 teams, not only would Texas be giving up a chance at pretty much guaranteed jump in TV income, but they’re risking a rather big loss in the TV income they’re making now.
Not to mention that Texas would lose out on the benefits of the CIC and whatever prestige the B10 membership offers.
I can see Texas not being interested in the B10 because they want to captain their own ship. Maybe they think they can make more money with their own network. Maybe they think the P10 or SEC is more attractive. Fair enough. But if they do find the B10 appealing as a new home, my advice is that I wouldn’t be spending a lot of time playing games.
LikeLike
My comment wasn’t meant to be the last word or the most complete word. I am suggesting that this kind of dynamic is part of what is at work.
LikeLike
Fair enough, and yours was an interesting post. Thanks for making it.
My comments are not the last word or the most complete word either. It’s just a view that Texas would have to consider.
With that said, were I Texas, I think I’d be exploring my own Longhorn Netork before looking at the Big Ten, too.
LikeLike
KU’s AD, Lew Perkins, speaks:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/11/1940174/no-panic-in-kus-perkins-concerning.html
LikeLike
whistling past he graveyard….
LikeLike
From OSU O-Zone article a couple days ago, some interesting comments from the president of the BTN (Silverman):
“I think the network has an impact on expansion…there’s many factors involved …cultural fit, geography, academic standards. I think the network is just one of a list of things that go into consideration….”
“We talk to the conference regularly about a lot of things but we’re not actively involved in any part of the expansion”.
Really surprises me that the BT’s corporate partners are not more actively involved in pushing the agenda.
Other things: Says BTN reaches 40M homes…BTN paid out 122M to BT last year….80M of which were rights fees…which would mean total profits of 82.3M.
LikeLike
Stop being surprised. My bet is that that guy is lying and they are involved in the process. Maybe in just a tangential way — but anyone with enough money gets a seat at the table (maybe not a voice, but a seat).
LikeLike
Well, the Big 10 schools are part-owners of the Big Ten Network. The executives at the network are probably not giving advice to their owners unless it’s specifically asked for.
On the other hand, Fox, as the co-owners of the BTN, is probably politely pushing the issue in order to expand the networks profits
LikeLike
To be entirely fair to Fox, I’d bet that first and foremost, Fox really wants a Big Ten Championship game because that’s the kind of event that could bring in the big $ and become a huge annual TV event. (Of course it depends on the Big Ten Network’s role in that…)
Add Nebraska and Texas or Notre Dame and you start talking way bigger $ of course for everyone.
LikeLike
Actually Siverman says a BT championship game wouldn’t help the BTN because it would likely be shown on a network.
LikeLike
True, I had considered that as an afterthought when I mentioned the Big Ten Network’s role in it.
There may be more of a role if we do go to 16 with pods and have a mini-playoff to a Championship Game. The two mini-playoff games may end up on the Big Ten Network someday as a way of getting fans to get it even though they may also end up on a network…
LikeLike
Regardless of what network the game is on, The B10 is going to be paid for broadcasting rights as well as reaping money from ticket and merch sales.
LikeLike
Those numbers are wrong. Published reports stated that the rights fee was $60 million, not $80 million, and that the conference received profits from the BTN of $66 million, not $42 million.
LikeLike
I’m of the opinion that the recent announcement regarding Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers are true. IMO, these schools have been asked to submit applications for membership to the Big 10. They haven’t been offered anything yet, which is why they can deny being asked to join. That being said, I doubt that Delany would have made these requests for applications if he didn’t already have a good idea that their applications would be approved by the Big 10 Presidents. Remember that the Big 10 has a study in hand indicating which schools have the right stuff. As far as Notre Dame is concerned, I doubt that Delany would have asked them to do anything if he wasn’t pretty sure they would come aboard given the negative responses they’ve tendered in the past. IMO, Dalaney would look inept if he hadn’t done his homework on that issue.
That leaves one slot open for Texas. IMO, I think Texas and the Big 10 are already in negotiations. The only reason why Texas hasn’t yet been asked to submit an application is that those discussions are still ongoing. If talks break down, the Big 10 takes another Big East school.
LikeLike
I really don’t think Delany will overstep his bounds and make anything that would look like an offer before he runs it by the Big Ten presidents.
The Big Ten presidents trust him perhaps more than any other college league commissioner is trusted, but he understands the game. He’s the CEO and the Big Ten presidents are the board of directors of the Big Ten. He can’t merge or acquire another school unless he runs it by them even though he would lead the negotiations.
LikeLike
zeek
That’s exactly my point. I think Delaney has already done his ‘asking the Presidents’ prior to requesting applications from the four institutions. The Presidents will still have to approve any applications. I sense that all of these schools have already met the litmus test. Further, what little I’ve heard about Delaney, he would have wanted a head nod from at least 8 presidents before starting down this road.
LikeLike
Your argument is also supported by the fact that we all know that Notre Dame and Texas would receive unanimous yes votes.
I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s minds that Delany can negotiate a deal with Texas and Notre Dame and that the Big Ten presidents would be thrilled…
LikeLike
Frank;
I don’t want to appear obtuse, but you’re losing me here. In your response to Nittany Whiteout you say “this expansion is going to require a massive football name in order for it work….” Then you talk about Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. Just which one of those is massive? Nebraska is big. But Massive? In their own conference they’re massive all right. Massively overshadowed by Texas and Oklahoma.
You are dead right that a massive name is needed. But if that name must come from the not-Texas, not-ND choices you list, don’t be surprised if Delaney and the BT “check” on the high stakes poker game of expansion.
LikeLike
alsace man,
you’re being a bit short sighted judging Nebraska by the last few years. By any standard–all time, last 50 years, every decade since 1960, etc they’re Top 5 Div 1, let alone BT. Even in their current downtime, they’d be upper Tier BT by winning %.
By your measure, Michigan is merely big.
LikeLike
Nebraska is as big a football name as Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State.
Nebraska’s only issue is the lack of home markets, but they more than make up for that in terms of their national ratings appeal and the intensity of their fanbase.
Nebraska is a big enough name to justify an expansion to 14 teams; I think you’re short changing them here. They’d easily be considered one of the four horsemen along with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State in a 14 team Big Ten.
LikeLike
By this measure, if UNL is a top Div 1, what is Rutgers, and Indiana? Worse yet, an Indiana without basketball?
LikeLike
A league of 12 Ohio States is a league of 12 6-6 teams.
You don’t want to add 5 marquee teams; the Big Ten needs teams that are trying but aren’t devastating threats to win the Big Ten.
I know a lot of people complain about Rutgers’ on the field product, but the whole goal of expansion is to target markets and add enough good teams to make the league work.
The point isn’t really to find 5 more Penn States even though we use the “Penn State standard” in terms of whether a school is worth adding to the mix. The point is to find a Penn State to go to 14, another Penn State to go to 16, etc.
LikeLike
A league of 12 Ohio State teams that go 6-6 would mean a lot of close and very entertaining games. Count me among those who is not interested in adding a bunch of weak teams to maintain the status quo to make Ohio State’s path to the national title easier. Having several excellent teams is what make the SEC appealing. Having just a couple strong teams and an unequal playing field is what makes major league baseball so unappealing.
LikeLike
Your comment means that Nebraska is as big as both Texas and Oklahoma. Please defend that.
LikeLike
alsace man,
Just go to Stassen or CF Date Warehouse and compare records over any time span the last 50 years. Unless you want to just look at last 5. UNL’s worst still holds up, last 5 years winning % is .630.
But TX and OK (and everyone else)had their own down times that were much worse in length and record.
LikeLike
In May 2000, this is what Oklahoma’s past 10 years had looked like:
7-5 (’99)
5-6
4-8
3-8
5-5-1
6-6
9-3
5-4-2
9-3
8-3 (’90)
Not terribly impressive.
Oklahoma went down in the ’90s but came back up. Nebraska went down earlier this decade but appears to be coming up. These things are cyclical. If a program had a tradition and dedicated fan base that demands excellence, then that program won’t stay down for long… unless it’s Notre Dame (hahaha).
Nebraska is a massive football name, as are Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
LikeLike
Stassen’s website lets you compare teams performance over any selected period or timeframe, quick easy way to put college football Royalty in perspective.
http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
LikeLike
Thought I would post this link I found from a Nebraska newspaper website.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/34828/
The article is rather unremarkable but the comments are quite the trip. See especially comment from “edmundburke” about having dinner with “someone who knows” that UNL to the Big Ten “is a done deal.”
Also a fair amount of UT-Nebraska sparring.
LikeLike
Wow. Those comments make my head hurt.
LikeLike
Why would anyone care what the local paper in McCook has to say?
LikeLike
Pretty sure most people in McCook don’t care what the paper in McCook has to say.
LikeLike
A few giggles here:
One probably done by KU fans:
http://columbiamo.craigslist.org/bar/1739347775.html
And one done by the Mizzou faithful:
http://www.rockmnation.com/2010/5/12/1469196/come-with-me-and-youll-be-in-a
LikeLike
No comments yet on the following Dan Beebe interview? He spoke yesterday for 30 minutes with Kansas City radio and discussed expansion issues at length. I haven’t heard anyone in a position of power speak this openly on the matter. It seems as though the Big XII conference meetings should be very interesting.
http://www.810whb.com/podcasts
The interview is about halfway down the page.
LikeLike
There are a number of comments above on what Beebe said.
As far as “calling the question”, if the Big Ten does want the two Big 12 schools, but isn’t ready to announce, then those two schools will join in a rousing version of Kumbahyah in KC. If the Big Ten is ready to announce the next day, those two schools are gone-dola before sundown, Beebe’s sabre rattling not withstanding.
LikeLike
Beebe can only really bare his fangs at ADs, and we all know that they don’t really control expansion (regardless of whether they tell Beebe they’re all in for the Big 12). There is no way he can ask any president where they stand because they’re his bosses and are above him in terms of pay grade.
LikeLike
So, Zeek – if you are out there …
You don’t like the Ultimatum Game. Do you like the Prisoner’s Dilemma?
In a Prisoner’s Dilemma, two criminals are caught and held separately. Johnny Law needs one of them to testify against the other (defect). If neither prisoner defects, they both get off scot free (optimal outcome). However if one defects, the defector gets one year in prison – while the non-defector gets 10. Fear that the other defects can cause one prisoner to confess, thus resulting in a non-optimal outcome.
Let’s leave Rutgers out of this. I’ll deal with Mizzou later.
The B10 wants Texas and Nebraska. UT and NU can gain from joining the B10. But there is room for negotiation: site of the B10 championship, amount of revenue shared, transition to full share, maybe whether or not to bring in A&M – and on and on. In order to cut the best deal, the optimal strategy for UT/NU is to cooperate (maybe informally) and support each other’s demands. By combining their negotiating power, they can make a better deal. The B10 wants to cut deals separately, by isolating each, it weakens UT and NU’s respective negotiating power.
So, do UT and NU cooperate? Do they get together and settle on some set of unified demands? Are they able to stick together with neither defecting? Say UT defects and cuts its deal with the B10, does Nebraska now have to play (ominous music) the Ultimatum Game?
As for Mizzou, they are playing the Idiot-Beggar-Loser Game. In this game Player A (Mizzou) has qualities that are desirable to Player B (B10). Player A, however, proceeds to burn all bridges to its current situation and broadcast its desperation to Player B. Thus Player B can offer just about any terms, no matter how lousy and humiliating. Player A must accept b/c the alternative is so much more demeaning. Well played Mizzou!
LikeLike
Well, Missouri and Rutgers are going to be pushovers in terms of the negotiations because they just want a place in the Big Ten. That’s why the Big Ten will take them after it has secured Nebraska/Texas/Notre Dame (whichever is coming in the scenario).
As for Nebraska, Nebraska will mostly be negotiating the terms of the “buy in” arrangement. Nebraska will probably want a much cheaper (possibly free) buy in than say Missouri or Rutgers. As for other terms, I don’t really see Nebraska putting up much of a fight in terms of academics, or even the location of a CCG (which will be Indianapolis unless UT has a say, but I’ll get to that later).
Now the thing about UT and Nebraska is that UT knows that they hold all the cards, whereas Nebraska also knows that.
Thus, there are two scenarios: 1) Big Ten goes straight to Texas and plans on a 14 (UT/TAMU/Neb)/16 (UT/TAMU/Neb/Mizz/Rut) team expansion after settling Texas’ terms. Nebraska has no alternative other than to take an ultimatum style deal from the Big Ten, but Delany is smart enough to give Nebraska the most favorable (possibly free) deal in terms of buy in among the non-Texas/Notre Dame teams. 2) Big Ten doesn’t have Texas on board, so the Big Ten goes to Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers first. In this scenario Nebraska has a lot of leverage as to the “buy in” but I don’t really see what else they’d have leverage on; realistically, there’s no alternative for the Big Ten CCG, but Nebraska would have a stronger hand since it could just go back to the Big 12 if it doesn’t like the terms of the buy in.
I guess in the first scenario there is a chance that Texas tries to get Nebraska to get a CCG rotation going, but the question is to where? Texas would want it at Cowboy Stadium, but Nebraska would want it at KC or StL stadiums. I think Nebraska would come down evenly on whether it was in Indianapolis or Cowboy Stadium, so they would likely side against Texas on that… Thus, I don’t really see where Nebraska and Texas would team up on issues; especially since they were opposed on academic requirements for the Big 12, of which the Big Ten’s are going to be non-negotiable (and closer to Texas’ point of view).
Most likely, Texas will know that it has all of the leverage in a 16 team Big Ten set up, so it will go it alone and try to negotiate some kind of rotation of the CCG to Cowboy Stadium as well as a totally free and clear buy in along with the Big Ten possibly picking up the Big 12 exit tab…
In a 14 team scenario with Texas/TAMU, Nebraska doesn’t really have any leverage at all since the 14th team can as easily be Missouri, and Texas doesn’t really gain anything from bargaining with Nebraska that it would gain on its own.
In a 14 team scenario without Texas, Nebraska gets all of the bargaining power as the marquee team in the expansion.
Thus, I don’t really see where Nebraska and Texas would team up. Their interests are fairly diametrically opposed in terms of the kinds of requirements they’d want as well as the CCG issue and even the buy in issue where Texas already knows it has the leverage to walk in free and clear.
It seems to me that if Texas decides it’s going to go to the Big Ten, that it’s going to have all of the leverage regardless of Nebraska’s actions, so it is likely to deal with all of the issues on its own bargaining terms.
Nebraska knows that the Big Ten is the only realistic solution other than staying in the Big 12, and so it’s goal will be to secure itself an alternative on as strong terms as it can, but Nebraska doesn’t have the alternative of walking away as much as Texas does, unless Nebraska really believes that Texas is not in play and that the Big Ten is just going to 14.
LikeLike
Actually a bit of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is playing out. My guess is that the B10 is talking separately with each candidate. This allows them to play off one against the other.
The B10 is creating a Prisoner’s Dilemma, maybe not intentionally. There are five schools apparently in the mix: 1) Rutgers (BEast, little negotiating power); 2) Mizzou (B12, morons); 3) ND (independent, high negotiating power); Nebraska (B12, some negotiating power); and 5) Texas (B12, high negotiating power).
Different schools, a mix of conferences, mix of geography, and the schools in the B12 have animosity towards one another. In other words, the unified B10 is negotiating with a set of players who are unlikely to cooperate with one another. It might be different if the B10 was negotiating with Pitt/Cuse/Rutgers/UCONN — same conference, non-hostile relationships, etc. A set of BEast teams might be able to form a unified front.
Alternately, if the B10 was talking to Nebraska/Mizzou/Kansas/K State, there might be the possibility of teaming up (don’t know the relationships among these schools).
Although probably by accident, the B10 has set up an advantageous Prisoner’s Dilemma game for itself.
LikeLike
I agree, but the leverage is much more concentrated in Texas and Notre Dame.
Essentially, it all depends on whether Texas and Notre Dame are coming as to whether Nebraska has much leverage.
If Nebraska believes that Texas (or ND) isn’t going anywhere, then Nebraska has the most leverage of any of the teams.
If Nebraska believes that Texas may make a move to the Big Ten, then the Big Ten has all of the negotiating leverage with Nebraska.
However, Texas and Notre Dame still have all of the leverage with respect to their own position since they know that the Big Ten can’t go to 16 without them.
Yes Delany is playing them against each other, but Notre Dame doesn’t really seem as if it cares that much whether it misses on the Big Ten. Notre Dame has to weigh whether alumni/booster donations will slow down versus the boost in revenue. Texas is concerned in missing the boat entirely on joining the Big Ten and then seeing the Big 12 raided on top of that.
Thus, the Big Ten has a much stronger position in trying to at least cut a deal with Texas, whereas Notre Dame seems as if it can remain an independent, since its independence isn’t really threatened by Rutgers being plucked from the Big East.
LikeLike
Right — the Prisoner’s Dilemma assumes that the players are equal. It also assumes non-communication and single iteration. The game itself is rarely applicable. But the primary reason for its non-applicability is that single iteration almost never occurs in the real world.
PD is most useful as a theoretical construct that can help explain strategy and choices. Another way of looking at the B10 strategy is “Divide and Conquer.”
An interesting strategy for the B10 would be to cut a deal with the most willing entrants, Mizzou, NU, Rutgers, thus formally breaking them away from the applicant pool.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me… but I don’t see Delany being able to do anything that would force Texas to join the Big 10. If anything, I would expect Texas to spurn the Big 10 as punishment for even trying.
If I understand correctly, Texas sports generates $100M+. They don’t need any conference more than any conference needs them.
This idea that the Big 12 losing Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri would cause Texas to panic seems almost laughable.
And what if they just end up with an arrangement with the Pac-10? Pac-10 stays the same, Big 12 keeps Colorado and adds 2-4 schools. New Mexico, Wyoming, BYU, TCU, Boise St., etc. A Big 12 with Texas, Texas A&M, Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Kansas St., etc., is no slouch. Zero danger of losing AQ. If they are worried about schedule, address OOC.
LikeLike
100M+? You’re right, they don’t need anyone.
According to this, though,
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm
the most recent yearly total available shows them 10.8M in the black. While the envy of most athletic departments, it’s not 100M a year.
LikeLike
100M revenue.
Still, I tend to agree ezdozen that it’s not about forcing Texas to do anything.
Rather, I think Delany’s first going to go to Texas and Notre Dame and ask if they’re willing to join the Big Ten.
If they say clearly “no” then he’ll move right along and focus on his backup plans which may include no expansion or a 14 team Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers, or whatever.
If they do say “let’s talk” then he’ll put everything on the table including what teams they’d be interested in joining with, etc.
LikeLike
Interesting game theory discussions. But I think it shows again that game theory is an abstraction and that the real world is much much messier. Expansion is effected to different extents by all of these scenarios. None of them explain the whole.
LikeLike
Game theory is an abstraction, so you are correct that applying strictly the rules of Prisoner’s Dilemma, or Ultimatum is unwarranted. Similarly the law of supply and demand or the Principal-Agent dilemma (which is another dynamic at work) are abstractions. It is not possible to explain anything complex in the real world based purely on these abstractions. Without context, theory is useless.
However, the features of game theory are at work, whether the participants know it or not. But knowing how these games play out adds to an understanding of how the players in this current drama have behaved and will behave.
LikeLike
Also, it’s a new dimension and a different way to look at how the process unfolds. Otherwise we end up talking about Vanderbilt.
Anyway, if Texas passes, do you think Rice delivers the Houston market?
LikeLike
Main Husker board HuskerMax fan poll on joining the BT running 73% in favor 8% no, 19% undecided.
LikeLike
FWIW, I wouldn’t use that place as one that represents Nebraska fans. That being said the Omaha World Herald ran a similar poll with similar results.
LikeLike
http://www.dailycamera.com/sports/ci_15073895#axzz0nrTz6hiT
The Pac-10 commissioner had a fairly extensive interview with a Boulder CO newspaper. Not a whole lot was said, though it is amusing about how many words were used to say it. An exemplar question:
Was there anything concrete that came out of the meetings with the Big 12 and Pac-10 athletic directors last week in Phoenix?
“No. It was a continuation of a dialogue that was started with Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe back in the fall. We had meetings to outline a possible framework for cooperation between out two conferences, and those conversations had continued in the ensuing months and concepts have been developed. Last week was just a great opportunity around Pac-10 spring meetings, with several Big 12 athletic directors in Phoenix, to get those groups together to give some air time to some of the ideas that commissioner Beebe and I had been discussing and get some reactions and some discussion going amongst the athletic directors. The discussions were positive. We got good feedback and we were encouraged to further develop some of the concepts and ideas that were discussed around a possible strategic alliance between the Big 12 and the Pac-10.”
“meetings to outline a possible framework for cooperation” indeed.
LikeLike
Almost every question was about expansion, but I still have to believe that Colorado is heading to the Pac-10; the question is whether Utah goes with them or a much bigger fish such as A&M. I guess we’ll know within the next 2-3 months.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if Colorado were the “sure thing” to the PAC-10 everyone seems to assume. It is talked about in most articles on the subject like a forgone conclusion, yet I haven’t heard/read any evidence that shows the P10 is actually interested in them. I’m assuming their status as an AAU and fact that they were once invited is the basis for the assumption, but this is one rumor I’m not buying at the moment. It would not surprise me if the P10 simply got NCAA approval for a title game with 10 schools if they can’t get Texas to join.
As for Texas, I actually think the P10 is much more likely than the B10 if they are going anywhere. I say this because the B10 has a large ego and regardless of how much Texas will bring to the conference, I can’t see them giving anything extra to Texas that goes above and beyond anything the current members get. And no chance they get a championship game in Dallas on a regular basis, I just can’t see the rest of the conference caving like that. At the same time, Texas already has a sweat-heart deal with the B12 and feel quite special about themselves at the moment (perhaps rightfully so), but because of that,they are going to want some things I just don’t see the B10 offering. Now the P10 is different, they seem a little weaker as a whole and with the upcoming TV deals are more desperate for a Texas to join, so they may give up something extra to get Texas. Not sure, but it seems more likely than a Texas-B10 deal to me.
LikeLike
Latest Big Ten expansion buzz I hear has the league looking at Texas, Maryland and Vandy while also focusing on Texas A&M and Virginia.
Vandy pretty much said no in an article this week.
So with VA do we now have leaked all of list of 15 studied?
LikeLike
Vandy and Virginia make no sense whatsoever.
Texas/A&M/Maryland make sense though and would be targeted regardless of what the expansion ends up looking like.
LikeLike
Academic prestige and research $$$. Both would make a great additions to the CIC.
Virginia actually puts up good athletic revenues despite their bad to mediocre teams, but they’re also well established research university and have a high endowment. I don’t know if they have a reason to leave the ACC, though. They’re at the nucleus of their academic consortium.
Vandy makes a lot of sense. The have zero academic incentives to stay in the SEC, with only two AAU peers and no CIC-like research pool. They’re currently the #41 ranked University in the world (ARWU). Culturally, Vandy is probably the SEC outlier.
I’m sure some of the presidents would be licking their chops if they could get either to entertain the idea.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt? Vanderbilt? Vanderbilt!
Well, at least it gives Rutgers someone to pick on.
LikeLike
PensfaninLAexile-
You’re getting a little carried away with your measure of RU football. There is no evidence besides your bias to show that RU could not be a middle of the pack Big Ten team from the beginning. One of the worst Big East teams (Syr) held their own against 3 Big Ten bowl-bound teams last year.
LikeLike
Sheesh — just a little jest.
LikeLike
Sports have to count for SOMETHING in a sports conference.
LikeLike
If schools like Vanderbilt, Virginia and Maryland are actually available, maybe that would mean going past 16.
I don´t see any of those schools superseding Texas and so you´d still need your one or two school bridge to Texas.
Maybe they´d take priority over Notre Dame? None of these schools delivers NYC however like Notre Dame does. And if you´re going to add ND, then Rutgers makes a lot of sense.
So that leaves you with 5 + UVa, Vandy and Maryland. Of course they could always be fall backs for Texas or Notre Dame, but, like someone else mentioned, any of these three on its own would look awfully enticing to a Big 10 president (probably more so than RU, NU, MU and ND).
LikeLike
Gopher – Vandy’s not going leaving their SEC gravy train antime soon. They are a charter member. Vandy is competitive in basketball and baseball.
Vandy is our pet nerd. We let them hang out with us cool kids, and do our homework.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – I agree. It doesn’t make sense for either Vandy or the Big Ten. I’ve obviously been advocating thinking like a university president instead of a sports fan from the very beginning, but that doesn’t mean that all of these people running universities are sports ignorant. A school has to makes sports (meaning football) sense as well as academic sense. It’s the financial driver that makes a multi-school expansion work in the first place – otherwise, we wouldn’t be talking about it all and the Big Ten would just be going after schools like Rice (Loki!) and Tulane.
LikeLike
I’ve always assumed that Vanderbilt in the SEC is the equivalent to Northwestern in The Big Ten.
LikeLike
Frank – TULANE! I love Tulane to the Big Ten. Let’s start that rumor right now.
Top 5 reasons the Big Ten should take Tulane.
1. I went to Tulane Law School.
2. Tulane is a charter member of the SEC, so the Big Ten could say “Take that, SEC” if they got Tulane.
3. Tulane is a top 50 school.
4. There’s no dark green and baby blue unis in the Big Ten.
5. New Orleans is historically the best party town in the USA. Every Big Ten fan-base would circle “Tulane” on the calendar: Great road trip; best food/restaurants in America; drinking in public is encouraged; bars never close; public nudity – not a problem; greatest live music scene in America; and best of all for Big Ten fans – a guaranteed WIN.
LikeLike
Tulane reason #6: Starts with the letter “T” — no other B10 school starts with “T”
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot about The Ohio State University. Nevermind.
LikeLike
Gopher, look at Frank’s comments.
We’re looking at “sports sense” multiplied by “academic sense”.
UVa and Vandy make “0” sports sense.
Thus, they make no sense overall. The Big Ten is trying to build a conference with strong academics for the CIC but also that will grab viewers in NYC and/or Texas.
NY and Texas (and possibly D.C. with Maryland) are the goals.
UVa is also just hard for me to see because I really don’t see an “all in” D.C. strategy on the horizon.
Maryland works because it’s the one school you can just take for targeting D.C. and of course Maryland’s research ties to the US Government are highly desirable for the CIC.
LikeLike
Gopher,re: Vandy, give me a break. It’s still a sports conference, as well as an academic association. The sports part isn’t optional
LikeLike
I never said they were the best option, but I can see why there might be some mutual interest. I’m going to put my devil’s advocate hat on for a second here:
First, there is no getting around the fact that Vandy football is terrible. TERRIBLE. Their Bowl win in 2008 over BC was the first since 1955. Yikes.
Their basketball and baseball teams would be their selling points, and not very good at that. They only compete in 15 sports and hockey isn’t one of them.
Football anemia aside, they did manage to post the 52nd best revenue in 2008 (can someone find the 2009 numbers– I’ve misplaced them). That’s better than Pitt, Miami, Syracuse and Northwestern.
So from an athletic standpoint, it’d be like adding a Northwestern (as Cliff’s alluded to). (I know NU has done some stuff recently in football, but historically we’re splitting hairs)
What I was really angling at was academics. If you can add a few power programs, a Vandy is a nice complimentary addition. Especially if you have to appease a president or two to let in a Nebraska or Missouri.
Here are a few fast facts about their academics: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/info/facts/
I don’t see any under 16 scenario where they get added– I have pretty much the same stance as Michael has.
@Alan: Does the SEC gravy train have a better contract than the Big 10? Does the SEC gravy train have a research consortium the size of the CIC? I know it isn’t all about money, but if any team had a reason to leave the SEC, it’d be Vandy.
@Frank: I agree. However, in the context of a large expansion, Vandy could make sense. At some point the number of games they add, the amount of political influence you gain and the academic monetary gains could make them viable. I’d give Vandy a 0.25% shot, but that certainly goes up if the Big 12 successfully circles the wagons.
@zeek I agree for the most part– see above. I guess the question is, how much bad football can you get away with? And what do you do if the Big 12 holds firm?
The only candidates I’ve heard talk of to the South or East are Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UVa, Maryland, Vandy, G-Tech, Miami and maybe UConn.
I think the conventional wisdom is to go after New York with Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers, but you’re essentially getting one decent football program and a shot at New York. So do you go after DC with Maryland and Va? There’s no good football there. How do you get G-Tech and/or Miami without them being isolated and are they valuable enough to make that kind of move? Are we to a point where stealing the core of the ACC makes sense? Is it feasible? Does expansion even make sense past the Mason Dixon line or after ND and the Big 12 are off the table?
There’s a lot of unanswered questions here and that’s why I’m hesitent to dismiss a Vandy or a UVa– especially since they bring so much academically.
LikeLike
No need for anything after your second paragraph.
LikeLike
Are we a bit snarky today? Do you have anything to add outside of mediocre one-liners?
LikeLike
I really should resist this urge, but I can’t…
In the past 15 years, Northwestern has 91 wins, Vanderbilt has 48. In other words Northwestern is closer to Penn State, Wisconsin and Michigan than it is to Vanderbilt. Yes I know that Northwestern was bad in the 80s (and I’m sure your grandchildren are very interested when you tell them about it) but it is a bit of a stretch to call 15 years as “recently”. If you would like a Big Ten team to compare them to, Indiana (54 wins), Illinois (63 wins), and Minnesota (85 wins) would all be more appropriate.
Academically, I guess they’re pretty good… you know… for the South.
LikeLike
Easy now, M.
“Academically, I guess they’re pretty good… you know… for the South.”
There’s a great story my fellow Louisianan James Carville tells about his first campaign outside of the South (which does include Texas btw). He and Texan/fellow Southerner Paul Begala were running Harris Wofford’s U.S. Senate campaign in Pennsylvania against U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornberg in 1991. Carville and Begala weren’t sure if their special brand of political voodoo would work up North. After extensively traveling the state, Carville noted that “in Pennsylvania, you have Philly to the East, Pittsburgh to the West, and Alabama in the middle.”
LikeLike
Fair enough– I wasn’t trying to knock Northwestern or their football program by any means. I just think that it was the most appropriate allegory– a smaller, private school with excellent academics and historically terrible athletics within a major conference.
It wasn’t intended to be a perfect comparison.
LikeLike
“Academically, I guess they’re pretty good… you know… for the South.”
This is my response to a friend of mine (and Vandy alum) who says “Northwestern is pretty good… for a directional school”. I have fun kidding around with him; let’s just say I will have to eat a heckuva of a lot of crow if they end beating Northwestern this year.
LikeLike
M – no offense taken. I didn’t realize that Vandy and Northwestern were playing this season. That just may be the Pillow Fight of the year.
Do you need Tulane for a warm-up scrimmage?
LikeLike
Vanderbilt is the warm-up. They have to have everything in order before the big Rice game two weeks after that.
I actually wouldn’t be that surprised to see Tulane on the schedule at some point in the future. Northwestern has taken the “institutional peer” route to scheduling recently. In the past 5 years, they have played Duke, TCU, and Syracuse, with upcoming games against Vanderbilt, Rice, Stanford, and Boston College. The only other private schools in FBS that I can think of are Tulane and Baylor (not counting USC, Miami, and ND, who would probably consider scheduling Northwestern beneath them).
LikeLike
@M Rice has also started down the “institutional peer” route with Vandy and NW.
And you also need to add SMU, Tulsa, and Wake Forest as private schools. I think there are over 20 in D1A.
LikeLike
M – if Northwestern & Tulane ever hook up for a home and home series, you have to come down to New Orleans. Even if they don’t, you ought to come to New Orleans. We could use your money.
In addition to my top 5 reasons the Big Ten should invite Tulane to join, the Superdome is about to undergo a $200 million renovation. Also, the New Orleans Centre and Hyatt, adjacent to the ‘Dome, that has been closed since Katrina is about to be gutted and a Plaza/pre-game/party central is being constructed there. Even more great bars and restaurants for the Big Easy.
Also, your team will most likely win.
LikeLike
Minor point — the Carville race you are referring to was ’86 Casey for Governor. A more accurate description would have been Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle, but whiter.
LikeLike
@Alan
I would definitely give that a shot. I was in New Orleans a few years ago (Jan 07) and had a great time.
Because I’m still having fun with that Stassen site I just found out about, here are the records and overall rankings in total wins of the 16 private schools in FBS (since 1995):
6t Southern Cal 137-50-1
10t Miami (Florida) 132-52
16t Brigham Young 125-63
21 Texas Christian 121-60
25t Boston College 113-73
32t Notre Dame 108-74
56t Northwestern 91-90
62 Syracuse 88-92
74 Wake Forest 80-97
76 Tulsa 78-103
77 Stanford 77-96-1
82 Rice 72-100-1
88 Tulane 68-106
100t Baylor 50-121
103 Vanderbilt 48-124
107(AKA dead last) Duke 31-140
So whenever you think your team sucks just remember that it could be worse. You could be a Duke fan.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt makes tons of sense, if you think about it:
Ohio State President Gordon Gee (the most radical and the most influential president, don’t forget) was there for a long time, and they loved each other and can be swayed. This would be a great coup for the Big 10: a big giant ‘up yours’ to the SEC (reason enough), a recruiting foothold in the south, decent TV markets in a growing region. Outstanding academics and underrated athletics.
(pasted from a comment that is pending, afraid I mistyped my username; sorry if this is repetitive)
LikeLike
Vandy is an afterthought in the Nashville market and the state of Tennessee does not produce a lot of SEC (or Big Ten for that matter) quality players. Check the Vols roster. There’s usually a lot of Georgia and Florida kids on the team.
That being said, Vandy is probably very happy to reap the benefits provided by Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Kentucky & Arkansas, but not Ole Miss.
LikeLike
I’ve thought about it, and it still makes no sense. Dead weight.
LikeLike
What would you think of these three pluse Nebrask and Rutgers? Heck with ND.
LikeLike
I meant up with the original thread, MD, TU, A&M.
LikeLike
Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers would be a great expansion scenario.
I don’t really see Notre Dame happening because Notre Dame can succeed as an independent and doesn’t really feel the pressure of the Big Ten if just Rutgers is taken from the Big East.
I really hope Maryland is somehow taken from the ACC because Maryland is probably the best fit in terms of research/athletics/geography/markets fit of any school (other than if Pitt. was located outside of Penn. as other posters have stated).
At this point I think if Delany realizes that Notre Dame isn’t interested, he’ll probably focus mostly on Texas/Nebraska and what other teams they (or the Big Ten presidents) would want to come along with them. Thus, we could end up with a mostly western scenario (Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas or substitute Kansas for Rutgers).
It’s hard to justify taking any or even one school in the east without Notre Dame, although that’s just my opinion. I don’t see Maryland in play unless the SEC goes hard after FSU and Clemson, etc.
LikeLike
BTW, it is safe to assume that Texas is and will be negotiating simultaneously with the B10+, SEC, and P10 until UT finally makes a choice (or a conference moves on without them.)
LikeLike
Way back when they leaked they were studying 15 schools, poster M (not me, the other guy) came up with a good guess as to who they were looking for. You can read his post directly at the link below.
To summarize, he took all the AAU schools that were in a BCS conference other than the Pac 10 and Big 10 and excluded UT (since he figured they were sure to make money for the Big 10).
That left him with 15 schools:
Duke
Maryland
North Carolina
Virginia
Iowa State
Texas A&M
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Rutgers
Syracuse
Pitt
Florida
Vanderbilt
Now, I realize he forgot at least one school that fit his criteria- Georgia Tech.
Still, it seems that just about every school on his ‘guess list’ has now been mentioned!
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/list-of-15-big-ten-candidates-is-who-may-come-with-texas-or-notre-dame-not-instead-of-them/#comment-55626
LikeLike
Georgia Tech was only recently admitted into the AAU in April, if that makes a difference.
LikeLike
http://blog.al.com/ray-melick/2010/05/melick_when_it_comes_to_expans.html
Video where Nick Saban says that Mack Brown (or a Texas official) told him Monday that the P10 is pursuing Texas.
Not really a newsflash, though the source is more the story.
LikeLike
Vud clip is actually at the bottom of that article.
Let’s see if this works:
Nick Saban speaks before playing golf at Regions CGI Pro-Am
LikeLike
As of right now, nope, it didn’t work.
LikeLike
Notre Dame to play Miami 2012.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0514-notre-dame-miami-football20100513,0,4647229.story
LikeLike
Hell. Yes. The last time they played I was only 9 years old, but I remember a couple of these games vividly. I can’t think of a dormant rivalry I miss more than this one. If anyone else has one, tell us about it.
LikeLike
Is this an action of an Athletic Department scheduling for future Big Ten action? I’m thinking no, but may just be wishful.
LikeLike
I’m not sure it’s either here nor there. If they announced that Notre Dame was joining the Big Ten tomorrow, it would most likely take 3-4 years for the transition to take effect.
LikeLike
It all depends on when these games are scheduled to be played.
If the games are slated for September, then yes, it might be a very real indication that Notre Dame is angling towards joining the Big Ten. The reason is simple–the games with Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue would be played during the conference season in October and November. That leaves open dates in September for a major non-confernce game.
If its scheduled for another time frame, then you can say it indicates that Notre Dame intends to remain independent. For example, the games against Oklahoma are scheduled for the months of September (in South Bend) and October (in Normam). Clearly, this was a compromise between the two schools because OU prefers to play non-conference games prior to the confernce season and ND has problems getting major opponents in October and November.
LikeLike
One thing everyone should be able to agree upon, is that whatever happens, everyone is going to be shocked. Except for maybe a few people who have been following this blog.
I think one of the shockers may be Vanderbilt. Ohio State President Gordon Gee (the most radical and the most influential president, don’t forget) was there for a long time, and they loved each other and can be swayed. This would be a great coup for the Big 10: a big giant ‘up yours’ to the SEC (reason enough), a recruiting foothold in the south, decent TV markets in a growing region. Outstanding academics and underrated athletics.
Ridiculous longshot I know, but if I were Delany and wanted to hit a grand slam, this would be a great component.
LikeLike
SEC sports fans would immediately spin this as doing the SEC a favor by taking the worst team. Then they would predict that Vanderbilt will dominate in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t go that far, but in the Big Ten, Vandy would make a bowl game more frequently than once every 25 years. Vandy has a damn good coach and their starters’ talent level is usually decent. Vandy just never has any depth.
LikeLike
Vandy never has any depth because they don’t oversign like the rest of the SEC sans Georgia who also makes a point not to oversign players.
Vanderbilt would be a nice addition to the Big 10 if it were part of a 5 team expansion that included Nebraska, Texas, Mizzu, and aTm…or something along those lines. Vandy only makes sense in a 5 team expansion model though.
LikeLike
Pass, x1000. Absurd.
LikeLike
In response to an earlier question, I believe there is an academic tradeoff between Nebraska and Kansas in which Nebraska provides dental school services to Kansas, while Kansas provides vet school services for Nebraska students.
LikeLike
If only West Virginia could get some dental services. Every try to floss when you have only one tooth?
I kid.
Relax. I kid.
LikeLike
I thought Iowa State had the agreement to take vet school students from Nebraska?
LikeLike
I-A Winning Percentage 1979-2009 (31 years)
(Teams not qualifying for the table are listed at the bottom)
—- ———————– ——- —- —- —- —–
Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games
—- ———————– ——- —- —- —- —–
1 Nebraska 0.78737 305 82 1 388
2 Miami-Florida 0.77005 288 86 0 374
3 Florida State 0.76280 281 86 4 371
4 Boise State 0.76136 134 42 0 176
5 Ohio State 0.75722 286 90 5 381
6 Florida 0.73238 278 100 5 383
7 Oklahoma 0.72500 273 102 5 380
8 Michigan 0.72427 272 102 5 379
9 Penn State 0.72149 271 104 2 377
10 Brigham Young 0.71501 280 111 2 393
11 Georgia 0.71144 265 106 5 376
12 Texas 0.70899 266 108 4 378
13 Tennessee 0.70735 266 108 7 381
14 Southern Cal 0.69577 259 111 8 378
15 Auburn 0.68952 254 113 5 372
16 Virginia Tech 0.66801 247 122 3 372
17 Alabama 0.66205 238 121 2 361
18 Clemson 0.66173 243 123 5 371
19 Notre Dame 0.64420 237 130 4 371
20 West Virginia 0.63514 233 133 4 370
21 Texas A&M 0.63137 234 136 3 373
22 Louisiana State 0.62803 230 135 6 371
23 Fresno State 0.62633 234 139 3 376
24 UCLA 0.61413 223 139 6 368
25 Washington 0.61382 225 141 3 369
26 Toledo 0.61173 216 136 6 358
27 Iowa 0.60695 224 144 6 374
28 Southern Miss 0.60302 218 143 3 364
29 Arkansas 0.59946 221 147 4 372
30 Utah 0.59863 217 145 3 365
31 Marshall 0.59538 103 70 0 173
32 Oregon 0.58743 213 149 4 366
33 Air Force 0.58621 220 155 2 377
34 Arizona State 0.57735 207 151 4 362
35 Boston College 0.57588 211 155 3 369
36 Wisconsin 0.56048 206 161 5 372
37 Virginia 0.55842 204 161 3 368
38 Bowling Green 0.55775 195 154 6 355
39 Central Michigan 0.55367 191 153 10 354
40 Syracuse 0.55205 199 161 5 365
41 North Carolina 0.55191 200 162 4 366
42 Pittsburgh 0.55096 197 160 6 363
43 Texas Tech 0.54781 198 163 5 366
44 Arizona 0.54571 193 160 8 361
45 Colorado 0.54189 198 167 5 370
46 Hawaii 0.54090 202 171 6 379
47 Western Michigan 0.53835 187 160 5 352
48 Georgia Tech 0.53678 194 167 6 367
49 Nevada-Reno 0.53271 114 100 0 214
50 Louisville 0.52786 188 168 3 359
51 Miami-Ohio 0.52684 182 163 9 354
52 North Carolina State 0.52466 190 172 3 365
53 Oklahoma State 0.51934 185 171 6 362
54 Texas Christian 0.51676 182 170 6 358
55t Connecticut 0.51667 62 58 0 120
55t Mississippi 0.51667 184 172 4 360
57 South Carolina 0.51111 181 173 6 360
58 Kansas State 0.50685 183 178 4 365
59 Wyoming 0.50683 185 180 1 366
60 Maryland 0.50278 179 177 4 360
61 East Carolina 0.49582 177 180 2 359
62 Michigan State 0.49452 178 182 5 365
63 Central Florida 0.48485 80 85 0 165
64 Colorado State 0.48103 176 190 3 369
65 Tulsa 0.48050 172 186 1 359
66 Louisiana Tech 0.47736 125 137 3 265
67 Purdue 0.47652 170 187 5 362
68 Houston 0.47645 170 187 4 361
69 Washington State 0.47339 167 186 4 357
70 Middle Tennessee State 0.47287 61 68 0 129
71 California 0.47230 168 188 5 361
72 Ball State 0.46742 163 186 4 353
73 Missouri 0.46547 165 190 7 362
74 Northern Illinois 0.46449 162 187 3 352
75 San Jose State 0.46348 163 189 4 356
76 Illinois 0.45543 160 192 7 359
77 Cincinnati 0.45518 161 193 3 357
78t Baylor 0.44774 157 194 3 354
78t Stanford 0.44774 156 193 5 354
80 Mississippi State 0.44663 158 196 2 356
81 San Diego State 0.44628 159 198 6 363
82 Akron 0.44286 153 193 4 350
83 Navy 0.44258 157 198 2 357
84 Kansas 0.44118 154 196 7 357
85 Rutgers 0.43732 151 195 5 351
86 Wake Forest 0.43380 153 200 2 355
87 Minnesota 0.42758 152 204 3 359
88 UAB 0.42236 68 93 0 161
89 Kentucky 0.41433 146 207 3 356
90 Louisiana-Lafayette 0.40896 140 203 3 346
91 Southern Methodist 0.40785 133 194 4 331
92 New Mexico 0.40736 149 217 1 367
93 Indiana 0.40704 143 209 3 355
94 Memphis 0.38920 134 212 6 352
95 Iowa State 0.38277 132 215 7 354
96 Army 0.38210 132 215 5 352
97 Oregon State 0.37849 133 220 5 358
98 Utah State 0.37500 129 216 3 348
99 Nevada-Las Vegas 0.37042 130 222 3 355
100 Tulane 0.36338 129 226 0 355
101 Ohio University 0.36080 124 222 6 352
102 Idaho 0.35583 58 105 0 163
103 Northwestern 0.35154 124 230 3 357
104 North Texas 0.35025 69 128 0 197
105 Rice 0.34957 121 226 2 349
106 Louisiana-Monroe 0.33880 62 121 0 183
107 Arkansas State 0.33575 69 137 1 207
108 Texas-El Paso 0.30663 110 250 2 362
109 Eastern Michigan 0.30491 102 237 7 346
110 Temple 0.29598 103 245 0 348
111t Duke 0.29370 101 245 3 349
111t Vanderbilt 0.29370 102 246 1 349
113 New Mexico State 0.26923 94 256 1 351
114 Kent 0.25144 87 260 1 348
115 Buffalo 0.23256 30 99 0 129
—- ———————– ——- —- —- —- —–
Teams not qualifying for the Win % table
————————- ————–
Team skipped Reason skipped
————————- ————–
Florida Atlantic 19% years
Florida International 19% years
Fullerton State Not current I-A
Long Beach State Not current I-A
Pacific Not current I-A
South Florida 29% years
Troy 29% years
Villanova Not current I-A
Western Kentucky 10% years
Wichita Not current I-A
————————- ————–
What the “reason disqualified” values mean:
LikeLike
Just the relevant schools
1 Nebraska 0.78737 305 82 1 388
5 Ohio State 0.75722 286 90 5 381
8 Michigan 0.72427 272 102 5 379
9 Penn State 0.72149 271 104 2 377
12 Texas 0.70899 266 108 4 378
19 Notre Dame 0.64420 237 130 4 371
21 Texas A&M 0.63137 234 136 3 373
27 Iowa 0.60695 224 144 6 374
36 Wisconsin 0.56048 206 161 5 372
40 Syracuse 0.55205 199 161 5 365
42 Pittsburgh 0.55096 197 160 6 363
45 Colorado 0.54189 198 167 5 370
48 Georgia Tech 0.53678 194 167 6 367
55t Connecticut 0.51667 62 58 0 120
60 Maryland 0.50278 179 177 4 360
62 Michigan State 0.49452 178 182 5 365
67 Purdue 0.47652 170 187 5 362
73 Missouri 0.46547 165 190 7 362
76 Illinois 0.45543 160 192 7 359
84 Kansas 0.44118 154 196 7 357
85 Rutgers 0.43732 151 195 5 351
87 Minnesota 0.42758 152 204 3 359
89 Kentucky 0.41433 146 207 3 356
93 Indiana 0.40704 143 209 3 355
95 Iowa State 0.38277 132 215 7 354
103 Northwestern 0.35154 124 230 3 357
111t Vanderbilt 0.29370 102 246 1 349
LikeLike
Just the relevant schools… 20 year glimpse
Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games
—- ———————– ——- —- —- —- —–
1 Florida 0.79412 202 52 1 255
2 Ohio State 0.77800 193 54 3 250
4 Nebraska 0.76087 192 60 1 253
7 Texas 0.74297 184 63 2 249
9 Michigan 0.71341 174 69 3 246
11 Penn State 0.70732 174 72 0 246
20 Texas A&M 0.64228 157 87 2 246
21 Wisconsin 0.63968 156 87 4 247
22 Notre Dame 0.63786 154 87 2 243
32 Georgia Tech 0.60204 147 97 1 245
33t Colorado 0.60000 145 96 4 245
38 Iowa 0.59091 142 98 2 242
50 Syracuse 0.54184 128 108 3 239
57 Connecticut 0.51667 62 58 0 120
62 Michigan State 0.49372 117 120 2 239
64 Purdue 0.48950 115 120 3 238
65 Kansas 0.48932 114 119 1 234
68 Missouri 0.48312 113 121 3 237
71 Pittsburgh 0.47447 111 123 1 235
74 Maryland 0.46795 109 124 1 234
81 Northwestern 0.44703 105 130 1 236
86 Minnesota 0.43220 102 134 0 236
92 Rutgers 0.41342 95 135 1 231
93 Illinois 0.41202 95 136 2 233
94 Kentucky 0.40343 94 139 0 233
97 Indiana 0.38261 87 141 2 230
100 Iowa State 0.36266 83 147 3 233
112 Vanderbilt 0.29956 68 159 0 227
LikeLike
What does it look like since 2000? Minus vandy, gt, Iowa state, Kentucky, Colorado.
LikeLike
Relevant schools 2000-2009
2=Texas: .85
4=OSU: .80
18=Wisconsin: .67
20=Nebraska: .66
22=Michigan: .65
24=Iowa: .64
29=PSU: .63
34=Pitt: .60
38=Maryland: .58
39=ND: .57
43=Missouri: .56
51=Purdue: .54
58=UConn: .52
59=Texas A&M: .52
61=Minn: .50
61=NW: .50
66=MSU: .49
74=Rutgers: .48
76=Kansas: .47
94=Syracuse: .39
96=Illinois: .38
105=Indiana: .33
Last 5 years (2005-2009)
1=Texas: .88
5=OSU: .84
7=PSU: .80
13=Wisconsin: .74
20=Missouri: .68
21=Rutgers: .67
30=Nebraska: .63
35=Iowa: .62
36=Kansas: .61
43=Pitt: .57
47=Michigan: .56
47=ND: .56
53=UConn: .55
53=NW: .55
63=MSU: .50
63=Texas A&M: .50
67=Maryland: .48
67=Purdue: .48
89=Indiana: .38
98=Illinois: .35
114=Syracuse: .24
LikeLike
Interactive map; Members and possible candidates
LikeLike
But . . . but . . . but I thought Nebraska was a big fish!
LikeLike
Personally, I think Delany also thinks like that. He knows he needs to make a Penn State sized splash.
The same splash in the early 90s that sent the SEC scrambling etc.
Only Texas or Notre Dame would send Slive scrambling to find 4 teams for the SEC, etc.
A Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers 14 team Big Ten would be a decent expansion, but it wouldn’t be a game changer.
A Nebraska/Texas/A&M 14 team expansion would blow the lid off the roof, etc. A 16 team expansion with Texas would obviously do the same.
I really see Delany going hard after Texas and Notre Dame and taking whichever one is willing to play ball this time…
LikeLike
Well, if a columnist for the Detroit Free Press says it, it must be true.
It’s very difficult to see why the rest of the Big XII finds Texas fans arrogant.
LikeLike
He’s not asserting the truth. He’s asserting a personal opinion, and his personal opinion is that an expansion which doesn’t include either Texas or Notre Dame is a “joke”. Hard to see why it’s arrogant to point out what a writer within the Big 10’s geographic footprint is saying.
Have other Big 10 area columnists chimed in on their thoughts on the rumored realignment plans? When you get beyond realignment nerds like us, what’s been the reaction?
LikeLike
@HH
you may not be familiar with Drew Sharp, and if not, you’re a lucky person. I generally recommend either not reading his articles, or drinking heavily immediately upon reading in the hopes that by the next day your head and body will hurt so bad you’ll forget the content therein.
LikeLike
So, in other words, he’s just like the typical sports columnist most major cities seem to have? 🙂
LikeLike
HoosierMike is right. Drew Sharp writes articles solely to stir the pot. He doesn’t believe half the things he writes.
Also typical for a Drew Sharp column, you will see that he tries to define this situation as the Big Ten only having two options:
a. winner of the “arms race of collegiate superpowers”
b. “anything less is a joke”.
He likes to set up his columns like this so that he can use big words (for him) like “ridiculous” or “foolish” or “tremendous”, and anyone he disagrees is a moron or fooling himself.
It goes without saying that every situation is not a bases-loaded, two outs in the ninth situation, where you can only hit a Grand Slam or strikeout. Getting a double or a walk is perfectly acceptable in this situation, too.
LikeLike
Cliff – I made the same point in a previous post.
During the last big round of reallignment, the Big Ten hit a home run with Penn State. The SEC hit back-to-back stand-up doubles with Arkansas and South Carolina. But those stand-up doubles probably helped Team SEC more than the solo homer helped Team Big Ten.
Since the SEC expanded into divisions 18 years ago, and started played a conference championship game, 4 charter members of the SEC have won 8 national championships. The Big Ten’s two super powers have each won one NC each during that same time.
I’d take a 3-run stand-up double over a solo homer any day.
LikeLike
Alan,
That’s a good point. And in this case for the Big Ten, the existence of the BTN does mean that the bases are loaded.
Even if Rugers or Missouri is “unexciting”, this isn’t a ho-hum two-out bases-empty walk.
If The Big Ten “only” adds Rutgers, that addition will add revenue to the existing Big Ten schools through adding a CCG, increased viewers in NJ, and increased BTN inventory.
Additionally, the rally keeps going. There are additional batters coming up to the plate.
Furthermore, it’s sent the opposing pitcher to the showers, and the bullpen is active.
When a BCS school leaves one conference for another, the ripple effect is huge, and every other conference will need to take a hard look at what they will do to act (SEC) or react (Big East) to the new world order.
As for the South Carolina / Arkansas vs Penn State argument, you can’t argue with the success of the SEC in football recently. But there is a bit of apples/oranges in what the conference schools are looking for.
Penn State did bring a national name brand football program that I’m sure increased the value of the Big Ten contract(s) with ABC/ESPN moreso than SC and Ark did for the SEC. Additionally, the households in Pennsylvania now paying for the BTN have now brought tremendous value to the Big Ten. I have no proof or facts to back me up, but I’m assuming that Penn State also brought more to the Big Ten in research and academics and fertile PA recruiting grounds,
Based on these items, I would think that Big Ten schools greatly prefer what Penn State brings to the table vs SC and Arkansas, even if the SEC is happier with the results of bringing SC/Arkansas into the conference.
LikeLike
“But . . . but . . . but I thought Nebraska was a big fish!”
You’re right. That was pretty diplomatic.
LikeLike
About as diplomatic as a number of NU fans have been when they’ve mentioned Texas. But, you’re right, they’re classy, while we’re merely arrogant.
LikeLike
I really don’t get the oversensitivity here. Everyone in the Big 12 knows who runs the conference. Read the opinion pieces, listen to the podcasts, radio shows, whatever. No one disputes that Texas is in charge, some schools have options to do something about it, so they’ll speak more freely, others don’t have great options, so they’ll make nice. In your own way, in nearly everything you write on this subject, you revel in the position Texas enjoys also.
Kind of silly to then turn around and act like someone has terribly offended Texas, or misunderstands the situation. Texas enjoys a position of power. They’ve used that power in the past, are likely currently negotiating using the leverage that power brings, and intend to use that power in the future for one thing – to accrue benefits to the University of Texas.
Everyone looks out for #1. It’s not something to get all defensive about.
LikeLike
Yeah, Wooderson, stop being so overly sensitive. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, he did name himself after a movie character played by a bongo-playing Texas icon.
LikeLike
You should never pay attention to anything Drew Sharp says. When not writing intentionally inflammatory opinion articles, he often goes on talk radio shows and slanders various people without doing any research in order to get attention.
For example, he went on Bill O’Reilly’s show when Rush Limbaugh was part of a bid for buying the Rams and attributed a bunch of highly racist quotes to Limbaugh because he had read them on Wikipedia. While I strongly dislike both O’Reilly and Limbaugh, it was a pleasure to watch O’Reilly tear Sharp apart for failing to do any research before making these accusations on national television.
LikeLike
Assume that the reports Monday were true and that Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers are part of the Big 10?
Doesn’t this increase the chances of Texas going to the Big 10? If they go to the Big 10 with Texas A&M, they’d have brought three member schools from their prior conference.
In Barking Carnival’s dream scenario for Texas, he said the Big 10 adds UT, A&M, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. Substitute Rutgers for Kansas, and that is what the Big 10 proposes.
I think its a no brainer for Texas. The PAC 10 offers an uncertain future ripe with speculation as to whether it can launch a TV network, and how lucrative its network will be.
LikeLike
The problem is in that scenario you are replacing Rutgers for Kansas.
Athletically sure I’ll give the edge to Kansas (even though I think Rutgers football is better atm), but academics, population coverage, football recruiting grounds, and proximity to major media markets make that swap less appealing over-all.
LikeLike
Texas would be in a position to demand that kind of change though if they really want proximity and Notre Dame isn’t on the board.
In terms of putting another school in the west that narrows the distance between the Big Ten and Texas, Kansas makes the most sense after Missouri.
Also, Delany could probably just argue that we could wait on Rutgers for when Notre Dame finally comes around, so that Notre Dame has a team to be paired with upon entry.
Obviously, Penn State/Ohio State/Michigan may have issues with the conference shifting so far to the west, but this all depends on what Texas wants to join if Notre Dame isn’t in play.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-100514-big-ten-expansion-greenstein,0,2936879.story
Greenstein Tribune
Big Ten could see TV money skyrocket with expansion
“If the Big Ten expands and chooses the right schools, conference officials have seen estimates of television revenues doubling by 2015-16.”
“More teams not only would bring wider BTN distribution and the potential for a conference championship game in football (worth upward of $15 million), but also would mean “increased inventory” in TV parlance — from 44 conference football games to 56 (with 14 teams) or 64 (with 16 teams).
Or maybe the Big Ten would shift to a fan-friendly (and TV-friendly) nine-game conference schedule, which is not possible with an 11-team conference.
Those extra games would keep ABC/ESPN happy while allowing the BTN to stage a tripleheader every Saturday.
If the Big Ten really wants to maximize revenues, as one TV executive pointed out, it could alter its philosophy on prime-time weekday games.”
LikeLike
Re latest Greenstein article (Patrick)
Interesting he is still using RU, SU, UConn as examples of expansion candidates.
Perhaps they are seen as plausible targets unless a surprise school like ND or Texas becomes visible at some point in time.
“If the conference could lock up the tri-state area (New York/New Jersey/Connecticut) by adding schools such as Rutgers, Syracuse and Connecticut — granted, a big “if” — it could add more than 9 million TV households. Rutgers is also an hour from Philadelphia and its 2.95 million households.”
Recent article posted above based on ACC meeting: Maryland AD “laughs” at rumor Maryland is in play.
LikeLike
I still maintain…
Texas will join, ND will not. That means either TAMU comes along for 16 (personally I think they’ll go Pac10) or you have one more slot for Cuse/UConn to help better cover the north east.
What he says makes some sense.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy,
Who knows if the details of this rumored expansion are accurate? I think you might be right, however, with your prediction. If that happened though, I really don´t like the back-up plan for tapping into NYC. Rutgers by itself isn´t really appealing and the rest of the Big East is fatally flawed in one way or the other.
So if you abandon the Big East idea all-together, I think that leaves you with either an all Western expansion (NU, MU, KU, UT and aTm) or trying to capture the DC market and potentially setting yourself up for a 20 team push to the Southeast.
If it´s the latter, it could look something like this:
West: NU, MU, UT
East: UM, UVa
Southeast: Vanderbilt, UNC, GTech, Miami
Obviously, this option is predicated on being able to break into the ACC and then stealing Vanderbilt from the SEC. If it´s possible though, it would be awfully appealing.
LikeLike
Reading a Q&A on a live chat going on with the Dallas Morning News’ Big XII writer, Chuck Carlton. Nothing that’s really news to us, though he does report that he spoke with Dodds over the weekend, and Dodds reiterated his support of the Big XII. That statement by Dodds isn’t news, but the fact that we know Carlton just spoke with Dodds makes this something that makes you go hmmm:
Q: What are the percentage chances Texas goes to a different conference
Carlton: Less than 10 percent unless the Big Ten goes to 16 teams.
(emphasis mine).
LikeLike
The chat is here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/051510dnspochatcarlton.2bd3267.html
But no guarantees that the link will survive: the DMN has always been an odd duck when it comes to being linked to, and the chat is in a weird Flash format which might disappear.
LikeLike
This line regarding Missouri cracked me up: “We haven’t seen somebody raising their hands like this since Arnold Horshack was trying to get Mr. Kotter’s attention every week.”
LikeLike
Since the WHB story about UNL/MU/RU/UND(?) to the Big Ten broke, the blog comments seem to be coalescing on the idea that UT is the “must have” team for the Big Ten (come full circle back to Frank’s original idea that got everything rolling). Comments I’ve seen include Texas is “massive,” has “all the leverage,” and so on. UT is said to “hold all the cards” in negotiating. Yet at the same time we are constantly reminded that the Big Ten treats all schools equally, and some commenters have pointed to Delany being man enough to keep Texas in line should they join the Big Ten, or words to that effect.
I am wondering how much in fact really is negotiable for Texas. I’ve seen comments about the CCG, frankly I can’t see the Big Ten moving much on that other than to possibly rotate the CCG site among the pod footprints, meaning that Texas might see the CCG at best once every four years. To me that is not a whole heck of a lot to get into steamy negotiations over. The idea of “buy-in” has also been mentioned. Frankly if we are talking “buying into” the property of the Big Ten Network I can’t see much room for negotiations there either…maybe foregoing a share of revenue for a few years, but if the Big Ten starts cutting radically different deals with prospective new conference members what does that do for existing conference members? Or, say Texas is allowed to have their own “Longhorn Sports Network” – what’s to stop Ohio State from demanding a “Buckeye Sports” (BS) or Penn State their “Nittany Nation United Television Sports?” (Nittany NUTS)
My point being, I wonder if the Big Ten is in fact “negotiating” much of anything at all. If they’re refusing to, is that why Texas appears out of play – because the Longhorns want (or need) to negotiate (too addicted to Texas Hold ‘Em?) and the existing Big Ten membership terms are simply a non-starter for Texas? “Non-negotiation” might also explain why the leading candidates for membership (UNL, MU, RU) are those that have all expressed interest in joining the Big Ten and/or have been a Big Ten membership candidate previously. Does the Big Ten only want members that want to join unconditionally?
LikeLike
Boiled down, part of what you’re asking is whether Texas would cut off their nose to spite their face.
It’s very much within the realm of possibility.
LikeLike
I tend to agree that not much is on the table. The Big Ten controls all TV rights for the schools, and that’s non-negotiable.
However, I do believe that the “buy in” will be on the table. We all know that Texas would make money for the Big Ten immediately, so Delany would be much more willing to just allow Texas to join as Penn State did.
I really think the equality thing is more of in terms of how everything works and is distributed, but I have a hard time in seeing Missouri or Rutgers get the same entry deal as Texas or Nebraska or Notre Dame.
As for the CCG and other issues like that, I tend to agree that I don’t see that as being negotiable. In the first place, it needs to be in a central location (think Lucas Oil Stadium) in such a way that fans can book tickets on short notice.
In short, the buy in is really the only thing that I see being negotiated by each of the schools, and that Texas would be in a better position to possibly be able to negotiate for a more western expansion (think Kansas instead of Rutgers). I really don’t see much else being at stake here: CCG seems to me not really negotiable, since no one’s really going to want it in Texas other than Texas/A&M, etc.
LikeLike
Kansas, if they are under consideration, would have support from Nebraska as well as the hypothetical support from Texas. Tom Osborne and Turner Gill have a close relationship and if Osborne could do something that would be advantageous for Gill, without endangering Nebraska’s situation of course, the assumption is he would.
Reading between the lines of what Lew Perkins said, though, I’d assume Kansas knows they’re not on the menu, at least at the moment, so they’re protecting their current position.
LikeLike
I think it depends on whether Notre Dame is on the table.
If Notre Dame is not on the table and the Big Ten focuses on Texas/Nebraska as well as Missouri, I could see a strong chance for Kansas to end up in the Big Ten depending on whether Texas/Nebraska push for it as you say.
My guess is that Kansas doesn’t think they’re in play because the focus is still mostly on Notre Dame, and I don’t think there’s any scenario where Notre Dame and Kansas join together.
LikeLike
The Big Ten did give Penn State a few things when they joined.
Penn State did get a protected rivalry with Ohio State.
Penn State did get to keep Michigan on their schedule for their first 10 years in the conference, when it should have been 6 games in every 8 seasons.
Penn State did get a bye before the Michigan game for their first four years, and they got a bye before the Ohio State game for their first two years.
It’s been a long time, and I don’t know how this compares to today’s situation, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see the Big Ten offer a few things to UT to sweeten the pot.
LikeLike
@Cliffs
As a PSUer, I wish they had just made it 6 on, 2 off, from the start. That way we would be 5 and 8 against the Wolverines. Good riddance to the Lloyd Carr ‘reign of terror’!
Now that you’ve brought it up, Michigan and Ohio State have byes before Penn State this year.
LikeLike
I’m not sure a month off before the game will be enough to help Michigan against Penn State this year.
LikeLike
I cannot see the Big 10 bypassing Rutgers in a five team expansion.
For one, it would be a real punch in the gut to Penn State who has been very vocal about adding at least one eastern school. Rutgers has value in any expansion, as even if it doesn’t do much in NYC, it unquestionably brings New Jersey — the 8th most populous state and a top 10 state for prep talent — into the fold.
Plus, Rutgers and PSU give the Big 10 a sizeable East Coast presence — if the East Coast is fragmented, the Big 10 will want to have a stake.
There is also the academic prestige factor. I’m fine with adding Nebraska and Missouri, but adding three schools in the 95-105 range of the US News rankings is probably not acceptable to certain Big 10 presidents such as Michigan and Northwestern.
There is an academic component to this expansion.
LikeLike
I agree, but if Texas really wants a western expansion and a “southwest pod” of Texas/A&M/Missouri/Kansas, would Delany really say no?
Especially if Notre Dame says no up front? I don’t see how Delany would say no to that kind of demand from Texas if he really thinks he needs Texas to go to 16. In that case Rutgers could get left out…
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big10 wants members that will join unconditionally…I think they want members who see that the way the Big10 does things is right for that university.
Maybe Texas keeps to its Big12 ways and wants this or demands that, but I see the Big10 saying “thanks, but we wish you the best”.
In any case, I just don’t see what Texas has to bargain with. Sure they are tops athletically (for now) and in a high population state, but last I checked their conference looks very unstable (at least more so than it did 6 months ago) and the other options (Pac or SEC) might very well be unpalatable for a school of its prestige.
If Texas sits down and says, “you know what screw this the Big10 has great academics, athletics, and a formula for stability and growth in the long term, that’s what we need for the long term success of our school” I have a feeling the conversations will be more along the lines of “what do we need to do to get in” than “this is what you have to do to get us to join” (which btw I think would be the exactly opposite when ND would be at the table).
LikeLike
One reason I advocate for a move to the Big 10 is that it’s the best sure option on the table, and I fear being stuck in a diminished conference if Texas passes on the Big 10 and the Pac 10 (and, sigh, the SEC) decided against expanding.
I will slightly disagree with this statement, though:
“and the other options (Pac or SEC) might very well be unpalatable for a school of its prestige”
Despite the perceived arrogance of U, I don’t think there’s many associated with Texas who would take issue with a move to the Pac 10 based on a perceived “prestige” disparity. There’s plenty of reasons why that move might not happen, but a feeling that we’re too good for them isn’t one of them.
The SEC, on the other hand… 🙂
LikeLike
Well in fairness, I was speaking more to the SEC view.
The Pac10 option I think would be fine academically, but could see the time zone issue, lack of CIC, conference network, etc as being “unpalatable”.
LikeLike
Texas has to consider the larger picture.
Right now, Texas has a very good deal. They are a top 5 football program and a top 20 basketball program. But they are not immune to having a tough 4-5 years just as Michigan has done, and Miami went through.
If that happens, then Texas’ revenue which is based greatly on the on-field results of its program could fall precipitiously.
As poorly as Michigan performed in 2009 in football and basketball, they were one of the top 10 revenue generating programs. There is something to be said to be in a conference where your revenues are good regardless of the product on the field.
Texas struggled for a good part of the late 80s and early 90s. If they do that in a watered down SWC, they’ll be more of a national afterthought than they would be in the Big 10, SEC or Pac 10.
LikeLike
Justin,
You make a very good point, and the very fact that we had a lost decade or so in recent memory while being stuck in a dying conference — and I do believe that the latter had a strong influence on the former — make many of us leery of proposals which would have Texas wind up in a latter-day reconstituted SWC.
(And Michigan fans — think you’ve had a tough two years? Imagine this rough stretch you’re experiencing now extending by another eight years. Kind of sucks, doesn’t it?)
LikeLike
Yeah Justin, I tend to think of that as a danger of staying in a Big 12 without Nebraska.
If there’s a rough patch for Texas or Oklahoma, no one will be paying attention to the Big 12 like the past 2 years where it’s gotten a huge part of the national spotlight. That has to be a very big concern.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn – I’m bracing for it taking a few more years before a return to glory.
However, we do have something of an idea of what it would be like. We had a top 5 or top 10 basketball program for a stretch in the late 80’s and early 90’s, but have been completely irrelevant for over a decade now.
LikeLike
Re Texas (84Lion)
I really believe the question for Texas is not on the margins, negotiating some advantage here or there, but what do they want to do, who do they want to be partners with, where are their affinities, how do they see their opportunities.
With respect to the Big 10, my guess is Texas would absolutely want a partner team such as Texas A&M.
Beyond that, they may simply want to join the PAC 10 on the basis of affinity: sports, academics, stability and strong financials. I see the California schools as being a great magnet from an affinity perspective.
My guess is Texas ends up in the PAC 10 if the Big 12 becomes untenable as I believe it may become: if Colorado goes to the PAC 10 and Oklahoma is offered an SEC spot and Nebraska and or Missouri go to the Big 10. Absent those schools a PAC 10-Big 12 joint channel is not likely to be attractive with many smaller schools in limited markets wanting an equal share.
LikeLike
“Oklahoma president sees Big 12 remaining intact”
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-expansion-oklahoma
““We’re very happy with the Big 12 Conference and we certainly expect to stay in the Big 12 Conference,” Boren said. “I was sort of shocked to read speculation that OU might leave the Big 12 Conference. Certainly not”
“If we happen to lose one member or two members—and I doubt that will happen, but if it did—there are some very strong programs that would be standing in the wings hoping to join the Big 12,” Boren said.”
LikeLike
I think Oklahoma is going to take an entirely reactive posture until/unless Colorado leaves.
If Colorado does leave, then I think Oklahoma will open some kind of line to the SEC if it realizes that Texas/Nebraska are talking to the Big Ten.
If Colorado doesn’t leave, then I think Oklahoma will not do anything regardless of what Nebraska/Missouri do, but it would pay close attention to any word out of Texas.
LikeLike
Re Colorado (Zeek)
Unless Texas and PAC 10 (and Colorado) have an understanding PAC 10 will defer expansion to give Big 12- PAC 10 channel a try and if expansion occurs it will be in context of a package including Texas and Colorado and so on.
(purely speculation of course)
There is a problem with establishing a joint channel if the Big 12 schools are in play with potential of Missouri and Nebraska going to Big 10 and domino possibility of other schools leaving, just leaving smaller schools in smaller markets in Big 12.
Perhaps that’s background to article saying Big 12 Commissioner will be asking who’s in at the upcoming conference meeting.
http://www.mwcboard.com/www/forums/index.php?showtopic=24286
“We need to have a very frank conversation about where we’re going and who’s going to be on the plane when we take off,” Beebe said about the upcoming Big 12 meeting in two weeks in Kansas City. “I will be very direct… and want to find out.”
LikeLike
Very true. The Pac-10/Big 12 TV alliance talks do throw a wrench into the whole Colorado -> Pac-10 discussion.
Big Ten fans should hope though that Colorado does make the jump since that’s likely to be the most important event for giving Texas and the Big Ten the necessary impetus to get to a deal.
LikeLike
Re Texas and Big 12- PAC 10 joint channel discussions
Have to wonder why PAC 10 is discussing jount channel with Big 12 if there isn’t an understanding that Texas is going to try to make Big 12 work or as back up will likely go to PAC 10.
If Big 12 Commissioner is going to ask who’s “going to be on the plane when we take off” at upcoming meeting, hard to believe he hasn’t spoken to Texas about their plans and hasn’t spoken to PAC 10 about their plans re Colorado.
LikeLike
Re Back to Big 10
So if Texas is out (speculation) the Big 10 is going to need to decide do they want to go for the eastern market, with RU or go for SU as well with the only 2 BCS schools in those states.
The assumption that the Big 10 takes both Nebraska and Missouri absent Texas being part of a package and only RU to expand to 14 is an assumption I question.
Absent Texas, expansion west is a limited upside.
LikeLike
If you substitute “Texas” for “OU,” that quote could have passed for anything Dodds has been saying on the subject this year.
Unless you’re school is named “Missouri,” it seems like most Big XII admin types are saying what one would expect them to say about a conference that still has all 12 schools.
LikeLike
“Your school”. Argh.
LikeLike
Sometimes, I think all of us (me included) get way too far ahead of ourselves when we start speculating about what may or may not be happening.
It’s important to remember that everything you mention as reasons being why Texas hasn’t immediately jump aboard the Big 10 gravy train — from speculation about Texas wanting the CCG to be played in Texas from time to time, to Texas wanting special broadcasting privileges, to Texas having some sort of psychological need to negotiate something — is pure speculation.
We have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes.
Maybe Texas is negotiating — who wouldn’t?!? — or maybe Texas isn’t. Maybe Texas will be an all-in, no-questions-asked Big 10 member once it works out internal political wrangling. Or maybe a cigar is just a cigar, and Texas’ seeming interest is indicative that Texas has decided that a better path for the school lay elsewhere.
And if that winds up being the case, I sense that many around here might chalk that up to “Texas arrogance.” But as much as I personally would like to see Texas in the Big 10, isn’t it conceivable that there are a myriad of other legitimate reasons why Texas might not make the move? Doing what is believed to be the best move for the school is not the same as being arrogant.
LikeLike
Arrogance is really the last reason I would put on Texas for not choosing the Big Ten.
While the Big Ten seems like the most likely outcome because of the surety of the revenue stream, we all know that there are a lot of other factors at work which need to be resolved.
And as I’ve mentioned before, Texas would have to resolve all of these issues before joining the Big Ten where it would not have the kind of power it would likely enjoy with the Pac-10 commissioner.
There really is a wide gulf between Texas and the Big Ten; the big stream of $ is the bridge across that gulf, but it is still rickety.
If Texas chooses to not join the Big Ten, I’ll have to believe that they did all the calculations and found that its still just too much of a leap to join a grouping of midwest schools as opposed to staying in the Big 12 or even joining the Pac-10/SEC.
Personally, I’ll just see it as Texas acting in its own self-interest, but I’d say the same thing if Texas did join the Big Ten.
At this point there are a lot of moving pieces, so even something that seems like such a sure-fire moneymaker could easily fall apart due to something like Texas wanting a rotation of the CCG and the Big Ten saying no. It’s really hard to blame that on either side; after all, Texas is going to have to say that it joined the Big Ten but then send its team to Indianapolis for the CCG every year, but by the same token, the rest of the Big Ten schools won’t want to travel to Cowboy Stadium, etc.
Maybe there are middle grounds for these kinds of issues, like say Texas/A&M/Kansas/Missouri/Nebraska and an alternating Big Ten championship between Indianapolis and KC, but that’s still a lot of negotiation to go through.
At this point, you’re right, we have no idea whether there’s even any interest on Texas’ side, but we should believe that Texas will act in its best interest and whether that means the Big Ten or not, the same calculation will be made by Notre Dame or Nebraska or anyone else.
LikeLike
General question:
Everyone is rightfully focusing on the revenue stream produced by the BTN. But there is another conference network out there: The Mountain.
I know it’s a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison, but if The Mountain has been struggling, it might give pause to smaller conferences, or conferences in more sparsely populated areas, in terms of thinking how successful another conference-centric network could be. By contrast, if a network focusing on the MWC proved successful, one would have to think that a Big XII/Pac 10/LSN would be a no-brainer for profitability.
LikeLike
This was meant to be a separate thread, and the implied question was whether anyone knew enough about how well The Mountain was faring.
LikeLike
From the dozens of articles I’ve read about expansion the past few months, a couple have mentioned that the MWC network is not yet profitable.
I don’t think that means a Pac 10/Big 12 wouldn’t be successful. I think the Big 10 network would be more profitable, because of population and fan support. Also, since it will divide the revenue 16 ways (instead of 22 or 20 ways), it would be much more valuable on a per school basis.
While I’m replying to one of your posts, I’ll propose yet another alliance with the Pac 10:
1)Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma declare their independence
2)To try and soothe over any legislative difficulties, UT and A&M both agree to schedule Texas Tech in all sports, and Oklahoma (with maybe Nebraska) agrees to schedule Oklahoma State.
3)The Pac 10 commissioner, the Pac 10 schools, and the ‘Big 5’ get together to sell their media rights together and form a network featuring the 15 schools
4)The ‘Big 5’ agree to schedule each other in all sports.
5)In sports other than football, the each Pac 10 school schedules 1 game/series against a ‘Big 5’ school. Since there are twice as many Pac 10 teams, each ‘Big 5’ team gets an additional 2 schools they can count on scheduling them.
6)For football, each ‘Big 5’ school has 8 games to schedule (though the Texas schools must schedule Tech and Oklahoma must schedule State). In order to keep their tv package desirable, the ‘Big 5’ schools keep a list of the top 45 and top 70 football schools in the country; at least 4 of their scheduled games must be from the top 45 list and no more than 2 can be out of the top 70 list.
The Pac 10 gets the financial benefits of expansion without messing with it’s traditions. The Big 5 get the freedom of independent scheduling, while having teams they know will schedule them late in the year (when Notre Dame has trouble). They get the financial benefits of a big conference without constraining themselves to playing in one area of the country.
Probably the most happy with this arrangement would be Notre Dame, since they would leap to schedule a few of these schools in December.
LikeLike
I can’t find a source right now but I recall reading that the Mtn. was not yet profitable.
Also, the Mtn. is a very different structure than the BTN in that the Mtn. is owned by CBS and Comast, not the Mountain West Conference. The MWC simply sold its rights to the predecessor to CBS (who formed a JV with Comcast to form the Mtn). From the MWC’s perspective, it is not much different than selling rights to ESPN, FSN, etc. In contrast, the Big Ten owns 51% of the BTN. As the value of the BTN grows, so does the value of the Big Ten’s interest.
LikeLike
“at least 4 of their scheduled games must be from the top 45 list and no more than 2 can be out of the top 70 list.”
I realize this was confusingly worded.
at least 4 of 8 games must be from the top 45 list
at least 6 of 8 games must be from the top 70 list
no more than 2 can be off the top 70 list.
“Notre Dame, since they would leap to schedule a few of these schools in December.”
I meant November!
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
I wonder if the Pac 10, Big 12 shared network discussions could lead to the Pac 16? From an historical perspective, the Big East and ACC looked into something similar in the mid ’90s per a Tranghese interview I read awhile back. I mean, if the Pac 10 is looking at a network, they’re going to say, why do we need to partner with Kansas St, Iowa St, Baylor, Texas Tech?
It also seems to me that if 16-team conferences are the future, then some academic-snobbishness will have to be put aside in the interest of competitiveness and more importantly, money. So is it at all possible that we see a Pac 16 that includes Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado & Utah? That would give you your West Coast megaconference that should compete pretty well against the BigTen and SEC.
LikeLike
Big Ten guys. I have a question for you. Just idle speculation but what if………the Pac Ten and Texas and Texas A&M have been talking to a network. Call it Comcast or NBC or not yet named. Say the network is offered a 49% ownership in a new Pac Ten Network (like the BTN, which set the example) featuring this lineup of 51% owners
East West
A&M Texas
Arizona Arizona State
Colorado Utah
UCLA USC
Cal Stanford
Oregon State Oregon
Washington Washington State
Kansas Texas Tech
It could be set up in pods like M (AG) has suggested or with permanent rivals like many of you have suggested for the Big Ten expansion.
There would be no “buy in”. All schools would be academically acceptable but maybe not Utah, which gets a pass to get the Utah TV sets and Tech to please the politicos, which I don’t think is necessary. All schools would play every year in California and in Texas for the recruiting grounds. It has some heavy weight universities and about 32% of the nations population.
Could this scenario make money in a couple of years just like the BTN and get a much bigger contract from the networks than either the Big Twelve or the PAc Ten have now or could get with their existing membership? Could the negotiation possibility explain why there has been not announcements from anybody, just hot rumors?
LikeLike
That’s more of a question for Texas people in some sense.
Yes the network could be profitable, but there’s a big question as to whether Texas would agree to it. The Pac-10 isn’t that different from the Big 12 in terms of how top heavy it is in terms of the big draws and the disproportionate size of the California market.
Texas seems to be interested either in a “Texas-only” network for itself or for itself and A&M (and high school sports?).
It doesn’t seem likely that we’d see a network between the Big 12 and Pac-10 or between Texas/A&M and the Pac-10 for the very reason that it’d be hard to determine the content since Texas/A&M aren’t a part of the league. Also, Texas/A&M are likely to want disproportionate revenue sharing, which I guess the Pac-10 would agree to, but it’d be a lot more complicated than the BTN setup.
I really don’t see anything like this on the horizon.
My guess is that the Pac-10/Big 12 will try to negotiate some kind of increase in payments from the networks, and that Texas will either decide to bolt the Big 12 or set up some kind of “Texas-only” network.
I really don’t see Texas willing to share a network with the Pac-10 when the logistics of it would not really make sense because there aren’t enough shared games unless Texas/A&M join the Pac-10…
LikeLike
“The Pac-10 isn’t that different from the Big 12 in terms of how top heavy it is in terms of the big draws and the disproportionate size of the California market.”
While the Big 12 is definitely top heavy in terms of big draws, its small markets are much smaller than the Pac 10 small markets:
Using wikipedia population numbers, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona have a total of 17.1 million people, or 2.85 million for each of the 6 schools there. This is a small number when you look at the numbers for the bottom half of the Big 10, but it’s a quite bigger than the bottom of the Big 12.
Oklahoma-3.7 million people for 2 schools (1.85 million per school). Kasas-2.8 million for 2 schools (1.4 million per school). Iowa has 3 million, but the Big 12 can really lay claim to less than half of that (1.5 million people). Nebraska has 1.8 million. Baylor really doesn’t contribute any population.
Yes, Oklahoma and Nebraska have 2 big names. Still, at least 7 Big 12 schools don’t bring the population of the average non-California
Pac 10 school.
Texas might not like sharing equally with the Pac 10, but the population numbers are much more respectable there. The Big 10 would be better still, but other factors may cause them to look west.
LikeLike
@mAG Wow, I know you guys are tough down there in Texas, but about Baylor; do you castrate them like steers?
LikeLike
Nobody gives Baylor much thought.
That said, in this ‘lost decade’ for A&M, they’ve beaten us twice!
Since 1986, they only have those 2 wins and 1 tie against A&M.
LikeLike
Fair point.
Most of my argument was aimed at the notion of Texas/A&M cutting a deal with the Pac-10 on a TV network without really joining the Pac-10.
I don’t see how that would work.
Most likely, I would guess that Texas would join the Pac-10 but still be able to make its own Texas network or some other kind of framework.
LikeLike
If they agreed to it, it wouldn’t be difficult. In my example the 15 schools would each have an equal ownership share. The Pac 10 would schedule it’s games and the other 5 schools would schedule their games. The networks would then pick which game would be on prime time, which one would be over the air at 3:30, which ones would be on the cable network, etc.
LikeLike
Zeke, I said that these are the 51% owners, listing every conference member.
LikeLike
I think the biggest difference between that setup and the Big Ten is the rabid following of the fanbases in the Big Ten. I think that has always been the biggest issue for the Pac-10. I’ve just never gotten the feeling that any of the Pac-10 schools have a rabid, loyal following. Folks on the west coast have always seemed laissez faire about their sports interests.
For that reason, I think such a network would take a bit more effort and a bit longer timeframe to be a profitable enterprise as compared to the BTN.
LikeLike
“All schools would be academically acceptable but maybe not Utah, which gets a pass to get the Utah TV sets”
How would Utah “maybe not” be academically acceptable? Have you read the latest ARWU rankings? The University of Utah is ranked the 80th best University in the world. That puts Utah with Arizona, right in the center of the pack in the PAC. Here’s how your conference idea would break down academically:
(Schools outside of the top 100 are ranked by range rather than specifically.)
Stanford – 2
Cal – 3
UCLA – 13
Washington – 16
Colorado – 34
Texas – 38
USC – 46
Arizona – 77
Utah – 80
T A&M – 88
Arizona State – 94
Oregon State – 101-151 (not top 100)
Oregon – 201-302 (seriously)
Kansas – 201-302
Wazzu – 201-302
Texas Tech – 303-401
source: http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp
Utah doesn’t need to a get a pass academically. Utah is #80 in the world and has been steadily on the rise for several years now. Utah is a great academic fit with the PAC.
LikeLike
You know, when it comes to rankings, I’ve been a little surprised USC is ranked as highly as it is. I don’t know if it’s always been ranked as it is now, (maybe some of you know its history better than I) but when I was growing up, for some reason I never considered it a serious school.
LikeLike
just a sample of someone who tried to find 2 universities to make a Pac-12 and didn’t see much there if it doesn’t include UT
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/3/29/1371535/demographics-and-revenue-a-revue
LikeLike
oops forgot to add this link also
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/05/14/pac-10-commissioner-league-will-decide-on-expansion-by-end-of-2/
LikeLike
In general, a good post on populations, though it ignores fan devotion and national ‘brands’. The projections for 2030 in particular were well done. Frank should ask him if he can use the chart for his next post.
Looking at that table I have several comments:
1)The SEC grows almost as much as anyone! A large amount of this, however, is in Florida and Georgia. So if they do expand, grabbing Florida State, and perhaps Miami or Georgia Tech could be excused. Of course, grabbing Virginia Tech or 1-3 Texas schools would be more useful. Adding 1 Oklahoma school would be OK, but not 2.
2)The Big 10 as currently constituted will still be pretty high, though other conferences will catch up to it. This certainly makes it more important to add more big states now, New Jersey and Texas being the biggest. Adding schools only for ‘name’ like Notre Dame and Nebraska looks a bit more risky.
3)The ACC heartland of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina are growing; their schools make good additions. Still, Texas in 2000 had more people than all of them together, and Texas will add even more people by 2030. (The chart doesn’t list Washington DC, but it won’t make a big difference unless it has several million people by 2030)
4)For Texans who say their schools should go west because those schools will grow faster, the Big 10 and Pac 10 as currently constituted will be even in 2030. However, there’s a good chance the Big 10 fans will still be more passionate, and adding New Jersey would move the Big 10 beyond the Pac 10. It appears to me the Big 10 will be the better financial bet for the Texas schools for at least the next 20 years.
5)Except for Texas, Colorado, and Missouri, no other Big 12 state will add even 500,000 people by 2030. With Colorado and Missouri ready to bolt, the Big 12 population differences are going to be bad and get worse over time.
In 2030, the total population of Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma will be 9.8 million while Texas will be at 33.3 million. So if the Big 12 becomes the Big 9, Texas will represent 77.3% of the population of the Big 9 footprint in 20 years. The urge to move has to be high!
The Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, or even ACC would be a better home.
LikeLike
Yeah, I really do think the Big Ten has to get this done in terms of expansion if it wants Texas now because the gulf may be a bit too large in the future.
But there are other considerations as you and others mention (passion, etc.). One of the others is “East Coast Media Bias” which will always favor the Big Ten and SEC over the Pac-10. Also, in terms of academics/prestige (which is still a big part of the equation), the older universities with much bigger endowments will only get richer in those areas as time passes.
LikeLike
I think the BTN has shown the set-up has worked, so it should work with states as populous as California and Texas. Not to mention Washington, Arizona and Colorado.
I’d echo the sentiment that the larger schools would likely want the larger piece of the pie, making the endeavor more difficult to get off the ground.
It really makes you appreciate what the Big Ten has done when you look at what the Big Ten has done in creating things like the CIC and the equal partnership within the BTN. It shows you what cooperation as equals can do.
LikeLike
Again, this is much easier to do when the schools involved are more equal to begin with!
LikeLike
A PAC10 conference adding Texas, Texas A&M, Utah and Colorado should, for college football, dominate the Mountain and Pacific time zones plus the state of Texas in the Central Time Zone. One would think there would be definite potential for a PAC10 Network to match the current success of the Big Ten Network. Since the University of Texas would be free to negotiate terms with the PAC10 before joining in a way that it might not be able to with the Big Ten, it should be clear that a choice between the two conferences from the Texas point of view might be closer than it would appear at first glance. The PAC10 choice for Texas might be more speculative going forward, but pay off bigger if it hits (and UT has the economic resources to survive and thrive anyhow even if it doesn’t).
LikeLike
@ Wes – I can absolutely see a conference like that being a successful marriage. The Pac Ten has retained Creative Arts Agency (CAA), a Hollywood based entertainment and sports agency to assist with a Pac 10 “rebranding”. New commish Larry Scott, according a Sporting News article, provided them with the “mandate” to identify schools and markets for expansion to provide a conference owned network a bigger base. Link: http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2010-05-11/sbj-pac-10-hires-hollywood-agency-caa-star-power-mind . Add that to the recent staff hires, including Kevin Weiberg who had a hand in the successful growth of the BTN as well as an established relationship with all Big 12 members (as their former commisioner) and you have the framework in place to make an agressive move.
A network that includes the all of CA and TX plus Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, KC, SLC, and Portland…that is a whole lot of $population$. An uneven distribution of Conference network money could be tricky but its not impossible. Where it is easily possible and already takes place in the Pac 10 as it does in the Big 12 is on a Network TV deal with ESPN/ABC/NBC/FSN. Assuming that a newly branded and expanded Pac gets a much better deal (maybe not equal to but much closer to the B10 and SEC), then that can easily be distributed unevenly, as it is today, more than likely favoring the TX and CA schools.
OR……nothing can happen. LOL.
LikeLike
Boise going to Mountain West. (See second half of attached video link.)
http://www.kmph.com/global/category.asp?c=170789&clipId=4785404&topVideoCatNo=110549&autoStart=true
LikeLike
And so it begins. This is going to get nutty before every conference is done and settled.
LikeLike
Strange. Even though this rumor is completely logical and completely believable (why hasn’t it happened already?!?), it’s yet another unsourced rumor by a local broadcaster not yet picked up by the big boys.
Also, wouldn’t you think this would be big news in Boise? Bigger than a report on the WAC softball tournament, which the station aired first?
LikeLike
Just a topic for conversation, even though I don’t think what I propose is likely:
Suppose BSU does join the MWC, and the numbers-crunching makes it apparent that the MWC will pretty much be a lock for BCS AQ.
Would it be in Utah’s best interest to leave the MWC for the Pac-10 or the Big XII if either came calling? There would be greater TV revenue in the latter two, to be sure, but switching conferences might doom the Utes to years of mediocrity, while remaining in the weaker MWC would presumably give the Utes a better year-in, year-out shot at winning the conference and qualifying for the BCS.
Given the greater discrepancy between the top and bottom of that conference than any other, it seems tailor-made for unequal distribution of TV and bowl revenue.
LikeLike
It is without question in Utah’s short and long term best interest to leave the MWC for the PAC, regardless of AQ status or Boise’s joining. The PAC is an infinitely better conference academically and research-wise, which are the University of Utah’s top two priorities.
Additionally, the PAC’s national perception in football is better than the MWC’s, and Utah is not happy they didn’t get an MNC shot in 2008 and 2004. Of course, even with Boise the money in the PAC will be SEVERAL hundred percent higher than the money in the MWC. Utah’s athletic department needs money badly. Believe it or not, they are almost (or are?) running on a deficit.
Utah is operating on a pathetically tiny budget compared to even the poorest of BCS schools. Their coach, Kyle Whittingham, just turned down $4 million per year to coach at Tennessee. Utah is paying him a measly $1.2 million per year. Utah NEEDS to hold on to Whittingham and the only way to do that long term involves a substantial raise. (As in more than 100%.)
Utah has literally zero ties to BYU other than the historical rivalry. Because it is neither big market nor BCS, people don’t realize how intense and nasty the rivalry is. It is easily one of the worst in the country, if not the worst. Most within Utah would prefer to be in a different conference than BYU to cool things off a bit. An announcement to part ways with BYU would be met by Utah fans with cheers and dancing in the streets.
As far as competitiveness is concerned, a 10 team MWC with Boise would be substantially better than the current 10 team PAC. To put it in perspective, in that scenario Utah would have finished fourth in the MWC last year, behind Boise State, TCU and BYU. Utah spanked Cal’s butt red in the Poinsettia Bowl last year and BYU destroyed PAC title runners up Oregon State in the Vegas Bowl. Both Boise and TCU went undefeated in the regular season, with Boise beating the PAC-10 champion Ducks. During Stanford’s best year in a LOOONG time, they couldn’t beat Oklahoma. BYU did, and they would have been third in the MWC last year with Boise in it.
Last year was a full on rebuilding year for Utah. In a game filled with uncharacteristic sloppy play and mistakes, Utah barely lost to Oregon, in Eugene, with a quarterback that was playing the 3rd D1 game of his Career. A quarterback that was benched in favor of a true freshman halfway into the season. If competitiveness was the only concern, Utah would stay in a post-Boise MWC and continue to beat the tar out of the PAC with the rest of the MWC.
Plus you need to realize, being in a “mid-major” conference, Utah is forced to schedule as tough as possible OOC while BCS teams schedule mostly cupcakes. In 2010 Utah is playing Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Iowa State OOC. Oregon’s 2010 OOC schedule? New Mexico, a crappy rebuilding Tennessee and Portland State. Wow. While Utah’s perceived schedule difficulty will go up joining the PAC, Utah’s REAL schedule difficulty will go down.
Utah will have a better shot at a BCS bowl in the PAC if they only add Utah and Colorado vs the MWC with Boise State added. Playing TCU, Boise State and BYU every year is a tough proposition for any team in the country. It’s no wonder the non-“big 4” teams in the MWC rack up so many losses and look weak. Last year Wyoming had to play Utah, TCU, BYU, Air Force and Texas, yet they still managed to get to and win a bowl game.
Don’t sleep on the MWC. Just because the discrepancy between the top and bottom is large, doesn’t mean that the teams outside of the top are cupcakes. If anything, it speaks to just how strong the teams at the top really are.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn, I would just add to TheBaron’s statement that the MWC is only getting a BCS AQ bid for the next few years.
It’s not a permanent bid, and the MWC would have to meet the requirements again when the next round of BCS AQ determination comes up.
Thus, the fact that the MWC would get AQ for the next 2 or so years is an issue but not of long term strategic value in terms of Utah’s thinking.
If a bid came, they’d take it immediately.
LikeLike
This report was aired by the Fresno Fox affiliate; not Boise’s. Notice how the reporter emphasizes that ONLY Boise is getting the invite, but Fresno State and Nevada have both been petitioning the MWC to join with Boise. Me thinks Fresno State is pissed that Boise got the invite without them and they leaked the details early to the local Fox affiliate to spite Boise by taking some thunder from the impending official announcement.
Strange times are ahead for college football. A LOT of schools are about to have their feelings hurt and they might leak this and that or start some nasty rumors for spite. Things are going to get very interesting over the next few weeks.
LikeLike
I have been thinking the MWC could be in position to take some power if things fall right. If the Big 12 really loses Nebraska and Mizzou and it looks like the remainder stays intact with new schools coming in like Houston, Arkansas or TCU, then you can bet the remainder of the North schools will want out pretty bad. If the PAC-10 doesn’t act quickly or at all, it would be a huge leap of faith, but I’m not so sure Colorado and Kansas for instance would not prefer (ego may get in their way, but perhaps “should prefer” is the way to say it) the soon to be automatic qualifier MWC that includes Utah, BYU, TCU (if they stay), and Boise, has a TV network and shares the revenue more evenly (I’m actually not sure how the MWC revenue is distributed, but I thought I had read it was an even split,correct me if I’m wrong). The MWC would then be a conference with games in Texas and Cal. A long shot, for sure, but if things fall a certain way, it may not be out of the question, and with 12 or 14 teams in the MWC, a championship game only adds to the $$.
LikeLike
While on the subject for anyone that may know…IF the P10/B10/SEC raid the Big 12 as some speculate, there will bound to be leftovers (I am looking at you Baylor, IA St, and KSt). Technically – there is still an ABC/ESPN contract that runs through 2016, could the remaining B12 schools just vote all the best MWC + BoiseSt in and continue on w/ the deal. I am positive the answer is NO due to either an out clause or some type of majority vote to dissolve the conference…but its late so I am gonna ask anyway.
LikeLike
What I wanted to say about the MWC is that I can see them getting an auto bid after everything shakes out. If a shift is in play where the P10/B10 go to 16 with SEC and maybe ACC as well…then they will easily vote for the mega conference’s ability to place 3 teams to a BCS games, probably add a BCS game (Cotton Bowl), and grant BCS status a conference of the left over Big 12 and to MWC + Boise St teams remaining.
LikeLike
That’s possible. I know that Fresno State wants to get into the MWC too and wants to continue its rivalry with BSU.
But the fact that the Fresno FOX station didn’t name a source (not even “unnamed sources”) makes me suspicious. The fact that the Idaho Statesman is calling it “speculation” also makes me think that this is just gossip.
However, it’s likely gossip that’s going to be correct. The MWC has been looking at BSU for a long time now, going back to when they took TCU instead of BSU in 2005. The MWC got the requirements for getting an automatic BCS bid not long ago and it essentially said “If BSU were in your conference, you’d get an automatic bid.” They need BSU to balance out their weak teams in overall strength. Nevada and Fresno state would probably slightly lower the overall strength of the MWC, depending on how those two teams do this upcoming season.
It’s kind of like reporting that the Washington Nationals will take Bryce Harper with the first pick in the baseball draft. Even if you didn’t have any inside info, you’re probably safe reporting it.
LikeLike
still speculation
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/05/14/bmurphy/boise_statetomountain_west_speculation_rumors_and_reports_heat_%E2%80%94
LikeLike
Thoughts on Boise to the MWC
It is a preemptive move by a conference that anticipates the loss of Utah to the PAC 10. The PAC 10 commissioner stated yesterday that expansion would be concluded by the end of the year. I think the PAC 10 will take Utah and Colorado.
How I see this going down
end of June: Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers join the Big 10 conference.
sometime between June and December – Colorado and Utah move to the PAC 10.
At this point, Texas announces its “evaluating” its options. The best fit for Texas under this scenario is the Big 10 — there is a spot for Texas A&M, and it plays regular games against two former conference rivals in Nebraska and Missouri.
LikeLike
The best fit for Texas under this scenario is the Big 10 — there is a spot for Texas A&M, and it plays regular games against two former conference rivals in Nebraska and Missouri.
Doubtful, regarding the best fit. Mizzou holds zero value for UT, and its inclusion with NE and aTm means at best ND is included but nothing else. A Rut foothold in the NYC market may be more valuable than MO. UT’s only interest regarding NE is in the money the Husker brand brings in TV attraction. Texas would certainly toss NE aside if, say, adding GT or another school could lure ND.
If ND doesn’t join the B10, then UT is likely better off in a P16 of Utah, CO, KS, OU, and aTm. All national brand names now with TV draw, though CO has lost its luster the last decade. 11 AAU members, and Utah is close. A conference basically equal to the B16 and SEC, with every one of their states growing (KS is slow, OK is moderate, the rest are fast growth though CA will take a while to get over its funk.) Not to downplay the difficulty ahead, but the P10 has put together a front office capable of establishing a solid cable channel. On average perhaps a slightly easier path to the conference championship, gives UT access to CA recruits, and a greater number of attractive road trips. Less winter travel delays for all the sports and a conference that views baseball as one of the big three sports, not a minor one.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, but realistically, I don’t think Texas would want the Pac-10 to go over 12 teams.
Why go to 16 and split the pie with teams like Kansas/Utah/Colorado, when you can go to a Pac-12 with just Texas/A&M.
Thus, I foresee the shakeout being decided by whether Texas believes a Pac-12 with A&M is worth joining versus a Big Ten with Nebraska/Notre Dame and A&M likely as well.
The Pac-10 doesn’t really have any options after Texas/A&M/Colorado. Utah is a bit of a wash, but if Texas was joining, I think they’d just go to 12 and leave it at that. No real reason to go to 14 for Colorado/Utah…
LikeLike
Lots of rumors that Texas declined the P10’s offer to go to 12. They don’t want to be constantly flying to the west coast. With 16 they’d be in a pod with aTm, OU, and KS. Since the B10+ won’t take OU, travel would be even worse.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Playoffs Now. If they go w/ only aTm to the Pac – they will both be travelling to the coast for EVERY road game. It might be worth their while to be in a P16 from a travel standpoint with a selection from CO (Denver), UT (SLC), TT (add’l strength in TX market), OK (Ok Cty), or KS (KC). Bringing along those markets in a potential PTN network and brand name of a OK or KS is a nice consolation prize as well.
Not an expert at scheduling the pod system talked about a lot here but I do know that access to TX and CA will be a must to those in a non CA/TX pod.
LikeLike
I agree with Zeek. From a financial standpoint, it’s impossible to say that a PAC16 would be better for Texas. Their decision will be between PAC12 and Big 16 and SEC 16.
I too think that Texas A/M could bump Missouri. Perhaps their incessant lobbying is trying to make it harder from a PR standpoint for the Big 10 to say NO.
I still can’t imagine Texas coming alone. They would then have TWO non-conference games that they’d need to play (Texas A/M and OU). Not that this whole thing is about football…but still…
LikeLike
These are the few choice “Texas” scenarios:
1) Texas/A&M/Nebraska (14); this is the revenue consolidating scenario kind of like a Pac-12 with just Texas/A&M.
2) Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Notre Dame/Missouri (or Rutgers in place of Missouri or both if A&M does its own thing): this is probably the scenario that Texas would most want to join a 16 team Big Ten.
3) Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas: this is the “bridge to Texas” scenario but it seems a lot less likely for the same reason a Pac-16 seems unlikely. Texas doesn’t really want a bridge, it wants a secure revenue stream, and the Notre Dame scenario provides more of that.
Personally, I think Texas would really want the second scenario with Notre Dame if it’s weighing that as an alternative to a Pac-12 with A&M.
Of course, Notre Dame may not really be interested in any Big Ten scenario at this point, so we don’t really know as with anything else.
LikeLike
Interesting artifice in the Missourian:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/05/14/um-denies-newspaper-regards-regarding-big-ten-talks/
Here’s an excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The University of Missouri system declined to provide records of correspondence by Athletics Director Mike Alden involving any mention of the Big Ten Conference, citing a provision of the Sunshine Law that protects records regarding contract negotiations or sealed bids and proposals.
The Missourian on Tuesday issued a request under the Missouri Open Records and Meetings Law asking for copies of any written or electronic correspondence of Alden’s that included any mention of the Big Ten since Dec. 1. It also asked for records of any correspondence between Alden and Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany since Nov. 1.
But David Russell, senior associate vice president and chief of staff for the UM system, said in an e-mail response to the Missourian that any such records, if they exist, “clearly would be exempt from disclosure.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IF no talks are taking place, then they are really stretching the interpretation of that law. By wording it the way they did, I believe they are just trying to keep the communications under wrap without confirming that communications exist. It’s a pretty hard thing to do, though.
LikeLike
Interesting. You have to wonder if these ‘feelers’ or indirect contacts are covered under these laws– technically they aren’t representatives of the Big 10 and wouldn’t be part of any negotiations, correct?
I wonder why more newspapers haven’t been filing open records requests to other Universities?
LikeLike
There are some reports that Georgia Tech is under serious consideration.
Let’s assume that the leaks of Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers are accurate, and that the Big 10 is looking for two additional schools. Assume that ND and Texas stay put under this hypothetical.
Conventional wisdom says that the Big 10, if they are determined to get to 16 teams, would most likely take two of the Syracuse, Uconn and Pitt.
However, if Georgia Tech is a possibility, and I was rather surprised that their message boards are receptive to the idea, then you’d probably look to a second mid-atlantic school to “partner” with Georgia Tech. Maryland perhaps?
Why would Tech do it? Tech, unlike most of the ACC, is predominantly a football institution. They were allegedly a prominent force behind the ACC going to 12 teams in 2003. GT could feel that a 16 team Big 10 would lead the SEC to raiding the ACC for Miami, Florida State, which would really wound the ACC’s ability to become a top-flight football conference.
Now, GT — a former SEC member — could potentially move back to the SEC. However, a lot of their alumns were not enthusiastic about this idea. They see GT more comparable academically to the Big 10 universities — GT just received AAU accreditation this year. Would the GT administration rather be aligned with schools such as Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. then Auburn, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc.?
Further, would Georgia Tech be attractive to the SEC even if it was their top option? After all, Georgia already gives the SEC plenty of exposure in Atlanta, and the SEC title game is played there. Georgia Tech may have more value to the Big 10.
What about the last two schools being Maryland and Georgia Tech?
You could have four pods as follows:
East – Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ga. Tech
North – Michigan, MSU, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Midwest – OSU, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern
West – Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa
Maryland and Georgia Tech may be more inclined to consider a Big 10 invite if they weren’t the lone ACC school invited. And a pod with two other Eastern schools could be rather attractive.
If this happened, and the SEC took Florida State, Miami, Clemson and West Virginia, the weakened ACC could just merge with the football Big East to retain “superconference” status.
This could be a twelve team conference.
North
Syracuse, Uconn, Pitt, Louisville, Boston College, Virginia Tech
South
Duke, Wake Forest, UNC, NC State, South Florida, Virginia
LikeLike
Sounds plausible if ND and Texas don’t happen. Take your shot at NYC and DC, grab a slice of the southern market by going right at the hub of that market in Atlanta.
LikeLike
Yeah at this point, if Texas and Notre Dame both say no, I can easily see Delany going to the Big Ten presidents with a list of schools (like Rutgers/Pitt/Maryland/Nebraska/Missouri and even some more distant choices) and asking what they would prefer or whether they would prefer no expansion (which is always a possibility).
If Texas or Notre Dame is interested, obviously negotiations would focus on them and a conference built around attracting the Texas or NYC markets, etc.
LikeLike
Jeez Louise, I can’t wait to buy season tickets for the spine tingling games with Rut/Pitt/Maryland/Missouri/’cuse etc. Are there any more C and D athletic level schools we can add while were at it?
LikeLike
Justin: What “reports” are you referring to? Any links? Is this part of the Vandy rumor?
LikeLike
The ESPN report that broached Georgia Tech on Wednesday night. There is some hints about GT being under consideration on a Michigan premium message board.
I think this is a longshot, but I think the Big 10 is legitimately looking at filling those final two spots by year’s end.
LikeLike
The Michigan message board is almost certainly basing their thoughts on the ESPN report, or basing their thoughts on someone whose points come from the ESPN report.
LikeLike
Re GT and Maryland (Justin)
So GT is going to put the Big 10 channel on basic in Georgia overriding U of Georgia. Love to listen in on those negotiations.
Perhaps you missed article cited above where Maryland AD laughs at rumor that Maryland might leave ACC.
Then there is “assumption” Donna Shalala of Miami would be interested in SEC. I’ll believe that when I see it.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that Georgia determined which stations go on basic cable in Georgia.
I’m sure the the Big 10 could care less about basic cable in Macon, Georgia, however, if they thought there was a viable opportunity that Georgia Tech could deliver its city — Atlanta — then they’re worth at least contemplating.
Is there some reason that basic cable couldn’t accomodate both schools? The SEC doesn’t even have a cable network at the moment.
LikeLike
Re GT and Basic cable in Atlanta (Justin)
Actually I am asking a question. My assumption is U of Georgia is the major team in GA and the SEC is the dominant conference.
The question isn’t whether GT games as a potential member would be carried by a local or regional station but what would be the posture of the cable company? Would they put the Big 10 network on BASIC in Atlanta?
I sincerely would love to listen to the negotiations on that effort.
If the SEC does expand to 16, then I would guess they may create their own channel unless precluded by their current TV contract.
Would 2 conference channels be carried in Atlanta? Is GT more popular in Atlanta than U of Georgia. Even if the SEC doesn’t go to their own channel short term, I am doubtful.
Most Big 10 schools are without doubt the dominant schools in their state. Here they would be including team 2 in popularity where the issue is coverage on Basic where everyone in Atlanta would be charged a fee.
Obviously I would be very surprised if the Big 10 went into GA for an expansion team like GT for many reasons. One reason is the Big 10 would need at least one or more schools to create a meaningful presence in that region. Otherwise GT would be in an island dominated by the SEC and ACC.
Even Texas would I assume want and need a regional partner.
There are a lot of possible options out there but GT to the Big 10 would be a shocker to me.
I guess I’m skeptical that Miami is going anywhere so I don’t see the ACC as being that vulnerable to an SEC expansion beyond FSU or Clemson or perhaps VT, though even there I doubt the Presidents of FSU or VT would want to leave the ACC.
LikeLike
Re GT (continued)
Unless GT believes and the Big 10 feel the CIC is a major part of the expansion and would override other considerations.
LikeLike
I´m skeptical on Miami to the SEC for a number of reasons:
1) The SEC already has a solid footprint in the state and I think FSU is a more likely expansion candidate. I´m not sure either UF or FSU (in that scenario) would welcome Miami to the SEC.
2) Academics – Miami´s made it clear that they value the academic side of the ACC. Moving to the SEC would negate any academic momentum that school has seen.
A move to the Big 10, however, would seem to give Miami everything they enjoy about the ACC and more.
All that said, you don´t want to leave GT or Miami on an island, and so they both hinge around adding other ACC schools.
LikeLike
UGA dwarfs GT in the Atlanta market. The Dawgs own Atlanta and the whole State. Basic cable for GT and the Big Ten? Big question mark.
LikeLike
Debbie Yow didn’t laugh at the rumor about Maryland leaving the ACC. She laughed at a report that Maryland had been extended an invitation to the Big Ten. That’s significantly different.
Would Maryland leave the ACC? Certainly not for the Big East, as has been rumored in the past. The Big Ten — that’s a completely different animal, and Yow wouldn’t be making the final decision on that anyway.
LikeLike
Re Maryland and Debbie Yow (Vincent)
“Some of the league’s athletic directors completely dismissed the notion that they’d even entertain leaving the conference. Miami’s Kirby Hocutt, for one. Maryland athletic director Debbie Yow, meanwhile, literally laughed out loud when I brought up the rumors that the Big Ten had contacted Maryland. Yow told a story about receiving a call from a Washington Post reporter several weeks back. This was just after the first Big Ten-contacting-Maryland-rumors had come about, she said. She looked at the caller ID, answered and greeted the reporter with this: “You’re wasting your time and mine!” She knew what the call was about. And knew the Big Ten rumors were bogus.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2010/05/thoughts-after-the-acc-spring-meetings-how-major-conference-realignmentexpansion-might-affect-the-acc.html
LikeLike
Georgia Tech has supposedly been under consideration by the AAU for a while. It would be interesting to know why they were being admitted just now. The conspiracy theorists among us might wonder if it could be that the BT universities pushed it through just preceding a forthcoming Big Ten invitation.
With that said, while Georgia Tech is a fine school and in a good market (Atlanta) that is growing, it is quite the outlier geographically. However, it is in a major hub, easy to get in and out of the airport. Makes for easy travel.
LikeLike
BTW, Georgia Tech is #27 in research, with $522 million, ahead of Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana and Iowa, as well as ahead of expansion candidates Texas, Maryland and Rutgers. Interestingly, USNWR ranks it higher #35 than ARWU #105 in the world–(it’s the type of school I’d have thought would be ranked higher by ARWU).
On the downside, it’s smallish (13,500 undergrads plus 6,800 grad students) and it does have that annoying wasp as a mascot. (Everyone knows that the lowly Yellowjacket is known for its irascibility and treachery and cannot compare to, say, the noblest and most erudite member of the weasel family, the Wisconsin Badger.)
FWIW, Vanderbilt, too, is up there in research–#37 with $423 million. I know its easy to dismiss, what with its lack of sports, but the fact that it’s even being discussed given its level of sports illustrates how important academics are as an issue.
LikeLike
If Utah gets into the PAC, watch for their AAU admission to get fast-tracked. Utah has been petitioning the AAU for admission for a minute now. Utah wants AAU status pretty bad, and I see a PAC-affiliated Utah finally getting over that hump.
Georgia Tech’s AAU admission timing is a bit curious. Is it a coincidence or something more? Who knows.
LikeLike
Why did it take so long for GA Tech? Because when it comes to elitism and snobbery, the attitudes embedded in academia would make Donald Trump blush. Keeping a school on pins and needles and putting it through as much agony as possible is part of the control process. Ironic considering American academia is the only place in the world a Marxist can get a decent paycheck.
LikeLike
And about Utah — the AAU isn’t just a bunch of big football schools. It includes the Ivies, Johns Hopkins, Washington Univ (ST Louis), Rochester, Carnegie Mellon, etc. These are schools who couldn’t possibly give a whit about whether Utah wants to get into the PAC-10.
If Utah and the PAC-10 schools were to try to get Utah into the AAU for football purposes, my guess is the AAU would push back and make it much LESS likely Utah were to get in. The Harvard-type schools would want to make it clearly understood that the AAU is about academics only and will not be diluted for the sake of football. And the schools outside the BCS conferences (36) outnumber those who are in (35).
That might be unfair to Utah, but that’s university politics.
LikeLike
That’s odd. Last time the Big Ten was courting ND publicly, the implication was that if ND joined the CIC/B10, the Big Ten would help ND with the AAU membership.
Is Utah is further away than ND was in qualifing? Does the Pac-10 have less political juice than the Big Ten? Or were we just getting fed a line by the B10 back in the day?
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – Just from sheer voting power, the Big Ten has more influence in the AAU. My understanding is that a school needs sponsorship/support to receive AAU membership, so if all of the Big Ten schools would support ND membership, that’s extremely strong sponsorship (as that’s 11 schools out of the 63 total members). So, there is some credence to the fact that Big Ten membership would aid ND (or any other school) to gain AAU membership.
LikeLike
This is interesting. We´ve assumed that the priorities were Texas and NYC, and they may still be. But there´s also the idea that Texas and ND might be more receptive to conference realignment at a later date – maybe once the Big 10´s become a more national conference.
With that in mind, maybe you put Texas and NYC on the back-burner and take your shot at the Southeast first. There´s been a sort of an implicit assumption that the ACC is untouchable, but do we really know that? Many of the SEC expansion rumors involve ACC schools, so why should the Big 10 ignore them?
What if the ACC´s more vulnerable then we assume? Could the Big 10 get to Florida? It would open up huge markets, great research institutions and cut into SEC country.
If Texas and ND are dragging their feet, let´s turn our attention to the Southeast and try a five team expansion of Maryland, Virginia, UNC (Vanderbilt?), Georgia Tech and Miami.
If you can somehow get those schools in the fold, I have to imagine the Big 10 becomes much more attractive to Notre Dame and Texas.
LikeLike
Of course, the more teams you add from that list, the less room for Notre Dame and Texas.
As per the post above with the links to charts showing the shifting demographics away from the BT states (or at least expanding quicker elsewhere), I do see the advantage to markets like Georgia and Florida, (not to mention Texas). In that sense, schools in the southeast like Georgia Tech and Miami make a lot of sense, particularly with having a fair bit of football tradition.
LikeLike
You know Big 10 football coaches would love to get more exposure in DC, Georgia and Florida, even if some of these athletic programs would have to be cultivated a bit (UVa, GTech).
Given demographics, academics, new markets, and tradition, this type of strategy makes much more sense than a Texas-less Western expansion or a Notre Dame-less Eastern expansion. The question is whether these programs are legitimate possibilities.
I´d tend to think Miami and GTech might jump at this type of idea. The bigger challenge would be poaching the more traditional ACC schools. And I really think this strategy hinges around your ability to form a bridge down to GT and Miami. If you can´t get some combination of Maryland, UVa, and UNC, you ending up spreading yourself too thin.
LikeLike
And as for Texas and ND, I think you can always make space. And if we were successful with a 5 team SE expansion, maybe UT and ND consider joining by themselves – or with two other schools to get to 20.
From ND´s standpoint, you finally have the ¨national¨ schedule that FLP complains about. The same goes for Texas, and, at that point, the increased revenue may be too much for either school to ignore.
LikeLike
I kind of think the “national schedule” stuff is a fine concept, but when you’re already playing half your games in the Big Ten area anyway, plus the traditional rivals you’re not giving up, you’re arguing about maybe four football games per year. Hence, to my eyes, this argument appears mostly to be a post-hoc justification as a reason not to join the Big Ten.
That’s fine for a ND fan. They can argue whatever they wish. But if you’re in Notre Dame’s administration charged with looking after your university’s overall welfare, and if you’re thinking rationally, is it worth it to turn down more TV money now (and a whole pile more money down the road), and at the same time turn down the opportunity to give your university a chance to actually improve its academics and research levels via membership in the CIC?
As for the alumni argument, (that they’d stop donating if they were a member of a conference), besides the illogical stance of already being in a conference for every other sport besides football, you have to ask yourself, what kind of alumni would stop donating to their alma mater (thereby actually hurting their alma mater) because the administration is trying to improve cash flow, academics, and research potential because of a football schedule?
Think about this in reverse. Consider your alma mater. Would you withhold donating to your alma mater over a football schedule? Over anything sports-related? At any other school in the nation, at least one that prides itself in its academics, the whole reason you’d donate would be to improve your school’s academics, research or ability to give scholarships.
LikeLike
I really can’t see pulling G-Tech or Miami out of the ACC at this point. Last I checked, G-Tech is both Geographically and Culturally a Southern school (if co-eds wear sundresses to games, it’s a Southern school). Miami views itself primarily as an East Coast school but more to the Big Ten’s concern is that it is another small private school like NU. Let’s face it, if a geographically more sensible addition’s AD finds the idea of leaving the ACC for the Big Ten laughable, I doubt you’re getting schools like GT and the U.
I’m still working on how playing 3 Big Ten teams means ND doesn’t play a “national” schedule. Hmm, adding Navy and USC leaves SEVEN games to be scheduled and five of those would be obliged to the Big Ten. I’m convinced that Djinn doesn’t want it see it ND’s way, so whatev.
But then again, Scott’s post demonstrates a remarkable and deliberate lack of “getting” ND. He speaks of a CIC that somewhere between 15-45% of the faculty didn’t want to join for reasons still unknown. A CIC membership that was turned down in 1999 with talk of poor institutional fit and maintaining Notre Dame’s independence. I still believe that the decision to decline a decade ago was made not just for sports and financial reasons. I just wish I knew why personally.
You Big Ten fans may not withhold donations. Shoot, most of y’all probably don’t donate. Varsity Football at ND is a central expression of who the University is. If it is damaged, so is the school, and particularly the current and former student’s attachment to it. Does it sound crazy? Probably. But I and thousands of others like me lived it and know the truth.
As you’ve been told numerous times, Djinn^2, ND football is different. Hell, that’s the only reason the Big Ten gives a rat’s about ND: because it’s different and beloved. Other sports are other sports. If they win, great. If they lose, it’s not good…but it ain’t the end of the world. If they need a conference, they need a conference. No harm, no foul. This you know, Djinn.
The question that you should be asking if you’d actually like to see this from the ND alumni’s point of view is an interesting one.
At what point does the school you went to no longer functionally exist? At what point can you say that the school is gone? My Dad’s high school was renamed and remodeled. It has changed, but is still around. My Mother’s high school was moved to a completely different location, but kept many traditions? She wasn’t sure if it was the same school. If ND gave up its independence for football and academics and kowtowed to the pursuit of praise by the secular academy, would we alums still know our Alma Mater? Would she know us except when it was time to cut the check? Well, for ND, that’s a couple million dollar question, ain’t it?
LikeLike
FLP writes: “I’m still working on how playing 3 Big Ten teams means ND doesn’t play a “national” schedule. Hmm, adding Navy and USC leaves SEVEN games to be schedule and five of those wouold be obliged to the Big Ten.”
That’s not exactly what I said. Sorry, I’m evidently not making my point clearly enough.
What I’m saying is that between the three Big Ten schools you play every year and your current conference foes (Pitt, played every year, and either Syracuse or UConn played every year), you’re playing five regular games within the Big Ten or soon-to-be Big Ten area.
That’s not to mention the odd Western Michigan (2010) or Cincinnati (2013) game which are also in the Big Ten region. Nor the Wisconsin (already BT) and Missouri (likley soon in the BT) games that seem to be penciled in over the next few years.
Add in the traditional rivals (USC and Navy every year, and Army most years), and you’re up to seven or eight games of pretty regularly-scheduled foes each year.
These teams are not technically in the same conference, of course, but the point I’m making is that even with your “national schedule”, the truth is, Notre Dame plays nearly the same number of consistently-scheduled foes every year as a Big Ten team does. The opponents are just somewhat different.
Even if Notre Dame stays independent, if the Big Ten expands eastward, you may find that five of your opponents every year are in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I could envision the Big Ten and SEC carving up much of the ACC — the Big Ten taking Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke and Georgia Tech, the SEC Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State. That would leave BC, Wake amd Miami probably headed to the Big East.
LikeLike
And that would go in the dictionary under the definition of irony (BE swallowing ACC).
LikeLike
First post, but have read A LOT on expansion and have thoroughly enjoyed this blog for months.
I am thinking that if the Big 10 expands, they should do all they can to cause the consolidation of conferences. Eliminating Automatic Qualifiers for the BCS makes it that much easier to gain an extra spot with an expanded conference. Further, with the Mountain West in all likelihood inviting Boise St to gain their AQ status, they should look towards the Big 12 for expansion to make sure the Big 12 takes MWC members to fill their spots.
Personally, I am a fan of Texas to the Big 10 as I am a huge Horns and UM fan.
LikeLike
I don’t see much reason for the Big Ten to want to consolidate conferences. While fewer BCS conferences increases the probability of getting a second BCS bid (or even a third if the BCS allows it when it reorganizes), the Big Ten still almost always gets two BCS bids anyway and the BCS payout for additional bids is only $4.5 million, a drop in the bucket when you look at TV revenue.
At the same time, consolidating conferences could arguably have a negative effect on the Big Ten because it would lead to higher quality conferences that would demand more nationally televised games, which would result in more competition between the Big Ten and other conferences for nationwide television slots, which could well wind up weakening the Big Ten’s position in negotiating deals with ESPN and CBS.
LikeLike
Well, if the Big 12 loses 3 northern members and the southern schools stay, it might stay at 9 conference members.
If they lose 5 teams, including the 2 Texas schools, I think they’ll add teams. Not to help the other conferences, but to keep itself relevant outside of the prairie.
It could merge with the Big East football conference remainders, perhaps with a few new teams added in the west.
Or it could grab 5 western teams to get back to 12. After looking at those population projections I think they would grab Fresno State and UNLV, along with BYU, TCU, and Houston. There are a few other California schools to consider, but Fresno State is the only one that seems well supported to me.
If it merges with the Big East, one automatic qualifying conference is lost, though the MWC might get the number back to 6. If, instead, the Big 12 grabs several teams from the MWC and WAC, there will still be only 6 automatic qualifying conferences as long as the Big East survives.
Either way, if the big Texas schools leave the Big 12, I don’t think we’ll have more than 6 automatic qualifying conferences.
LikeLike
When the BEast was raided, they became the Kent Dorfman of the BCS (He’s a legacy from Harrisburg!). The biggest loser in the club — but still in the club. I would expect the same of the BXII. Even in a disaster scenario, losing NU, Mo, TX, A&M, OK, OK State, Col — (and Utah to PAC-10) they could add AFA, BYU, New Mexico, Boise State, TCU, SMU, Houston. That’s a decent conference — even if weak from a media interest standpoint. A reconstituted BXII can keep its BCS bid and solves political problems for the BCS — more schools on the inside reduces political pressure from Congress to open up. The teams in the MWC now want to make it a BCS Conference, but which one would turn down the just to enter a permanent BCS conference?
If the BCS didn’t kick out the BEast, it’s hardly going to jump at kicking out the BXII if they get some half-decent replacements.
LikeLike
Rumor du jour. Today from a CUSA messgae board. Houston is talking to the MWC. I have my doubts, but would not rule out anything.
LikeLike
Nothing new, UH and MWC have been talking for awhile. MWC wants them but worries a down year for the Cougs could jeopardize their BCS AQ application. Conventional wisdom is that the MWC will wait until the qualifying period is over and then add UH and a 12th school. Probably Fresno, but SMU might try to make a run at it. Boise is less risky, likely to continue to have a high win total and thus help the MWC’s AQ ranking. Hence Boise is being added now.
LikeLike
If the numbers crunching demonstrates that the addition of Boise would give the MWC the boost it needs for a BCS AQ, I tend to think the best move for the conference would be to sit back and wait.
If Utah would be as eager to accept a Pac 10 or Big XII bid as the posters above to my initial query seem to indicate (and that does sound right to me), no addition of a Fresno or SMU or Nevada or UH right now would be enough to entice Utah to stay.
Plus, being patient and keeping a couple of spots open could net the conference a Texas Tech or a Baylor or even a (dare I say it) Kansas if realignment turns into a Conference Realignment Armageddon, and schools like that are scrambling for new homes after a Big XII implosion.
LikeLike
“the best move would be to sit back and wait after adding BSU,” I should have written.
LikeLike
I don’t know if the MWC would necessarily survive a Big 12 collapse. It makes more sense to me that the top athletic programs in the MWC would simply leave behind the dead weight in the conference and form a new one with the strongest remnants of the Big 12. Perhaps a conference consisting of Utah, BYU, TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, Boise State, UNLV, Air Force, and some combination of the remaining Big 12 schools, Colorado State, San Diego State, and New Mexico.
LikeLike
@ Seth….I agree – I don’t think the MWC survives if an mega conference type shift takes place. The remaining B12 teams not gobbled up by the P10/B10/SEC will form a new confernece to get an auto bid with the cream of the MWC (+ BoiseSt) that hasn’t been taken by the P10 (Utah?). This will be a one bid type conference where the mega conferences will have lobbied to get 3 per conference limit (and there will probably be an additional BCS bowl – Cotton).
LikeLike
I was thinking if the Big 12 collapses and the SEC chooses not to expand, or takes OU and OSU and two ACC schools, the AQ Mountain West may be a likely place for Colorado and A&M to end up. The Pac Ten unanimous vote requirements could limit its expansion possibilities.
Instead of the remaining Big 12 taking the best of the Mountain West, maybe the MW expands by taking the best of the remaining Big 12.
LikeLike
Well as long as we are swinging for the fences, The Big Moneymaker 16:
TX, ND, NW, PU
MN, IA, WI, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
PSU, Rut, GT, FL
Or if aTm must tag along:
TX, aTm, PU, ND
MN, IA, WI, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, NW
PSU, IU, GT, FL
But if you are going for the Athletic Ivy, why not go to 20 and destroy the ACC? B20, SEC20, P10+10 best leftovers. 3 conf champs and a wildcard feed 2 bowls and a +1. No way, they grab the BCS to themselves and dictate to the bowls how things will be. 3 champs and 5 or more wildcards feeding a playoff with the bowls as the first round. Oh yeah, and break away into their own D1-$$:
TX, aTm, ND, PU, IU
MN, IA, WI, IL, NW
MSU, MI, OSU, PSU, Rut
FL, GT, Duke, NC, MD (or VA)
SEC:
Syr, CT, VT, VA, NC St
MIA, FSU, SC, UGA, MSU
AL, AU, TN, Vandy, KY
TCU, UH, LSU, AR, Miss
Pac10+Poor10 Alliance:
Pac10 round robin
Utah, CO, TT, OU, NE, KS, MO, Clem, Pitt, WV round robin
There ya go, the Elites, the Cheats, and the Leftovers.
LikeLike
I assume Florida´s not in play. If they have any discontent in the SEC from an academic standpoint, I haven´t heard it. It´s obviously worth a feeler, but I think raiding the ACC is much more realistic and still very valuable.
Also, from a travel standpoint, MIA and ATL are major airline hubs and might make GT and Miami more accessible than some current Big 10 schools.
LikeLike
I assume Florida´s not in play.
I do too, or at least 98% not going anywhere. But there is the chance that behind the scenes some of the big dogs are pushing for consolidation and in effect cutting away a lot of schools from the BCS for the new contract. So if one plays the game of, if we get X, Y might join, with X and Y, Z could consider, then here’s one shocker that isn’t inconceivable.
Miami’s academics have improved, but they and FSU still aren’t AAU. I doubt they are in the mix.
LikeLike
Big Ten expansion could end 119-year-old rivalry!
Sounds like sour grapes from Kansas AD. Leads me to believe Kansas is not part of the expansion scenario.
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/05/big-ten-expansion-could-end-119-year-old-rivalry.html
LikeLike
A lot of the Big 12 teams are circling the wagons right now. Perkins is most likely posturing, but when he was the UConn AD, he did end the series with BC after they left.
KU-MU is the longest running series West of the Mississippi and the Arrowhead game brings in $1 mm/yr for each team. It’s a big deal to both parties.
If you read between the lines, he’s basically letting it be known to MU and the Big 10 that if MU leaves, they are getting black balled from Kansas City. MU is going to be hard pressed to maintain a foothold in that market without games at Arrowhead or the Sprint Center. Sure they’ve got some alums there, but without any events in KC, you have to wonder if some of their band wagon fans stay on board.
Without the KC market, is Mizzou very attractive? Perkins knows it isn’t, and his track record shows that he doesn’t bluff on stone-walling rival programs.
LikeLike
Perkins has some scary power if he’s going to keep Missouri out of a city located in Missouri.
If Perkins is really serious about ending that old rivalry, what’s to stop Missouri and Nebraska from scheduling at Arrowhead, if money issues can be worked out?
Someone speculated that the Nebraska and Missouri denials a few days back were demanded by Beebe. I’m more inclined to believe that Perkins and Boren at OU lining up to do a little woofing at MU and NU would be at the behest of Beebe. While he’s rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, maybe he can “call the question” on Texas, who are just as involved in the mix of teams that have let it be known they might be off to a bigger payday. I’ll put it as nicely as I can, and say I don’t see that happening. It’d be insubordination.
LikeLike
He’s not going to keep them out of KC– they have 20k alums there. What I was saying is, it is going to be a lot harder to get events there without the 70k+ KU alums in the area.
Try convincing the Sprint Center to put on an event for NU-MU– neither team fills their own arenas. Try convincing Osborne to give up a home game to play at Arrowhead each year. Unlike KU, NU would probably lose money on a deal like that– all for the sake of market penetration on paper? If you’re in charge of either arena and the Big 12 says they won’t do business with them if they schedule NU or MU– who do you take in the divorce?
When you stop having events in the area, you start to lose your bandwagon fans. And there are a lot of non-alum Mizzou fans in KC. That’s why these games are so important.
Like I said, this is most likely posturing, but Perkins has a well known history of cutting off rivals that move out of conference. He’s just giving the Big 10 and Mizzou something to chew on.
LikeLike
Nebraska has a lot of support in KC also, both local and fans who will make a weekend trip out of a game there. Nebraska played Oklahoma State in Arrowhead in 1998, so there is precedent. Certainly the money has to work for both schools.
As far as Kansas fans or Perkins forcing the Sprint or Arrowhead to blackball Missouri, it might fall into the area what’s possible if those venues weren’t located on Missouri taxpayers side of the border. As it is, they’ll tell Perkins to take a flying-you-know-what at a rolling doughnut. That’s assuming Kansas fans are even on the side of Perkins in this, which I seriously doubt. Beebe sent his poodle out to bark, his job is done. Let’s not get carried away.
LikeLike
@eapg — That was Oklahoma State’s home date, not Nebraska’s, and that was before T Boone’s money showed up in Stillwater. Nebraska’s not moving home dates out of Lincoln for love or money.
LikeLike
So, if Missouri’s home date with Nebraska can be set up to make more money for them in Arrowhead, Lew Perkins down at Kansas has veto power.
Awaiting photos of Deloss Dodds in leather and ball gag. Not really, but you get my drift.
LikeLike
I get it! Ha ha.
LikeLike
Re: worries about bowl games
I am completely unworried about bowl payouts. Even if the BCS does not change its rules, the Big Ten would be able to get a 3rd bowl with a higher payout than a third BCS game. Currently, the Capital One bowl which gets the third best team (assuming the usual two BCS pickups) already pays equivalently to another BCS berth (4.25 million vs 4.5 million). If the conference adds valuable teams, the bowl payouts will take care of themselves.
In the Texas scenario, perhaps the Cotton Bowl ups its stature by alternating with the Capital One getting the third B16 Ten team.
LikeLike
Ya know, if I owned a racehorse, I’d name it “kjfjdlkdkakdjlsgfd” just to mess with the announcers.
LikeLike
SMU message board indicates Utah and Colorado to Pac-10 is a done deal….does this qualify as news? Probably not, but thought I’d pass it along:
http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45621&start=30
I have my doubts that the PAC-10 expands by only 2 to include Utah and Colorado. They could probably get a championship game with 10 teams if they tried, is splitting money with an extra 2 teams worth the addition of these 2?
LikeLike
There have been other reports that Utah coaches have claimed to recruits they’re about to get into the Pac 10. Haven’t heard any confirmation, though.
“They could probably get a championship game with 10 teams if they tried”
The ACC tried and failed.
LikeLike
It’s definitely news, since the specific source seems to be a nephew of the board participant who happens to swim at Utah and was told directly, by the Athletic Director, that this was a done deal.
What other proof is necessary?
LikeLike
At least it’s sourced. LOL.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t one stop paying attention at “message board.”?
Again… I say someone here should go start a rumor. How about… the Pac 10 is looking at Colorado and Hawaii. Never hear Hawaii come up, eh? Doesn’t get any more PAC than a school located squarely in the middle of it.
Then see how long it takes to get back here.
I am guessing 48 hours.
LikeLike
Again, don’t know where this post will be placed in the thread. Again, the revenues from BTN offered as “fact” are in dispute.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/illini/story/4E0D7FE430DDC05E86257724000A464E?OpenDocument
LikeLike
It definitely appears they’re playing games with words.
“The network pays a $75 million rights fee to the Big Ten, a figure that will increase slightly each year.”
So, if that’s divided 11 ways they each get $6.8 million; if they divide it 12 ways (because the conference might take a share) that’s $6.25 million each.
Illinois says they received ‘tv money’ from the Big 10 of $6.1 million in 07-08, $6.4 million in 08-09, and a projected $6.5 million in 09-10.
Notice this appears to be exactly the rights fees the Big Ten Network is paying them? They’re calling that ‘tv money’. Any profit from the cable network, (paid as dividends to the shareholders of the Big Ten Network) is likely listed somewhere else in the university budget. They can claim that’s not ‘tv money’ and merely a return on an investment.
LikeLike
My thoughts exactly.
Of interest, the chart at the bottom of the site shows “total conference payout” for Illinois at $19.5 million. Right in line with the $20-22 million.
Seems to me the “facts” are still the “facts”.
LikeLike
Also, there are so many different numbers around. I linked a Chicago Tribune article earlier in the comments that stated the rights fee was $60 million and the conference received $66 million from its 51% share.
LikeLike
Part of the problem with accuracy is there are different rates with different cable operators, so people have been quoting the 70/10 cent split in general which becomes a fact with enough repetition. The BTN usually states that cable operators are charged under a dollar in the 8 states and about a dime everywhere else. The national average is usually stated as about 30 cents.
http://www.msuspartans.com/ot/msu-btn-page.html
The $22 mil figure probably originated when someone went through a 10-K of News Corp. to try to decipher their Cable TV programming financial info and made their best guess based on this and info from other sources of revenue to reach an estimate.
The competition between Comcast/NBC & Disney/
ABC/ESPN along with Fox/BTN, CBS etc. should be interesting.
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2010/04/comcasts_acquisition_of_nbc_sp.php
LikeLike
In a different article on the increase in BTN revenues possible (i.e., doubling from 6m per to 12m by 2015 if teams are added), the following is mentioned:
“If the Big Ten really wants to maximize revenues, as one TV executive pointed out, it could alter its philosophy on prime-time weekday games.
The conference already has softened that policy, which is in place because Thursday night games can disrupt campus life and cost players and students class time.
Ohio State and Indiana will host night games on Thursday, Sept. 2. Ohio State is on the quarter system and won’t have class that week, but Indiana’s classes start the previous Monday.”
As I posted a month ago when expansion became a really hot topic — maybe it is ok for Big 10+ schools to play a “tv-centric” schedule — Wednesday nights, Thursday nights, triple headers on Saturday — but if a ND administrator jumps through these hoops for an extra 6m, he or she should be fired, immediately.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-100514-big-ten-expansion-greenstein,0,2936879.story
LikeLike
ehh…no school will ever be required to play on a weekday night. Didn’t we tell you that a month ago? Didn’t it say that in the article you’re citing?
And what, exactly is the problem with a ‘triple header on Saturday’? You do realize that one team isn’t playing 3 games in one day?
LikeLike
Big Ten teams already play home games on Thursday nights. The purpose of Big Ten expansion, as has been emphasized time and again on this board, is primarily to increase the attractiveness and revenue-generating capacity of the BTN. A key avenue to increasing the attractiveness of the BTN is to play on weekdays. You want a reasonable person to believe that Big Ten on Thursday nights is categorically not going to happen between now and 2020 — naive or disingenuous, which is it? If you are willing to say that Rutgers is your peer for money, then what is the big deal about “Big Ten Thursday night”? And if there is Big Ten Thursday night, it would be ok for ND (and any other program) to opt out? Again, naive or disingenuous, which is it?
Tripleheaders: ND plays 9 games next year at 3:30pm. Perfect for our alums and subway alums. In the 1980s we allowed tv to dictate starting times. Our times changed literally from week to week to meet the needs of tv and to be a “good citizen” (just like we would be asked to be a good “conference” member), we changed kick-off times to accommodate tv. This was a key reason we bolted to NBC. Alums did not like massive changes to our start times and I can see why. We don’t need to change our schedules to be a “good citizen for the greater good of the Big Ten +” for five million dollars.
Again, if you believe that the purpose of your athletics program is to support the needs of programming execs at ESPN, ABC and now I guess Comcast, go for it. I guess your attitude makes sense. I sincerely hope our administrators do not respond to this Siren’s call.
LikeLike
First, this is not really the reality. It’s just what you envision because you don’t want to join the BT.
Second, the BTN couldn’t force a school to schedule a game when it doesn’t wish or feels its not in their interests. As you know, the Big Ten teams own a majority in the BTN. So who exactly would “make” teams play at night if a university didn’t want to do it?
With this said, I don’t personally see it being such a big deal if a school wished to do it, particularly around a scheduled school break. It increases the school’s exposure, cash flow, and night games are a lot of fun. In fact, I think the students and players would really look forward to that stage.
Even at its maximum, how many such games would a single schools schedule in a season? One? But again, even if this were to happen, it wouldn’t be by force if the schools, themselves, own the majority voice of the network.
Third, I’m sure you’re aware that several sports are already scheduled on weekday nights. Men’s and women’s basketball and hockey, for example. And this is true even at Notre Dame, where it’s been going on for years.
Is there outrage about those sports having night games at Notre Dame? Is anyone being fired? Of course not. It’s a non-issue.
LikeLike
“naive or disingenuous, which is it? ”
Oh, you’re being completely disingenuous.
LikeLike
@Rich2:
You posted almost the exact same argument a month ago, and at that time I went through and listed this year’s schedule for weekday games. The Big Ten was only behind the SEC for fewest weekday games.
Again, you’re acting like some kind of paranoid. As if, by joining the Big Ten, ND is going to have its entire university livelihood dictated to it. Is the NDNation crowd expecting to be forced to wear special armbands as well?
Let’s be honest here for a second. If ND doesn’t want to play weekday night games the Big Ten isn’t going to make them. How do I know? Ohio State plays one game this year on Thursday night, which happens to be the opening day of college football. That was Gene Smith’s decision, as OSU’s likely the biggest game on during that time slot and it’s an easy way to get a prime time slot for a game that would otherwise get BTN’d. But the last time OSU played during the week was 1997 against Missouri. I doubt it’s going to become a regular thing. Can I see Indiana’s games going to Thursdays? Sure. They need the exposure. But I don’t see the big teams making a regular thing out of it because they still command the preferred time slots on Saturdays.
Hell, Ohio State and Michigan wouldn’t let them move the Game to Saturday evenings because of tradition and cost. They aren’t going to move other big games to weekday nights regularly, simply because it costs more to manage.
LikeLike
@ Djinn^2
Two things:
1. All regular season hockey games are on Friday and Saturday nights. I think I’ve seen tournament games on Sunday nights. Some of those holiday tournaments may be on weeknights, but I don’t think so. Anyway for them everyone’s on break, so no harm no foul.
2. The reason ND is playing all these neutral site games is because NBC is demanding it, and the administration will not allow home Saturday night games for football.
I don’t think Rich2 is being excessively paranoid. I think it would be very easy for the conference to make a rule that every team must play at least once on the BTN weeknight game every season. If you think otherwise, fine, but don’t cite to “reality” because we aren’t near that point yet.
@ Mani
Actually, I think it was on either the ND Scouts or Rivals boards they were discussing the Big Ten making ND wear pink jerseys, but that was facetious. I think.
Like I was saying to Scott above, we’re not at the point where we can determine what’s likely re scheduling and the BTN. Considering how the ratings and/or carriage rates go given the new expansion or potentially anti-trust and/or a la carte, who’s to say what the conference will expect from all its members?
LikeLike
I do know that the SEC doesn’t require any of its teams to play on a week night. Usually, the only SEC schools you’ll see hosting a Thursday night game are South Carolina or Miss. State. The SEC does require each school to move the time of Saturday games for CBS or ESPN. Also, each school is required to move only one game per year to the early 12:30 Eastern time slot for the SEC Network game. That game is usually the 4th game picked, so you frequently see home games from Kentucky, the Mississippi schools and Vandy.
LikeLike
FLP writes: “All regular season hockey games are on Friday and Saturday nights…”
See, I actually look this stuff up before I write it. There were 3 midweek Notre Dame hockey games last year, none in 2008-2009, four in 2007-2008 and either one or two in each year the five years previous.
Looking back at the 2009-2010 schedule, I’m not sure the midweek hockey games were associated with any actual holiday–October 20? November 19? (This was a week before Thanksgiving.) February 25? (Spring break was in March.) Maybe classes were out for whatever reason, however, it’s clearly been done in more than one sport. All without incident; all without protest. No threats of firing anyone.
The other point to be made here is that both you and Rich have admitted that their network deal has pressured Notre Dame to alter its schedule even now (ie, different times, having to travel to neutral sites…) So it’s not like Notre Dame’s current conference independence allows for complete scheduling independence.
Yet Rich is protesting that joining the Big Ten conference would mean Notre Dame would be pressured into altering its schedule. Something that’s happening even now as an independent. Do you not see even a little irony in that logic?
Would joining the Big Ten make the situation worse? Well, if you don’t like neutral site games, being a BT member would probably actually solve that issue.
And I’d argue that a) owning your own network allows you to call the shots a lot better than being paid by a network (which means they control you). If you co-owned the BTN, who would it be, exactly, that will make you do anything? The BTN? A national network like NBC? You’re already on NBC. They’re the ones pressuring you now.
b) This terrible fear of night games has never been an issue in the Big Ten. Never. There is no reason to think it would suddenly be a problem if Notre Dame were to join. It’s a made-up, theoretical argument that is not based in current reality.
However, c) even if a night game were to happen, what is the harm? It’s not your sabbath. (Which, incidently, other Notre Dame teams DO play on.) We’re talking about one three-hour game, on one odd night, maybe once per year. You can’t schedule your life around that? If other ND sports do it, why couldn’t the football team? Where’s the harm?
d) If you don’t need the extra money such a game would deliver, if you don’t need the exposure (something that might actually appeal to new recruits who might LOVE the idea of going to a school where they could be on a nationally televised game at night), if night games are really such an issue, how hard would it be to make joining contingent upon Notre Dame reserving the perpetual right to ALWAYS have Saturday day games if it so chooses? Notre Dame even has its own law school. You could draw up the wording yourself. For free. It probably wouldn’t take up more than a sentence. In fact, so no school gets preferential treatment, they could even negotiate a clause where EVERY school in the BT retains such a right.
LikeLike
The 10/20/10 game was on fall break. Neither of the midweek games were home this year. Not that it matters. Football is different.
No one has said that ND had total schedule independence. You said we said it. We don’t. We locked ourselves into Big East games because were good conference members. We locked ourselves into Navy because we have a sense of honor and gratitude. We choose to play USC, Purdue, MSU, and Michigan. We choose to play the neutral site game because TPTB don’t want to play night games at home. There’s a huge difference between making a choice and potentially being ordered due to losing a 11-1 to 15-1 conference vote. Surely you must see that.
Does it really bug you so much that we aren’t excited to play the Badgers?
The fans are actually pretty psyched about the concept of the neutral site game. It’s the execution of late that’s been lacking. Although I personally like the Army @ Yankee stadium for historical reasons. If we can get the Miami @ Chicago details worked out, that’s the kind of game the fans want to see.
Just remember, ND wouldn’t own the BTN, the Conference does. If/when we lose the vote, we lose our option. Ara warned us that we would be outvoted time and again. This strikes me as one of those times our wants will be passed over “for the greater good”.
Everything about the Big Ten + ND is theoretical at this point. You can’t say that an argument isn’t based in reality like it’s a negative thing since it’s all theoretical at this point. And we’re not talking about changing the rules to give OSU five downs, we’re talking about league scheduling, which the conference already has a great deal of control over.
LikeLike
Re the Georgia Tech rumors, I wanted to chime in with a point I didn’t see raised above.
Although GT is an ACC school, it is an ACC school in the heart of the SEC, and it seems as though looking to add GT would be unnecessarily poking a stick into the SEC. The best possible realignment scenario for the Big 10 is to pull off as impressive a realignment as possible without provoking the SEC to expand as well — or expand so well that all the attractive pieces are off the board if the SEC seeks to expand in response.
I think adding GT might provoke an SEC response disproportionate to what GT would add to the Big 10.
With so many other attractive candidates out there, leave GT alone.
LikeLike
Two things I did not know about the Mountain West cable network, in contrast to the BTN: it has not made any money, and the conference has no ownership.
LikeLike
As to Georgia Tech: First off, the BTN is already on cable (Comcast) as part of the sports pack in metro Atlanta, and is on AT&T U-verse as part of the basic package, and of course is on DirecTV and Dish. I don’t see any conflicts with SEC coverage in general or University of Georgia coverage in particular. Coverage for ACC and SEC coexists now and Big Ten and SEC coverage would coexist if Tech moved to the Big Ten. It would be interesting to see the Big Ten games get priority on ABC in Atlanta, which would no longer be ACC country. There are a lot of Florida State, Clemson, and other ACC school alums in metro Atlanta, and giving priority to a Big Ten tilt of, say, Wisconsin-Iowa over an ACC tilt of Virginia Tech-North Carolina would probably tick off a lot of ACC alums. Then again the Big Ten alums aren’t happy now when a Big Ten game is relegated to standard-def ESPN to accommodate some thrilling ACC clash like Maryland-Wake Forest. Adding Georgia Tech to the B10 would be great for me in that regard as I live in metro Atlanta. If GT joined the Big Ten, I would suspect that most cable companies in north Georgia would put BTN on (or move it to) basic cable. Down in southern and southwestern Georgia, I’m not so sure. But then again the majority of the population is in north Georgia anyway.
GT is an interesting case. If memory serves they were a SEC school until the early 1960s when there was a row between GT and Alabama over scholarships. The specifics elude me at the moment but I believe GT (Bobby Dodd) objected to SEC schools, especially ‘Bama, giving kids scholarships and then taking away the schollies if the kids didn’t pan out. Or something to that effect. Again I am going on memory here, but I believe GT was indie for awhile before joining the ACC in the 1970s. I believe Tech would be more than happy to join the Big Ten from both an academic and athletic standpoint. As noted, Tech is a geographic outlier to the Big Ten. What is a bit more troubling is that once you get outside north Georgia, Tech is not much of a blip on anyone’s radar screen, although most folks have at least heard of the “Ramblin’ Wreck.” I would think that there would be a lot of fans of other Big Ten schools going to Bobby Dodd stadium, though – there is a large Big Ten presence in metro Atlanta. Given the bad blood between GT and the SEC, I find the speculation on GT going to the SEC rather questionable. I could see GT going to the Big Ten first.
I think Georgia Tech and the Big Ten would be good for each other, but being a geographic outlier – even one not as bad as Texas – would still probably be a deal-breaker. Then again, GT kids probably have to jump on a plane anyway to participate in any sport, so instead of flying to Charlotte they fly to Indianapolis or Detroit. Probably the Big Ten schools wouldn’t mind coming to Atlanta once in awhile.
LikeLike
I’m not feeling Georgia Tech as a geographic outlier. It’s obviously a great academic school, but if you’re going far outside the Big Ten region, you need a national name and/or the unequivocal top school in that market. GT is neither. I’ve said this before, but I actually have no reservations about taking Miami. Now, I doubt that they would move from the ACC so soon, but even though it’s a private school, it’s a big TV draw and culturally not “Southern”. Out of any school out there, it would have the least reservations about geography because it already has to get on a plane for every single ACC opponent (even FSU) and its student body comes heavily from the Northeast.
LikeLike
Geography is an important issue in conference expansion. This is true for both academic and athletic purposes. It is easier to collaborate closely with other schools if you want to have face-to-face meetings and actually do things with someone from another university.. While this is obviously not necessary, I do know from experience that it is helpful.
Athletically, geography is important because it is highly useful in forming rivalries. Rivalries develop between teams that are close to each other because they recruit the same players, so the teams know each other, and the fans of both teams know fans of the other team. This makes for a highly competitive atmosphere which spawns rivalries over time. As no Big Ten team shares Miami’s recruiting base (well, Michigan arguably does, as they have made in-roads on some major Florida highs schools) and Miami fans are not concentrated in areas with lots of Big Ten fans (except perhaps some overlap with Penn State fans), it would be difficult to develop major rivals for Miami. The only real candidate is Penn State, and even that would be difficult.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and Miami play in Soldier Field in 2012. A Southeast expansion could net Miami first and later include ND. If it did, the two could easily become rivals.
You say that no Big 10 team shares Miami´s recruiting base, but bring Miami to the Big 10, increase the Big 10´s exposure in South Florida and I guarantee you Big 10 teams will share Miami´s recruiting base.
I can´t speak for the rest of the Big 10, but Illinois alone – if their new coaching staff can get things turned around – would be a force in South Florida. Say what you want about Zook´s coaching ability, but the guy recruits and he recruits hard in Florida.
LikeLike
While some Big Ten teams recruit South Florida, no school that can rival Miami competitively has enough South Florida recruits to create the environment necessary to form a rivalry on the field. And while Notre Dame could be a real rival to Miami, that’s not likely to become a major one because ND has longstanding rivalries with three Big Ten schools already, in addition to USC and Navy. Miami would be ND’s sixth rival, while Miami’s primary rivals would not be part of the Big Ten. Meanwhile, Miami would be difficult to be assimilated into the Big Ten culture, because their fanbase is geographically isolated from Big Ten fanbases. This would make it difficult for Miami to develop a Big Ten identity, which ultimately could cause major problems for the Big Ten later on.
LikeLike
GT, Miami, and Vandy would all blow. Let’s get serious folks.
LikeLike
I’d have to say that Georgia Tech is almost the same as Rutgers. While GT has a better athletic history in football and basketball (plus) they also have an ‘instate rival’ (minus). The big key, as with Rutgers, is not that the school itself can deliver Atlanta and any other parts of the state, but that GT and the rest of the Big Ten can deliver Atlanta. Heck, just think of them as Purdue-south if you have to.
LikeLike
GA Tech would be a terrible move for the Big Ten. Currently, the Big Ten either has a lock on all AQ teams in its states, or has the dominant program, by far, except in the state of Indiana. Of the second tier programs in the Big Ten states, i.e. Pitt, Cincy & Iowa State, only Pitt is even being considered for membership.
GA Tech is a great school, but doesn’t have much of a following in the state of Georgia, or even the Atlanta MSA. LSU played GA Tech twice in the Peach Bowl during the last decade and probably had more butts in the seats than did GA Tech. Why would the Big Ten want to get humiliated by the SEC & UGA/Auburn week after week, in Atlanta in terms of interest & ratings? A 3:30pm South Carolina/Auburn game on CBS would destroy a 3:30pm GA Tech/Ohio State on ABC in the Atlanta area.
This may be a good idea in theory, but its a terrible idea in reality. The Big Ten doesn’t need to hit a home run with each expansion school, but I do think the Big Ten ought to get the dominant team in each expansion state, i.e. Rutgers/New Jersey, Mizzou/Missouri, NU/Nebraska, UT/Texas, KU/Kansas. The only exceptions would be Pitt and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you said; the only thing I’d comment on though, is that Notre Dame isn’t the dominant team in terms of Indiana viewers. As pointed out by plenty of the Notre Dame posters, it has a relatively small alumni base and doesn’t really have many people from Indiana attending as a %. Obviously, it’s a national program, but that’s an entirely different point and why the Big Ten covets it.
LikeLike
A lot of these rumors are starting to get a bit far out there.
Nothing’s changed since Frank’s early posts and even his more recent posts which are entirely consistent.
The Big Ten is first and foremost looking at Notre Dame and then Texas/A&M for the NYC/Texas angle.
Without those two, it’s going to be hard enough to convince the Big Ten presidents to go to 14 let alone 16.
We’re still looking at Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers as well as Maryland, Kansas, Pitt, Syracuse, Conn, etc.
It’s really hard to justify almost random land grabs like GTech or Vandy or even Va without a reasoned strategy. Even though they’re great academically for the conference, the Big Ten presidents are going to want teams that can create rivalries as well as sporting interest. I can’t see Northwestern/Michigan State/Minnesota/Iowa randomly voting for Vandy (even if OSU’s president wants it) because they don’t make sense from a sports angle for those schools, even if it was on the table.
Delany’s first going to go to Notre Dame and Texas with his grand 16 team visions, and if they both decline at this time, he’ll roll back the plans and focus on a narrow targeted strategy that can justify expansion.
There’s still a reasonable chance that the Big Ten presidents say “no thanks” to any sort of expansion if Delany tells them that Notre Dame and Texas don’t see themselves as part of the Big Ten.
We might even just see a 1 team grab of say Nebraska that’s easy to justify for a CCG even though it wouldn’t bring in-state markets for the Big Ten network because Nebraska versus any team in the Big Ten would help create local/alumni interest for any school in the Big Ten footprint.
A 2 team strategy of Nebraska/Rutgers that’s been mentioned often by allthatyoucantleavebehind is an interesting idea that gives us Nebraska for the interest throughout the Big Ten as well as some targeting of NYC/NJ through Rutgers. It would also leave us at 13 with a CCG that would allow us to strike for another team should they come around.
Something like Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland actually would be the most interesting strategy and would fit into JoePa’s (2 in the east, 1 in the west) idea as well as be well targeted for D.C./NYC/NJ and Nebraska’s national brand. That’s probably an interesting 3 team addition that would make the Big Ten presidents happy. Of course we don’t know if Maryland is interested.
It’s just really hard to see how we take other teams including Va./Vandy/VTech, etc. outside of some kind of Big Bang 20 team strategy because a 14 team strategy has to be really targeted, while a 16 team strategy will be built around NYC/Texas.
LikeLike
A Southeast strategy would only make sense if 1)ND and UT both declined and you have 5 openings to move to 16 or 2) ND and UT both accept, you´re at 16 and are considering a move to 20.
The problem with a SE expansion is that there´s no ¨Texas¨ to this strategy (unless UF were an option). None of these schools by itself is perfect enough or strong enough to be a geographic outlier.
If you´re going after the Southeast, it has to be a package deal. And if the ACC is vulnerable, we´re not talking about something completely out of left field – or at least more-so than everything else we´ve considered.
Someone mentioned that the perfect Big 10 expansion is one that achieves the most without impelling the SEC to respond . . . I don´t see that though. The goal of expansion is not to beat the SEC, it´s to make the Big 10 as strong as possible. If someone else gets bigger in the process, so be it.
What´s the perfect strategy though? I think it would be an East Coast expansion that captures market from DC down to South Florida (the area, not the school). It would probably involve some 5 school combination of Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, UNC, Duke, GTech and Miami.
After that you put ND and Texas on notice that you´ve saved two spots for them. If they want them fine, if not, you have a 16 team conference that is stronger athletically, academically, and financially than any other 5 school expansion (sans UT and ND) could have netted you.
LikeLike
My problem with the “southeast strategy” is that it would be reactive to an SEC first move but we all believe the Big Ten will be the first mover. (I would argue that the SEC has to make the ACC unstable for ACC schools to consider the safe harbor of the Big Ten.)
I don’t see any ACC school leaving for the Big Ten unless the SEC starts taking ACC schools such as FSU/Clemson. Then we start talking about poaching ACC schools that the Big Ten would want…
It’s going to be hard enough to try to get Maryland in a stable ACC to consider the Big Ten even though we all agree that Maryland is one of the best gets in the east.
Thus, I think you correctly point out that a southeast strategy would be based on a 16 team Big Ten moving to 20 possibly. I hate to be dismissive but I really don’t see a 16 team expansion scenario without Texas/Notre Dame; there just aren’t the right teams out there to go to 16 (too speculative as to market impact) and a southeast strategy almost requires an unstable ACC as a prerequisite.
LikeLike
I´m not sure we can speak for the Presidents of the ¨desirable¨ ACC schools and whether or not they´d be willing to be proactive. AT the very least, I´m sure feelers have been put out.
Here´s an idea though – and it goes along with my other comment that expansion is not about the Big 10 vs. the SEC. They can both be immensely successful while peacefully coexisting (and I´m not sure of any scenario in which they wouldn´t coexist).
If we admit then that this is not about the Big 10 vs. the SEC, why shouldn´t the two collude, if it were in both of their best interests?
If Florida St and Clemson are the first dominoes that have to fall, what´s to stop Delany and Slive from getting together and making this work on both ends?
I understand that a ¨Southeast strategy¨ would be cutting into SEC territory, but, again, there is nothing to stop the Big 10 and SEC from peacefully coexisting. Hell, what does the Big 10 have that the SEC wants? Its own television network. We´ve talked about the Big 10 assisting the Pac 10 but why shouldn´t they assist the SEC as well, if it´s in everyone´s best interest?
Long term, I´d say it´s likely that the three or four superconferences will all have networks that will all appear on basic cable all over the country. So if it´s going to happen, and it´s in everyone´s best interest to happen, then let´s work together and get this done ASAP.
LikeLike
The SEC and Big Ten act a lot more like competitors right now though…; hard to see them coming together until after they become superconferences per se.
Both would really want Texas and I think both would recognize that whichever conference does get Texas will have the largest population footprint by far over any span of time this century…
LikeLike
I would just add that I would see the SEC moving to protect its population footprint since it knows that it has no way of threatening that of the Big Ten because there are schools on the table in the southeast but not in the Big Ten’s footprint other than Notre Dame which probably would never join the SEC.
LikeLike
Even if the Big 10 expanded into ¨SEC territory¨, they´re never going to be the dominant conference in the South. Same thing goes for SEC expansion into the Midwest.
There would, however, be opportunity for SEC expansion to ¨Big 10 territory.¨ Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati and their pick of the Big 12 would all be options. None of those schools would turn the tide in the Midwest, but, again, I don´t understand why this has to be a zero sum game. Expanding into new territory might not give you that territory, per se, but it can make you relevant and bring in new sources of revenue.
In the Southeast, the SEC is obviously not the only game in town. Big 10 expansion to the SE wouldn´t take away from the SEC, it would only better align similar minded institutions.
As for Texas, both conferences would obviously be interested, but, again, I don´t think it´s grounds for keeping the two apart. There is too much to be gained from a Big 10-SEC alliance for either to walk away from the table. The Big 10 and SEC are going to be dominant for a long time, and, at some point, Texas will have a choice to make: which conference more closely aligns with their values? Whatever the choice, it will not be debilitating for the other conference.
We´ve become so fixated on how Texas and Notre Dame are ¨must gets,¨ that I think we´ve lost some perspective. Those two are not the only big fish in the water. If you strike out on those two, it just requires a different strategy. Don´t settle, turn your attention elsewhere.
LikeLike
I think it’s not necessarily positive sum to focus on areas where the conferences already are.
The whole point in focusing on Texas/NYC/NJ/D.C./Va. is to focus on markets that neither the Big Ten nor SEC have managed to tap because they’re being held by weaker conferences.
That’s why this expansion will be focused on those areas. There’s no reason for the Big Ten to try to wrestle with cable providers in Georgia where there’s another show on the ground in UGa, when we can take our show to NYC or Texas or D.C. and dominate the market by taking the schools that those markets may care about…
Miami is a more interesting questionmark because as Frank’s pointed out, it’s not a Southern area. South Floridians (south of Orlando) as a whole are largely transplants from the Northeast that still maintain those sensibilities.
I don’t think it’s about settling, I think it’s about focusing on our best option now and then expanding another day.
We shouldn’t rush expansion, we should take the best schools that fit the long term strategy we’re developing, and then try to get other schools that may be jarred loose another day.
LikeLike
I agree.
The Big 10 has never suggested that is was modifying its regional base. Sliding down to Texas or sliding over to NYC or sliding down to DC seems quite a bit different than hopping over several states to reach Ga Tech and Miami.
Moreover, if Notre Dame’s private status and recent lack of fortune makes them questionable, how is Miami any different?
Maryland at least makes SOME sense… except for the fact that they seem reluctant to leave. Good for them, I guess.
LikeLike
Yeah, as interesting as GTech or Miami may be, the last thing we want to do is create a Boston College situation like the ACC has.
LikeLike
Question: Why is Robert Duvall on the left in the picture accompanying this discussion?
LikeLike
Man, those hair club for men commercials are lies. I thought that all people with minimal hair could only be photographed in B&W with sour expressions.
LikeLike
New artlcle by Lee Barfknecht in the Omaha World-Herald:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100516/SPORTS/705159781
Here are some excerpts:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recently, athletic and administrative officials who asked not to be identified told The World-Herald the following:
• Two sources said they have heard directly or been made aware of Missouri employees discussing in routine tones how Nebraska and MU would move into the Big Ten.
• One source said Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe recently spent time with a group explaining why it would be a bad idea for Nebraska and Missouri to leave.
~~~~~~~~~~~
When rumors first circulated about Texas joining the Big Ten, I talked with a current administrator at a Big 12 school who has strong Big Ten ties.
He chuckled at the thought.
“The Big Ten is a ‘Check your ego at the door’ conference,” he said. In fact, if Nebraska joined, it likely would have to pay to get in or take reduced revenue in the early years as payment for an equity position in the Big Ten Network.
The Big Ten is about the Big Ten, not the individual entities. Recall that when Penn State joined in 1990, the league refused to change its name. Instead, it tweaked its logo to include an optical illusion “11.”
More proof that the league is the No. 1 thing: The Big Ten is the only BCS grouping in which all revenue is shared equally. So no single school or small group of “haves” wields golden hammers.
If Nebraska moved, how soon could it play its first Big Ten contest?
That’s a tricky one. Big 12 bylaws stipulate that any school seeking to leave as a “withdrawing member” would give two years notice and forfeit 50 percent of its league revenue (about $5 million a year for Nebraska) during that period.
If a school wants to leave earlier, making it a “breaching member,” the revenue forfeiture can grow to 100 percent if less than six months notice is given.
It’s really hard to know at this point how soon a bigger Big Ten could emerge. The earliest probably would be the 2012-13 academic year, since time would be needed to divide the league into divisions and rework schedules. But that’s a guess.
If Nebraska and Missouri make it plain they are leaving, the Big 12 might want them out as soon as possible, with lawyers negotiating a buyout.
One more thing: The reason an announcement could come in mid-June is because most schools run on a July through June fiscal year. If change is coming, July 1 would be an appropriate time to rewind the clock on budgeting and future schedules.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At this point I would find it hard to believe that the Big Ten isn’t talking to Missouri and Nebraska. Also, I find the idea of the Big XII buying out Nebraska and Missouri’s contracts interesting as well. That really hasn’t been discussed yet. I wouldn’t put it past Dan Beebe.
LikeLike
From the AP:
Leaving the Big 12 wouldn’t come without a cost. Under conference rules, Missouri could have left without penalty had it given the league two years notice by June 2009.
Now, a “breaching member” wanting to withdraw would owe the Big 12 a payment equal to 80 percent of its two-year conference revenues if notice is given by June 30. The penalty increases to 90 percent before the end of the year or 100 percent is notice isn’t given until 2011.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_680799.html
LikeLike
@PensfaninLAexile – Penny-wise and pound foolish for any Big XII or Big East team to worry about the exit fees if it gets invited to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed. Just some info.
LikeLike
Big East commissioner: “I haven’t slept since Dec. 15”
Fate of Big East rests in Big Ten’s expansion plans:
http://www.projo.com/pc/content/Big_East_Big_Ten_Friars_McNamara_05-16-10_GQI_v2.838c163.html
LikeLike
Here are the two paragraphs that encapsulate the Big East:
“We all appreciate that as football goes, so goes the rest of the league,” Marinatto says. “Paul [Tagliabue] views the world as he did in the NFL, all together and for the greater good of the group. He is a big-picture guy with extensive TV experience.”
PC athletic director Bob Driscoll said he participated in two conference calls this week, one with all 16 A.D.s and the other with the non-football members.”
As it has been from the beginning, football is an afterthought in the Big East.
LikeLike
DeLoss Dodds (Texas AD) had a short Q&A.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/051610dnspoexpansionqa.86142ff.html
Some highlights:
What’s the Texas view of the Big 12?
“I can’t speak for anybody but Texas. Our position is that we love the conference, we like what it’s done for us. We want to continue to be a part of it and want it to continue to be strong. Money is an issue. The TV contracts are an issue. I think the Big Ten is way ahead of us in tradition and years and TV money. I think that’s the reason some people are looking at that [conference] in a favorable way.”
How do you look at the talks of an alliance on TV and scheduling between the Big 12 and Pac-10?
If you remember back to the Southwest Conference, we formed a TV alliance with the Big Eight during the tough TV times. People were bailing, Notre Dame was going off on its own and the SEC was dropping out of the CFA [College Football Association]. The Big Eight and the Southwest Conference formed that alliance, and this is a similar kind of thing. It’s really strength in numbers, which is what you need working with TV.
Despite the talk of TV deals, do you think individual channels for specific schools remain an option?
I always thought that individual institution networks serve institutions better than the conference network. Texas people would rather be able to go to the Texas network and catch all of our sports and all of our events and all of our academic side rather than going to the conference network, where one-twelfth of the inventory will be Texas.
——–
My favorite part has to be the comment about how the alliance with the Pac-10 is like the SWC-Big 8 alliance. He must remember how that turned out: one conference collapsed and the other ended up with new members that they never have quite been happy about. Prophetic?
LikeLike
Interesting that he said favorable things about the Big Ten.
Your observations are also interesting.
We’ll see what happens, but most of the hints we’ve gotten out of Texas from interviews (as opaque as they are and other schools’ talking points are) is that they’re going to give the in-state network a try for the next couple of years.
After that Texas may look for another home if the Texas network doesn’t have the kind of impact that they foresee it possibly having…
That’s my guess anyways on the situation in Texas.
LikeLike
Don’t know that it’s opaque. Dodds and Texas want a Longhorn Network. About as clear as it can be.
They’d also like another conference to hold a spot for them for a few years, just in case there isn’t much more blood they can squeeze out of the Hornfan turnip. If it’s bigger than sliced bread, I’m sure they’ll cancel the reservation at some point that meets their liking. Assuming Texas can ever make enough money to keep themselves happy and not forever casting come hither looks elsewhere.
LikeLike
This is just speculation, but that’s probably why Notre Dame may be the key to getting Texas as one of the recent rumors implied.
If you get Notre Dame to go to 15, then you can offer Texas the take it or leave it to be #16.
If they say no, you can just go for Conn or Syracuse and focus more on NYC.
LikeLike
UT may very much want and prefer a Longhorn Network, but their problem lies in what will be left in the conference surrounding them. A Longhorn networ may be profitable for UT (aTm included??), but for no one else in the conference. IF the B10 takes Mizz and Neb, and the P10 can snake CO (and more?), then the remaining conference is probably not strong/populated enough to command a good conference TV deal which leaves the rest with a smaller payout then what is possible for the, to receive elsewhere. So nothing would stop any schools strong enough to have by another conference from jumping ship (Ok. Ok St, Ks).
That would leave a very SWACish feel to the remaining memenbers + replacments and probably overall detrimental to UT in the national scene.
LikeLike
@Stopping By – The concept of the Longhorn Sports Network can also be used for leverage. Even if it never gets off the ground, the mere threat of it means that a conference that wants Texas may have to provide concessions. (For example, the Big Ten would have to cede a full revenue share to Texas immediately as opposed to having a vesting period.) This is how SEC squeezed so much money out of ESPN – they made some serious proposals to create their own network like the Big Ten, which freaked ESPN out enough that the network overpaid to prevent it from ever happening. It’s in the best interests of Texas to keep talking about the Longhorn Sports Network regardless of whether they believe it will ever really go on the air.
LikeLike
@ Frank. I agree that ultimately thats what they are doing. I was going to make a longer post but decided to cut it short. I believe that it is posturing to gain as many concsessions as possible from the conference they choose to join (if that choice needs to be made).
On the flip side, to M’s point about the B8/SWC alliance, if UT truely does believe that they prefer a B12 and a Longhorn Network but can’t achieve that – then they are ultimately being forced into a decision. Regardless of consessions provided – I would think a forced conference marriage doesn’t help long term.
LikeLike
Continuing with that flip side of UT being forced to make a decision with a conference falling apart around them scenario….it would be best served that the conference that wins the UT sweestakes have a conference network. The UT would be a part owner/have a stake in the conference’s most valuable asset. Would make them less likely to jump again if something they felt better came down the road. So I think the P10 NEEDS to create conference network to have any shot at a new Pacific-Southwest conference that includes UT/aTm.
LikeLike
“Don’t know that it’s opaque. Dodds and Texas want a Longhorn Network. About as clear as it can be.
They’d also like another conference to hold a spot for them for a few years, just in case there isn’t much more blood they can squeeze out of the Hornfan turnip. If it’s bigger than sliced bread, I’m sure they’ll cancel the reservation at some point that meets their liking. Assuming Texas can ever make enough money to keep themselves happy and not forever casting come hither looks elsewhere.”
I agree with you and also commend you for your response’s remarkably wide variety of mixed metaphors.
LikeLike
Oh well. I was never a candidate for Iowa’s writing workshop.
LikeLike
Here’s something interesting.
This is a link to a video of an interview with
Satan himselfAlabama head coach Nick Saban.Saban and Mack Brown spent some time together recently (click here for some pics of the two filming a College Gameday commercial together — it’s worth it, as there’s a mean game of Hungry Hungry Hippo involved), and Saban was asked a general realignment question. He relayed that Brown had said that UT had come concern that a couple of schools might be leaving the Big XII.
The follow-up question was on whether they had spoken at all about Texas winding up in the SEC if everything played out the right way. Saban responded, “Interestingly enough, [Texas] talked about the Pac 10 being interested in them.”
For what it’s worth…
LikeLike
I guess we can take that as confirmation of the Memphis AD’s comments that the Pac-10 had contacted A&M and Texas at the very least. It doesn’t confirm that only A&M was interested but still, that’s more likely to be true with that interview.
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure we could take it as a confirmation, but it’s certainly possible.
It’s also interesting to note which conference wasn’t mentioned.
LikeLike
Nick Saban is a lot of things, but dumb ain’t one of them. If he had any knowledge of UTx talking with the SEC, he wouldn’t tell anyone.
FWIW, if UTx did go to the SEC, they would make about $10 million more per year than they currently make in the Big XII, and still have a sufficient inventory of games to launch a Longhorn Sports Network.
LikeLike
Actually, I meant that the Big Ten wasn’t mentioned, not the SEC.
I agree that any discussion between Saban and Brown re a realistic chance of Texas moving to the SEC would not have been brought up by Saban.
LikeLike
As an outsider looking in, I’ve always felt that if UTx makes a move, it would be to the Pac 10 for a few reasons.
1. Just as easy a path to the BCS as the Big XII. The Pac 10 has one superpower (USC) and the Big XII has only one superpower (OU) other than UTx, although a certain ex-LSU DC has Nebraska going in the right direction.
2a. With Pac 10 TV contracts expiring soon, UTx could have a big say in how the new contracts are structured, since they are bringing in such a large new market.
2b. UTx means more to the Pac 10 than they would mean to either the Big Ten or the SEC. UTx may even be viewed as something of a savior to the Pac 10, as the Pac 10 has fallen so far behind the SEC and the Big Ten. If UTx joined either the SEC or the Big Ten, they’d certainly be a home run, but UTx would never supplant Alabama, Ohio State or Michigan in their respective conferences.
3. The Pac 10 would be an academic upgrade over the Big XII, but I think the academic side of re-alignment is way overblown. Once a school/conference meets a certain academic threshold of the conference/school it is wooing, the final deal will be about money & football.
LikeLike
I’ve never seen someone call us “UTx” before, then I realized that our addition to the SEC would cause undue confusion.
LikeLike
There’s already too many UMs around.
LikeLike
So many times in previous threads, there was confusion when we were discussing Texas (the state) and Texas (the university). Tennessee (the university) is also referred to as UT. So I just decided to start referring to Texas (the university) as UTx. If we ever discuss Tennessee (the university), I will refer to them as UTn.
LikeLike
And the Big Ten already has an NU.
LikeLike
Re Texas and expansion (pure speculation) (Hopkins Horn)
I’m increasingly believing Texas has an understanding with the PAC 10. An effort will be made to create a joint Big 12-PAC 10 channel. If the Big 12 can be successful after the possible loss of Nebraska and or Missouri, then Texas can pursue their Statewide channel. If the Big 12 doesn’t work out, then Texas, Texas A&M and several other schools including Colorado can join the PAC 10.
The Oklahoma President recently said he strongly supported the Big 12 (linked above). On June 1-4 the Big 12 is meeting. Beebe has said he will be asking members who’s in when the plane takes off, referring I believe to the joint channel.
He wouldn’t be adopting this attitude if he didn’t have an understanding with Texas. And I doubt Texas would be interested if they didn’t have a fall back option with the PAC 10.
Although the Big 10 expansion has been the big story, I’m increasingly believing a partnership or possible move by Texas to the PAC 10 is a bigger story. Anotherbigger story is a possible SEC expansion if the Big 10 goes to 14-16. The SEC potentially could become a rediculously competitive conference. Further if the SEC does expand to include one or more ACC teams, that might shake the ACC sufficiently to consider an expansion north depending on how the Big 10 moves on this.
If the Big 10 just takes Missouri, Nebraska and RU as Frank suggests then that could leave SU, Pitt and UConn in play for a potentially interesting move by the ACC.
Alternatively if only one eastern team is taken by the Big 10, the Big East could then add a school like UCF which has a lot of potential in football and perhaps become even more competitive in football.
All of the above could play out over the next few years.
Increasingly I doubt ND or Texas (or Maryland) are going to the Big 10, which means whoever the Big 10 ends up with is unlikely to be considered a “home run” as many posters have defined it. Perhaps this explains recent posts exploring GT as a possible target. Talk about confusion.
LikeLike
Here’s something interesting.
This is a link to a video of an interview with Satan himself Alabama head coach Nick Saban:
http://videos.al.com/birmingham-news/2010/05/nick_saban_speaks_before_playi.html
Saban and Mack Brown spent some time together recently (click here for some pics of the two filming a College Gameday commercial together — it’s worth it, as there’s a mean game of Hungry Hungry Hippo involved), and Saban was asked a general realignment question. He relayed that Brown had said that UT had come concern that a couple of schools might be leaving the Big XII.
The follow-up question was on whether they had spoken at all about Texas winding up in the SEC if everything played out the right way. Saban responded, “Interestingly enough, [Texas] talked about the Pac 10 being interested in them.”
For what it’s worth…
(Double-posted, since my first attempt to post drew a “comment is awaiting moderation” for some reason.)
LikeLike
Interesting link about Stadium capacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity
Top 25 by conference:
Big Ten
#1 Penn State 107,282
#2 Michgan 106,201
#3 Ohio State 102,329
#19 Wisconsin 80,321
#24 Michigan State 75,025
Big XII
#4 Texas 100,119
#13 Texas A&M 82,600
#15 Oklahoma 82,112
#17 Nabraska 81,067
SEC
#5 Tennessee 100,111
#7 Georgia 92,746
#9 LSU 92,400
#10 Alabama 92,138 (currently working on an expansion to go over 100,000. Also adding a 9ft statue of 5ft 6inch Nick Saban)
#11 Florida 88,548
#12 Auburn 87,451
#20 South Carolina 80,250
#21 Arkansas 76,000
Pac 10
#6 USC 93,607
#8 UCLA 92,542
#23 Cal 76,662
ACC
#14 Florida State 82,300
#16 Clemson 82,000
#25 Miami 74,916
Independent
#18 Notre Dame 80,795
LikeLike
You beat me to the punch:)
If you take these three factors into play:
1) Stadium size
2) AAU Status
3) Contiguous or close enough to other Big 10 schools
4) Schools not already in Big 10 states
And for now you take out Texas school because it “appears” that they are not interested for the time being.
It makes it pretty clear that the rumors from last week are true.
NU
MU
Rutgers
ND
have been asked to apply for membership.
My final predictions.
#1) 16th School with ND is Syracuse
#2) 15th and 16th without ND – Syracuse/Maryland
#2a) 15th and 16th without ND – Syracuse/Kansas
#2b) 15th and 16th without ND – Syracuse/Pittsburgh
It will be one of these scenarios.
Fun stuff!
P
LikeLike
“The Big 12 has been a good place for Nebraska”
Very interesting read by Omaha World Herald’s Tom Shatel, puncturing the balloon in the conventional wisdom about the benefits of Nebraska joining the BT and what the BXII has meant to Big Red.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100516/SPORTS/705159793/-1#shatel-big-12-has-been-a-blessing-for-nebraska
“NU Doesn’t Fit in Big Ten”
Column written by Shatel in 1999 after ND spurned the BT, on pros and cons of Nebraska & Missou. The past is present.
http://omaha.com/article/20100515/SPORTS/100519605
LikeLike
@ChicagoRed – Didn’t Shatel basically say that Nebraska ought to be proactive in approaching the Big Ten a week or two ago with the standard “Texas is running the Big XII” complaints?
LikeLike
Yup, and he wrote that right after he wrote an article stating he thought Nebraska had no shot at getting in the Big Ten. He fluctuates so much, it’s hard to know where exactly he stands. Lee Barfknecht (Omaha World-Herald) and Steve Sipple (Lincoln Journal Star) are far more respected.
Barfknecht’s latest article on the expansion raised the possibility that the Big XII might buyout Nebraska and Missouri’s contract ( http://www.omaha.com/article/20100516/SPORTS/705159781 ). It’d be an interesting move, allowing them to insert new teams as quickly as possible.
LikeLike
To me, its a reflection of the mixed feelings of Nebraska fans who are very traditional and yet down to earth practical and realistic, so pulled in two directions, loyalty to Big 8 Big XII and rivalries with KU etc, but love their Huskers and see the logic in joining the BT in the modern college football landscape. These are serious CF fans and Shatel is boiling down the prevailing sentiments.
Not that this necessarily drives what’s happening within the UNL organization, but the Husker fans are a force as well, this stuff is pretty representative of the feelings in the state.
LikeLike
Pretty much every Husker fan is a serious college football fan. We’re not all attached to the old Big 8 schools. Our rivalry with KU isn’t a rivalry. Sure it’s the longest continuous series in college football, but Nebraska’s record is 90-23-3. Not exactly a heated rivalry. The true rivalry was with Oklahoma and that died when the Big 8 was dismantled to form the Big XII. On the whole, as a Husker fan and alum living in Omaha, I’d say the support for the move is in the 70-80% range, and that will increase when Dr. Tom comes out in full support of it when it is announced.
LikeLike
Scott,
Agreed, I think most Husker fans share your view though a significant minority lean towards the old Big 8 and Oklahoma days….Gone With the Wind.
Glad we have Dr.Tom as AD and Bo Pelini bringing us back on the field now that the CF scene is being reset. GBR
LikeLike
Yeah, the (admittedly few in # but they make up for it in passion) Husker fans I’ve talked to personally all seem to conclude that the loss of the NU-OU rivalry is what’s pretty much allowed a lot of them to feel ambivalent about leaving behind the Big 12 (and Big 8 schools).
Even the ones who don’t particularly care for the move would support it because it ensures Nebraska a place at the table of a major conference if things get out of control and Texas ever leaves the Big 12 and takes away most of the population footprint.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t underestimate the loss of the Nebraska/Oklahoma Thanksgiving game as a longstanding source of resentment for Nebraska fans. There is a tendency for some to romanticize how “respectful” that rivalry was, but time must have dulled some recollections. The selective memories might also have something to do with the mutual near-total lack of respect which has characterized the rivalry Nebraska was given with Colorado as a replacement.
All in all, just something to remember when putting together alignments and schedules and protected rivals when this all shakes out. Blowing off one school or another in setting things up may never be forgotten.
LikeLike
I agree that the Big 8 ties are overplayed, especially if you consider the following.
There were 7 schools in the Big 8 that Nebraska played annually.
Colorado, the 2 Kansas schools, Iowa State, the 2 Oklahoma schools and Missouri.
Oklahoma was clearly Nebraska’s top rival. Colorado and Nebraska had a budding rivalry in the early 90s.
In the Big 12, Nebraska only plays Iowa State, Missouri, Colorado and the 2 Kansas schools annually.
If you believe that Colorado is leaving for the PAC 10 and Missouri is leaving for the Big 10, then by remaining in the Big 12, Nebraska would only have annual games with Iowa State, K-State and Kansas — three of its 7 Big 8 members.
I hardly think Nebraska fans are enamored with their annual contests with those three schools.
In the Big 10, they keep Missouri instead of the 2 Kansas schools, and replace Iowa with Iowa State (an upgrade). They can still play some of their old Big 8 foes from time to time.
LikeLike
Frank,
After all that’s been said and done on this excellent blog/comments forum, when I look at all the well thought out and wild scenarios expressed so far, hard to see ANY BT expansion that doesn’t include Nebraska. Football royalty, solid AAU research public school, midwestern culture, geographic fit. [Full disclosure: native Nebraskan living in Chicago last 20 years].
Has anything really changed in your opinion?
LikeLike
@ChicagoRed – I would be very surprised if Nebraska doesn’t end up in the Big Ten. The only way that I could see them being left out if there’s some really myopic analysis that is solely geared toward pure households for the Big Ten Network (which would be a mistake, IMHO). Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers all seem to be involved in almost every scenario.
LikeLike
Nebraska seems pretty safe in any scenario, since they are one of the only teams being talked about that makes complete sense on its own merit.
Missouri, on the other hand, is in a more precarious position if – minus Texas – the Big 10 decides to look elsewhere.
Rutgers is somewhat similar, since the reason for taking them would be augmented by ND. Even without ND, however, having a presence in NYC probably makes them a higher priority than Missouri but less so than Nebraska.
As for the rest of the Big East, I think there is a precipitous drop off. Pitt is the only other school I´d strongly consider.
At the end of the day, if you don´t get UT and ND, you might take Nebraska by itself. The other schools aren´t going anywhere and if none of the other expansion scenarios plays out over time then maybe I´d reconsider MU/KU or RU/and the BigEast.
LikeLike
Very interesting articles. The new one revealed (at least to me) yet another Nebraska-Big Ten connection: the former chancellor there is Graham Spanier, who has a PhD from Northwestern and more relevantly is the current president at Penn State. (From his Wikipedia article, he also did his undergrad at Iowa State, but I don’t think that will do enough for their cause.) I am unsure exactly how these connections might affect expansion, though. How much does it matter that Barry Alvarez played for Nebraska in the 60s?
LikeLike
Yup. Another perhaps not well-known fact is that the record crowd at Penn State’s Beaver Stadium remains the 2002 Nebraska-PSU game (it was awesome, I was there). That’s amazing considering the big tilts that have gone down at Beaver Stadium since then. I believe Spanier would love to see PSU play the Huskers more frequently – and his dream legacy might just be to have PSU and Nebraska as permanent conference rivals.
What I get out of the latest Shatel article is that, yeah, the Big 12 has been good to Nebraska, but the Big Ten would be a lot better. What I read was that there is virtually no adjustment the Big 12 could realistically make that would compel the Huskers to stay if they got a Big Ten invite.
BTW, I think Alvarez would love to have a yearly crack at the Huskers in a Western Big Ten division. I think the connections (Spanier and Alvarez and I’m sure there are others) mean far more than people think.
LikeLike
84Lion & Frank,
Since this blog has pretty much exhausted the expansion scenarios for the time being, might be fun to have everyone make their case for what new rivalries would form with the leading candidates. 84Lion makes a good case for UNL-PSU.
I think UNL-Michigan would be another given that the Wolverine fans had to split their only modern era national title with the Huskers, the ’05 Alamo Bowl upset and crazy ending, & the two teams status as all time winning programs.
LikeLike
I suspect Nebraska at Michagan will be similar to the last time Nebraska went to Penn St (after PSU didn’t get a share of the ’94 title). That fanbase will be out for blood.
LikeLike
“Big Ten has many appealing factors in its favor”
Commentary by Nebraska’s Steve Sipple, he is widely considered the best indepedent commentator on Nebraska football.
http://huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/16/football/doc4bef3221dec22440744631.txt
LikeLike
I am in awe of the reach of the Notre Dame world view. As I mentioned, my daughter is matriculating there this fall. Tonight at dinner she mentioned that someone at school asked her about ND joining the Big Ten. She then went on and on about the importance of independence and the uniqueness of Notre Dame. We live in Houston. I have no idea where she got these talking points. At some level, I’m scared.
LikeLike
@Loki:
Perhaps she’s reading Frank’s blog also? Maybe FLP and Rich2 got in her ear. 😉
LikeLike
Congrats to the ND Admissions Department. Sounds to me like they got us a good one there. Please, Loki, welcome your daughter on my behalf to the Notre Dame Family. 🙂 I’m so proud, especially since she’s only been pre-frosh for a matter of days.
Just remember, everybody, Rich2 and I’s opinions are much closer to the average Domer opinion than Irish Texan’s.
LikeLike
@FLP: I respect your opinions and well positioned argument. While I don’t agree with it, it certainly causes me to consider it. I do have a few questions:
1) It seems that if you and Rich2 represent the majority of the average Domers opinion, then I think you may have a big problem on your hands. If Jack Swarbrick would just come out and clearly and definitively say ND will not be joining the Big Ten this would be a non-issue at this point. He hasn’t. He has left the door open. Rumors swirl around leaks on an ND in play. Why hasn’t he done so? That would be real concerning to me if I was you.
2) What are you, Rich2, and the majority of Domers who feel like you do doing about this? In other words, aside from making your points know here, other non-ND blogs, and NDnation, what is being done with the communication to Swarbrick and the ND administration? Emails, letters, phone calls, rallies, What? Is there any organized campaign?
3) What happens if ND joins the Big Ten? How much of a backlash will there be and how will donations really be effected? Would the faithful really boycott donations and giving and substantially hurt the financial well-being of ND? Is this in the best interest of ND and their future? Hurting financially the University you love so dearly?
4) How long would the festering anger persist if ND joins the BT? Would becoming a contributing member ever work? Would ND forever be a house divided?
I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks
LikeLike
Notre Dame joining the BT is like Texas joining the BT: everything makes sense on paper , but just not a fit in the real world and will never happen. Too many non-rational and cultural factors working against it.
LikeLike
1) Quite. That’s why I’m here: to find out if ND might join, and why. Or hopefully how ND may just luck out and maintain independence.
As to why Swarbrick’s left the door open, that’s really the question. I don’t know that anyone outside of Swarbrick, Fr. Jenkins, and the mysterious Board of Fellows knows.
But that hasn’t stopped the rest of us from speculating. My current guess is that factions inside ND, including but not limited to the Grad Student Union, the hard science departments, Admin still loyal to Monk Malloy’s vision, and potentially folks inside the AD’s office like the idea of CIC/B10 membership. Old guard folks like undergrad alums, very old and very young CSC priests, and current undergrads want out.
What I think will be dispositive is if the BE non-football schools with A-10 additions can keep a multi-bid basketball and olympic conference going. And they can make similar money with 3 A10 schools splitting the pot at least for the next decade or so.
2) ND is no democracy. What the majority of folks want is of little concern. ND will tell the vast majority of us to like it or lump it. The real questions is what do the guys cutting the “name buildings after me” level checks want? And I’m nowhere near high enough up the food chain for that. I’m sure ND is well aware of what the whales want. Rumor has it on NDN that there are messages to the big shots that conference membership may be inevitable and that the Big Ten can get us into the AAU (and that the AAU is a good thing). But again, this is unsubstantiated rumor.
That said, NDN has started a letter and phone campaign. I’ve no idea how that’s going, but I doubt it’ll matter much. ND looks out for their bottom line, not what people who are merely donating enough to get in the ticket lotto think.
3) It depends how well the Admin justify the decision to join. If it is explained that the terms were acceptable, the Big East was toast regardless, the CIC is as good as we were told and will mean AAU membership that will not be a problem for us like it was for CUA, that the Conference will continue to stay the heck out of what we do internally, we’ll still be on National TV every week, and that the schedule won’t do anything crazy like weeknight games and annual FCS opponents, it might yet blow over.
Might. Eventually.
Donations will definitely be reduced. Alumni percentage donations will plummet. How much and how bad remains to be seen.
Would they actually do it? You bet. It’s the only real way to be heard at ND, and the only shot to change minds. ND holds a more hallowed place in our hearts than a typical alma mater. Mostly because to every Domer there are two NDs. The ND of fact in time, and the ND that should be if we just did things the ‘right’ way, i.e. the “shining city on the hill”. People love the first ND, but there’s no question they’ll withhold funds to force the admins to keep it on the path to the second.
ND’s warchest is huge. It’ll likely weather the storm, but be worse for the wear.
4) Again, depends on the circumstances for entry. It might blow over in a decade or maybe a generation. It might be over as soon as our next National Title (first as a Big Ten member). Then again, it might never.
What would actually be worse is if ND actually does lose what makes people, especially the Subway alumni, believe that ND’s special in the first place. Pairing that with Alumni who just walk away, that’s gonna be worse for all involved. Because then there won’t be love, hate, or even interest; merely apathy. Especially if the “worst case scenario” happens and ND becomes another Northwestern, Stanford, or Vandy, i.e., another secularized private research-focus school that has deemphasized varsity sports generally and football particularly. If .500 becomes the new normal, Alamo Bowls become standard, and BCS happens once a generation, neither Big Ten nor what few Irish fans remain will be happy.
What do you mean, “contributing member”?
LikeLike
Thanks FLP. By contributing member I meant adding value, a valuable member, enhancing the sum of the parts. Not financial contributing member per say. As opposed to a house divided at odds constantly with the Big Ten and it’s individual members over all things big and small. Creating tension and conflict. That kind of stuff. Contributing as opposed to detracting. This has nothing to do with the financial implications and the benefits ND brings to the BTN and the TV contracts. We know that is where they would contribute greatly.
LikeLike
Lemme see if I got your question, Rick:
You are asking when ND, a private school approx. half the size of the other private school (Northwestern) which itself is approximately half the size of an average B10 school, will stop publicly and privately pushing for what will help it and start helping push what will help the large land-grant taxpayer assisted school that are markedly dissimilar to ND?
If thats the question, I’m guessing never. Sorry.
Is this what was meant by “bad institutional fit”?
LikeLike
I never said “bad institutional fit”. One of my questions was will ND ever be able to look at, work for, and buy into the “common interests” that benefit all BT members, including ND, or focus solely on the divisive issues? Will the internal “house divided” at ND poison any fruitful relationship that could be mutually beneficial to ND and the BT? Will the “us against them” mentality forever foster ill will, distrust, and resentment that inhibit any blossoming of healthy institutional growth for all parties? I am just interested in your “inside ND” opinion. I am not arguing with you.
LikeLike
Not to interject, but I don’t think the Big Ten would want Notre Dame if we thought it was going to become like Northwestern.
The Big Ten believes that Notre Dame can keep its identity but in a way that’s mutually beneficial to the Big Ten and Notre Dame financially and in terms of research.
It’s a different question from Penn State because Notre Dame’s identity is far different as compared to Ohio State or Michigan as compared to Penn State.
That being said, the best model is probably what Miami or Boston College look like. Neither has the identity of a Notre Dame, but they both emphasize athletics and particularly college football as compared to Northwestern/Vandy.
The irony of it all is that Notre Dame is likely to make the best decision in the interests of both Notre Dame and the Big Ten. If Notre Dame doesn’t believe it can maintain its identity, then it won’t be as beneficial as the Big Ten thinks, so it’s for the best that the two go their separate ways. Notre Dame’s in the better spot to make the determination because they know what makes their identity work as a national brand and how best to maintain it…
LikeLike
Actually, Notre Dame and Northwestern have almost identical undergraduate student populations. Northwestern is about 50% bigger in terms of overall student population because of a larger graduate student population.
Schools like Vanderbilt, Stanford and Duke all have even smaller undergaduate populations than Notre Dame, but again are bigger in graduate students. Baylor has a larger undergraduate student population, but with a smaller graduate population, it is about the same size as Notre Dame overall.
These schools don’t share Notre Dame’s cultural identity (however one wishes to define it), but each belongs to a different major conference without an apparent loss of identity. (Baylor also being a religious university.)
This doesn’t mean Notre Dame’s identity wouldn’t be compromised by associating with “the others”, but it apparently can be done.
LikeLike
I was the one saying bad institutional fit. I still don’t get why ND is such a high priority target for the B10. I suppose I should be flattered for my Alma Mater, but I’m really more paranoid. C’est la vie.
Rick, I’d love to answer your question, because it seems like an excellent one, but I don’t think I know what you’re asking. I don’t know what kinda stuff the Big Ten discusses. ND’s admin will look out for ND’s public perception first and foremost.
Now, Rick, are you asking about if the ND admin will try to take the Big Ten down from the inside? Unlikely. Are you asking me if the debate between the factions at ND will die down if ND joins the Big Ten? Again, unlikely. Remember, the Big Ten debate is just another battle of ideas in the shaping of what ND “should” be. What ND should be involves questions of religious orthodoxy, questions of what the ends of “education” should be, and the place of Catholicism in America among many other things. All things worth fighting for fiercely, IMHO. With more examples I think I can answer better, even if it’s little more than educated speculation.
Zeek, I don’t think there’s anything ironic about that. I don’t think any Domer in their heart of hearts wishes ill of the B10 despite some of the bluster. I just think they view it as I do that it would be better to be a good neighbor than a part of a group that ND doesn’t really fit in with. I also worry that perhaps we will lose what makes ND ND by joining a conference for football. Yes, Djinn, I know you think that’s nuts. But you don’t get ND, and that’s OK.
Well, Djinn, IIRC, Baylor didn’t have its first dance until it joined the BXII. 😀 I’ve been often told that the academic establishment does not believe that a religion and research are compatible. I believe that’s why CUA left the AAU, but again, total speculation on my part. Let’s also remember that even now ND’s graduate enrollment is still only about a quarter of the total University enrollment. Any influx of CIC based grad students will be perceived as a huge one. I don’t know exactly how enthralled they’ll be about ND’s overt Catholicism. IrishTexan can correct me, but I’m pretty sure there’s still a crucifix in every classroom like when I was there. I’m told BC had protests to take them down. It’s just a rumor, AFAIK, but still disturbing.
Just consider me one of those Domers who would prefer to not put the question of maintaining a Catholic identity in the face of a assertively secular CIC to the test.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox said: If ND gave up its independence for football and academics and kowtowed to the pursuit of praise by the secular academy, would we alums still know our Alma Mater?
—
I think that’s where we differ. Suppose Notre Dame joins the Big Ten:
You view it as an act done for praise from secular schools. I view it as Notre Dame working to improve its academics and securing its position at the highest level of college football.
If Notre Dame were to give up its independence, you believe ND will have sacrificed its identity. I don’t believe this is necessarily the case. Notre Dame is what it is today because of football– I don’t dispute that. However, Notre Dame is more than just football now, and choosing to join a conference (not drop football, but join a conference) does not minimize or eliminate the effects or presence of the University off the football field. In my opinion, as an ND alum, ND stands for more than just football.
If you believe ND will suffer as a University if we are unable to use those 2-4 road game slots outside the Big Ten, and if you would entertain the idea of joining a conference (for the sake of the hypothetical), which conference would you join?
LikeLike
We’re you there when Monk was there? That may be part of it. I never went along with his vision of the University, i.e., a midwestern Princeton/Stanford lacking a committment to sports and more importantly willing to sacrifice the Catholic character for secular academic praise. For a better written version of what I think, check with Prof. Rice.
I’m not sure that we would be giving up our identity, but the fact I gotta ask makes me nervous.
It’s impossible for me to answer your hypothetical since I know I lack key facts.
1. Why was the invite turned down ten years ago. If it was purely a financial i.e. TV money move, the Big Ten looks a helluva lot better.
2. What are the options for a BCSNCG for an Independent ND? If they’re still on the table, there’s no big upside to join. If there’s still room for BCS games, there’s minimal upside to joining a conference.
3. Who are in these new conferences? What are the costs of joining them?
I would prefer a conference with high academics. I would greatly prefer a conference with higher academic standards for athletes. It would be nice to keep a TV deal to keep all the home games on national tv, although I doubt that’s a possibility. A conference that had a maximum OOC games would also be nice. As would a conference with good non-BCS bowl schedule for those hopefully soon to be occasional off-years. I think it would be nice if there was a voting block on private sectarian schools already in place upon arrival. I would also think ND needs a conference that is committed to staying out of ND internal non-sports affairs.
Anyway, that’s my preferences, and I hope they are consistent with yours and the administrations.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting dichotomy, this scheduling discussion. Notre Dame clearly very much values a national schedule and wants an ever-changing variety of opponents across the country. Were ND to join a conference, the ideal would be for as many OOC games as possible.
But when expansion of the Big Ten is discussed among Big Ten alums, the feeling seems the exact opposite. If the conference gets too big, posters say, your team would lose its rivalries. They lament that you might only play some teams every few years. The ideal situation, if it were practical, seems to be to play everyone every year and for more in-conference games.
Speaking for myself, I couldn’t care less about the geography of may alma mater’s opponents. (Though I do like the end-of-season Hawaii game that is frequently scheduled as a get-away trip if the team doesn’t make it to a bowl.) And I don’t particularly care about seeing Michigan or Ohio State every year either. What I’d prefer is quality opponents, regardless of geography. That’s why I don’t want to see a bunch of no-name schools (in terms of football) join. If we had a schedule with, say, four top-quality opponents each year, I’d be happy.
LikeLike
I think the two views are flipped sides of the same coin. The view they share is that the rivalries are much more valuable than the typical game. Secondly, that as long as they have similar tiers, who you play in regular games are kinda interchangable.
That’s why ND fans look for a max of OOC games. He have many teams that consider us rivals (I’m looking at you, BC), but we consider few teams rivals. I don’t think we’ll ever see Michigan, Navy, Purdue, USC, and MSU in the same conference. We’ve played historical games against a huge number of teams that it would be nice to revisit occassionally, but not hugely pressing. That’s why we really like keeping the sched flexible.
Conversely, over the past half-century, the Big Ten has became a conference of rivalries. I never considered UM-Minn. a big rivalry, but it’s one of the oldest trophy games. That’s why Big Ten fans are so protective of the conference schedule, they want to play ALL their conference rivals. Most schools in the B10 seem to only have conference rivals, including your Badgers, Scott.
LikeLike
Great insight from the CUSA commissioner:
“We might see minimal change,” Banowsky said. “On the other hand, it’s possible we see more dramatic change.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/051610dnsposmutcu.96d92b4.html
LikeLike
Important news from the ACC – the conference just signed a new deal with ESPN with a fairly good bump in rights fees:
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/05/17/daily2.html
This re-affirms my gut feeling from the beginning: the ACC is WAY safer than what people are giving it credit for. Generally speaking, its members actually like that conference, so if the money is at least reasonable, it will be hard to get any of them to move. The in-fighting within the Big XII and Big East go beyond money (although the poor TV contracts exacerbate the issues).
LikeLike
The subsections of that contract dealing with claim jumpers would be interesting if translated into English.
LikeLike
Good. That leaves Fox with more money to bid on a P16/Western Alliance.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – Or the Fox could be a huge player for the Big Ten in a couple of years when it re-negotiates its national contract. With these ACC numbers, if there were any Big Ten university presidents on the fence regarding at least a Nebraksa/Missouri/Rutgers expansion, I don’t think there will be now. The ACC effectively doubled its rights fees without adding a conference championship game or any new members. Think of what an expanded Big Ten with a conference championship game and another school at least on the level of Nebraska would garner. Texas or Notre Dame would put those numbers into the stratosphere.
LikeLike
On the flip side, could this development Dodds’ standard line of “we’ll get ours” in the next round on contracts for the Big XII be more realistic than I would have thought before, and that, with just a little patience, Big XII members looking for greener grass elsewhere might see the gap between the Big XII and the Big 10/SEC narrow significantly?
LikeLike
Maybe. Depends on if anyone is left who needs to do anything more than turn out the lights down there in Dallas.
Missouri and Nebraska could still be cut out of Big Ten expansion and end up in a very bad position. For long term security, they would be insane to turn down a Big Ten invite in favor of what Beebe & Co. might be able to negotiate. It’s a lot of assumption and reading between the lines, but to me, those two boats have sailed.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
That was my reaction. I’m sure Beebe is forwarding this news to all the schools with, “See? This could be us if we just stick it out.”
I kind of think this would kill the Texas or ND speculation, but maybe not. ND to the BigTen just feels like such a shotgun marriage, I have a hard time getting behind it.
LikeLike
@Hopkins
The problem for the Big 12 is that the ABC deal goes through 2015-2016. Convincing a Nebraska or a Missouri to stick around 5 years and see what might happen is going to be a hard sell.
LikeLike
I doubt it. If the revenue gap was narrowed (it won’t completely go away), then maybe Nebraska could be persuaded to stay.
However, that seems unlikely if Missouri and Colorado bolt. The Big 12 without Mizzou and Colorado will lose St. Louis and Denver and be in a weaker position to command an ACC level contract.
Missouri’s determination to leave the Big 12 really has the conference in a precarious position.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that there is a huge difference in population between ACC states and Big XII states (55 million to 41.5 million), and that the ACC encompasses much faster growing portions of the country.
LikeLike
The ACC deal is pretty impressive, and seems to go against the conventional wisdom on this board that the current economy is going to greatly suppress any new network deal.
LikeLike
Is this the first time that Fox has made a play for college game of the week package which would broadcast on the over-the-air network in addition to FSN?
(I assume any Fox over-the-air package would require prime time broadcasts in September due to baseball, with the World Series bumping football back to the afternoon for three or so weekends in October.)
LikeLike
Maybe Fox wants the Big 10 to go east more than the Big 10 does?
LikeLike
Think about it… if you are FOX, do you want the Big 10 going into Missouri and Nebraska… or do you want Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn? Nebraska may be the best football school in the mix, but population-wise there are probably as many Syracuse, Rutgers, and UConn fans that would watch a game featuring on of the other three just to hope that they lose.
The best way to do that is boost ACC revenue (on ESPN’s dime) and give the Big 12 a reason to stick around.
LikeLike
@ezdozen – If you are Fox the national TV network, you want Nebraska 99 times out of 100 over the Big East schools. ABC/ESPN would agree. The only exception is during those years where one of those BE schools could possibly be in the national title race. Now, if you are Fox the BTN partner, you want whatever combination of schools can get you basic carriage in the NYC area. There are different interests between the national TV contracts and the BTN carriage, so I really think that the Big Ten is going to try to balance the two. Going for pure households without regard to the national cache of the product is detrimental to the ABC/ESPN side of the ledger (and the Big Ten brand in general), which still pays more than the BTN at this time (and is what could result in a big bump in the next couple years if there’s a bidding war between ESPN and Fox for the marquee games). The NFL model is what the Big Ten should (and I think is) striving for, with a mix of third party contracts for top tier games and its own network for second tier games.
LikeLike
Fox and Paterno; unlikely allies?
LikeLike
There has been a general assumption the ACC does not have the economic clout to go after Big East schools like UConn, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse in the eastern markets if the Big Ten passes on them during this round of expansion. The ACC’s new network deal throws that into question. The Big Ten needs to look at these eastern schools as an immediate opportunity that may not come around again. It’s not like the ACC has shown any reluctance to raid the Big East for schools in the past.
Know it’s hard to take the ACC seriously as a football conference now, but these things go in cycles. My Minnesota Gophers were considered a national football powerhouse when I was growing up in the ’60s. It is not in the Big Ten’s interest to let the ACC tie up New York City, especially when the ACC already a foothold in the Balt/Wash and Boston markets. It was mostly dumb luck the ACC didn’t get Syracuse in their last Big East raid.
LikeLike
I think this might represent a fundamental change in the dynamics of this whole situation. If you’re the BXII or the P10 and you see the money that ACC just pulled down WITHOUT any changes in the conference, you’ve got to like your chances next time ’round on the negotiation wheel, no?
Does “OMG SUPERCONFERENCE ARMAGEDDON” seem more likely now or less? I would argue less. If ACC school payouts are now only 4MM/yr less than the SEC, is it really worth it for a school to jump ship? I’d guess probably not.
And now that the BXII sees a likely bigger payday in their near future, is the sky still falling?
Based on this, I think it’s more likely that we see 1 team (probably Neb) join than 5 – 13, depending on who’s doing the predicting.
LikeLike
I think it makes the armageddon scenario slightly less likely, but all it would take is one or two well-placed dominoes to fall. I think that the news out of the ACC means that the Big XII, as currently constituted, would have a good chance to narrow the revenue gap. But if NU and Mizzou are still all about the money and leave, closing the gap, even in a best-case scenario, still becomes much harder.
LikeLike
Texas can still take off for any one of three conferences and blow the Big 12 up on their own. Nebraska and Missouri have nowhere near such an embarrassment of riches. It’s the Big Ten or Mountain Bagfulofcrap East Conference. Of course they’re going.
Watch you don’t get hit by a lightning bolt talking about teams other than Texas being all about the money.
LikeLike
It will reduce the temperature a bit.
Still, the deal reinforces the idea that college football=money, and doesn’t change the fact that bringing more big names and markets in one conference will make even more money.
I don’t think it changes the facts for the Big 12 or Big East. In the Big East, everyone would be happy to leave to any other BCS conference. In the Big 12, the southern schools in the South might be content with the status quo, but several northern teams would all bolt to the Big 10 or Pac 10. Without Colorado and Missouri, the population imbalance between Texas and the rest of the conference will become acute and worsen over time.
LikeLike
Now can they realign that conference to geographically sensible divisions?
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge, Bama Man and any other SEC folks on this blog. Just for conservation to keep this blog moving………….
Suppose Texas goes Big Ten, which is what most posters think. In your opinion, which universities would be the first, second, and third choices if the SEC expanded to 14 teams? Same scenario but SEC expands to 16 teams.
Now, if there are any Pac Ten people viewing, same questions for your opinions. Both case, Hopkins Horn becomes deliriously happy and Texas accepts the Big Ten all by its lonesome.
LikeLike
I’m easy to please.
LikeLike
Oklahoma & Florida St to the West, VT & WVU to the East.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech isn’t going anywhere. They sold their soul to the (blue) devils when they struck their deal to join the ACC.
LikeLike
Maybe, but maybe not. The political players have changed. Last time was due to a divided ACC unable to conduct themselves properly. SEC would not have those problems. If it happens, it’ll happen quick enough to keep the politicians out of it.
LikeLike
@ Wes. I am a P10 fan with no inside connections through friends of cousins whose uncles have in-laws that know an AD. So my guess is either 100% accurrate or 100% wrong, LOL.
I am of the opinion that the P10 has every intention of launching a network so it needs large or growing western markets in Mtn and Central timezones for optimal success. UT is obviously priority #1 but if it absolutely can not be achieved and expansion still moves forward then the would need aTm, Colorado, KS, Utah, and then I get lost. aTm and conference would need another TX partner/rival and the only one worthwhile is TT. After that – ??. Only expansion to 16 that makes any sort of sense is w/ UT. 14 maybe with aTm/TT/Colrado/Utah but thats not too sexy (but maybe functional).
I think that ultimately Stanford gives its blessing to expansion candidates if a P10 network is formed….not saying they would give a thumbs up to just anyone but if they are academically close or a concession school (TT) – then I think the conference will be ok with the unanimous vote.
LikeLike
Wes – Last night I posted reasons why I think Texas is going to the Pac 10, if they leave the Big XII at all.
Assuming the SEC expands, I think the SEC would need at least two of the following teams: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida State, or Miami. The SEC could fill out the conference with any of the following teams: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, or Oklahoma State.
Under your scenario in which Texas is off the table, I think the SEC would go after #1FSU, #2Texas A&M, #3Oklahoma, and #4Miami. If any one of those teams don’t make the trip, then Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would probably be next. Clemson & Georgia Tech would be last.
The wild-cards would be Virginia Tech and West Virginia. I think VA Tech is tied to UVA, so I doubt VA Tech is a realistic possibility. If VA Tech can’t come, I doubt the SEC would take West Virginia by themselves.
SEC expansion rule – if your school is named after a city not called Miami, don’t even apply. That means you, Memphis, Louisville, Houston, Cincy & Tulsa.
LikeLike
“So you’re saying there’s a chance.”
– Miami of Ohio fans
LikeLike
Absolutely! Great academics. It gives the SEC a foot-hold in Big Ten country. Miami of Ohio is the “cradle of coaches”. I think Bo Schembechler was an alum. Getting them would really “stick it” to the Big Ten.
Obviously, I’m kidding.
Technically, Miami of Ohio, located in Oxford, Ohio, is named after an Indian tribe and not a city.
LikeLike
Alan, slightly off topic, but do you know if the leper colony outside Baton Rouge (in Carville) is still open?
LikeLike
Djinn – That’s a little more than slightly off topic. The facility closed about 10 years ago. The treatment center was moved to Baton Rouge.
http://www.hrsa.gov/hansens/default.htm
BTW – Carville, LA is named after political consultant & TV talking head James Carville’s family. One of his ancestors was the postmaster in the area, so they named unincorporated area he served “Carville.”
LikeLike
I visited that facility several years ago. They were just talking about closing it at the time. Unique place.
Didn’t know that about James Carville’s family, but between James Carville and the lepers running around, I think there’s a joke to be made in there somewhere.
LikeLike
Alan, Thanks very interesting, very logical. I guess I was just wondering about West Virginia and or Pitt as much as anything. Seems like they may be left out of the Big East (DOD) and the SEC. Oh well, the Domers will need another independent or three for scheduling.
After hearing from Saban, I tend to think you are right about Texas. And I think that is very, very logical. Hard to beat starting a new Western Alliance Network from the ground floor. Better profits and better chance to be there for all the initial, crucial decisions at start-up.
RickyBobby, different scenario entirely. Are you an Ol Miss fan? Is not FSU actually east of Auburn geographically speaking?
LikeLike
The ACC contract may put the SEC close to the SEC’s worst nightmare. Say the B16 does snare ND (though the ACC contract may make that less likely) and takes NE, MO, Rut, and Pitt. UT, aTm, OU, KS, CO, and Utah join a P16. Now what for the SEC?
With the ACC stable and somewhat close to SEC payout, why would FSU, Miami, and/or GT leave the higher academic reputation and easier path to football success and the BCS? The financial side effects of mediocrity on the SEC could mitigate the higher payout. There also likely isn’t enough for VT to risk the in-state political battles to move.
A P16 with the right cable channel startup/configuration could be close to SEC money, so that’s probably closed off. Perhaps Texas politics forces the inclusion of TTech, which might make OU or KS available. Though Utah could be the bubble team bumped, which is too far away to benefit ya’ll.
So then the SEC is down to a pool of at most CT, Syr, Pitt, WV, Cin, Lou, S. FL, UCF, Memphis, ECU, OK St, K. St, IA St, Baylor, TCU, SMU, and UH. Slim Pickens wants to know which 4 get you to 16, or if you stay happy at 12. Ha, Syr fans chanting “SEC?!”
Probably most of those form the revamped B12, some to the MWC, and the BEast is basketball only.
LikeLike
Should read: “The financial side effects of becoming mediocre teams in the SEC could mitigate the higher payout. Notable risk.”
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – Also, we need to give the ACC a lot of credit. While it hasn’t always been smooth-sailing in its most recent expansion, there is no doubt that the ACC has squeezed every possible penny that it could get out of its TV contracts. That is a well-run conference on that front. The Big XII and Pac-10 have been pretty much the opposite.
LikeLike
The ACC seems to have done the exact opposite of the Big East’s running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off strategy.
Then again, to be entirely fair, the ACC has a much stronger population footprint and even the weaker football teams make up for it in terms of their basketball programs which justify the size of this contract.
LikeLike
That’s not a worst nightmare scenario. Under your scenario, the SEC just doesn’t expand. The SEC will only expand if CBS & ESPN pay for it and the networks aren’t paying for Cincy & South Florida.
LikeLike
PlayOffs, it is not a logical scenario to discuss educational standard for the SEC in the second paragraph and insert OU into the Pac Ten in the first paragraph. Oil and water, don’t you know. I expect that if your first paragraph teams happened, excluding OU, then the SEC would probably look and OU and their instate rival early if the SEC wished to expand.
LikeLike
What if one of UT’s demand is to bring a local quad that includes aTm, TT, and OU? TT because of state political pressure, OU to keep the annual rivalry in conference, maximize OOC flexibility, and keep them out of the cheating and lax standards of the SEC that could give the Sooners a recruiting advantage? UT’s value goes down if they are losing 4 in a row to OU. And at least OU is the dominant state school in Oklahoma. If UT is ready to bolt for the B16, the P10 would be foolish to not compromise on some of the issues. If UT goes to the B16, the P16 probably will be forever stuck as a 2nd tier conference, unless they compromise on their education standards for even more schools. Maybe they get lucky if UT and ND squeeze out NE or MO. Otherwise the best a snooty P10 can expand to is 14 with aTm, Utah, CO, and KS. Add NE or MO and you could pair them with ISU for 16. But if UT and ND go to the B16, does aTm want to follow or head to the SEC instead of saving a P10 in real risk of always being a distant 3rd in conference hierarchy (or worse if the ACC goes to 16.)
I have confidence that the P10 isn’t likely to shoot itself in the foot.
LikeLike
Bo Pelini in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
“Obviously, the Big Ten has a lot of things going for it,” Nebraska football coach, and Ohio State grad, Bo Pelini said. “The Big Ten Network is huge. There are tremendous institutions. They compete not only athletically but also academically. I think it’s the right time. They’ve looked at expansion, and it seems like that’s the way it’s going to go. Because of all the things the Big Ten brings to the table, they can attract some quality schools to join the conference.”
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2010/05/to_be_big_or_not_to_be_big_ten.html
LikeLike
I saw this quote yesterday from Pelini, and find it very telling.
Why? There was no equivocation in the statement. You would have expected him to mention at the end something along the lines of “But we’re excited to be in the Big 12, and that is where our focus remains.” To completely omit the Big 12 from that statement lends credence to the theory that NU to the Big 10 is a done deal.
LikeLike
That fits in with the report out of Omaha the other day that people in the Athletic Department at Mizzou were overheard talking about Missou and Nebraska going to the Big Ten like it was a done deal. More and more of the comments coming out of Columbia and Lincoln sound like in their minds, they’re already out of the Big XII.
This is the huge difference between the ACC and the Big East and Big XII that Frank pointed out months ago. The ACC is a cohesive unit that gets along with each other and has no desire to leave. The BE and BXII are shotgun marriages with unhappy members who’d be looking to leave even if the money difference wasn’t as great as it is.
It’s going to be awkward at BXII meetings if the Big Ten decides not to take Nebraska and Missouri, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
I think the ACC contract puts even more pressure on the Big 12 and Big East, not less.
Now Maryland looks to be almost completely off the table for the Big Ten and FSU/Miami/GTech/Clemson may be much harder to get for the SEC if the SEC wants to go to 14 or 16.
And regardless of what Beebe/Dodds may say, Nebraska and Missouri know that Texas controls the future of the Big 12 because it has most of the population footprint (and that’s growing bigger by the day), so they would be even more likely to jump at the “guaranteed future” of the Big Ten because if they get left out of the Big Ten, it’s over for them if Texas ever leaves the Big 12.
Therefore if the Big Ten does strike as we all assume it will, the ACC also has a chance now to grab more schools from the Big East, and the SEC will almost certainly take a very hard look at Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas/Kansas State/A&M/TTech/Texas.
I am now more likely to believe that if Nebraska and Missouri leave, Oklahoma will give the SEC a call immediately to see if they can get an offer.
This may also put pressure on Notre Dame to make sure it gets a seat at the table of a conference in the event that dominoes do start to fall, although as always $ aren’t the only thing that matters to Notre Dame or any of the other schools.
As for Texas, I guess it’s a wash. Texas can now reasonably believe that it can pull off big $ in even a shrunken Big 12 with the $ the networks are throwing around on the ACC, but they have to believe that the Big Ten and SEC will be entirely focused on Big 12 and Big East teams. That’s not a good thought for Texas or Beebe at all.
Texas and A&M might recreate the SWC with their own Texas network for the two of them, but now everyone’s going to want a piece of the Big 12 if expansion gets going, since that’s where the easiest pickings are going to be…
LikeLike
Concur. There is more to UNL or MU leaving the Big 12 than some millions one way or the other in a TV contract.
LikeLike
If NU/MU/CU leave and Big 12 conference survival becomes a legitimate concern, I wonder if Texas/A&M/OU could go back to the rest of the conference members and threaten to leave unless they get a substantial increase in their revenue share. Certainly that would ruffle a lot of feathers and would not be a great way to build a happy working relationship. But schools like Texas Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. are just hoping that the conference will survive. They don’t have a lot of options.
If Texas really wants to give the LSN a shot, then it will need to find a way to keep A&M and Oklahoma around.
LikeLike
The thing is, Oklahoma’s odds of moving probably went up significantly after the ACC contract. In my mind, Oklahoma is almost as nearly guaranteed of going to the SEC should dominoes start to fall as Nebraska is of going to the Big Ten.
The SEC is going to have a far harder time grabbing any ACC schools, since ACC schools (like the Big Ten schools) tend to view themselves as a grouping of academically superior institutions to the SEC schools. Maybe FSU/Clemson are gettable, but I really have to doubt it since we’re talking about similar money now…
Texas only seems interested in a LSN or a Texas network with A&M that they would control but could keep A&M happy as well. Maybe they could offer it to Oklahoma, but I don’t really see what Oklahoma would bring to it in terms of households/cable since it’s not going to really go national like the synergy between Nebraska and the Big Ten Network.
Either way, the ACC contract could be the biggest game changer yet if Oklahoma decides to give a call to the SEC at any point in this process since it’s upped the likelihood significantly of some sort of deal coming through…
LikeLike
I wasn’t suggesting that Texas would allow Oklahoma (or even A&M) in on the LSN. I’m guessing Texas doesn’t want to share their baby with anyone. But for the LSN to work, Texas needs some remnant of the Big 12 to stay intact. While we all focus on Texas as the king of the Big 12, whether they stay or go will really depend on the actions of A&M and Oklahoma. If those two schools bolt for the SEC, then the LSN won’t be enough to keep Texas around.
Highly unequal revenue sharing might be a way to keep A&M and Oklahoma sufficiently happy in the Big 9. Certainly it would be easier to win that conference than the SEC. Texas could then supplement their own large Big 9 revenue share with LSN profits.
LikeLike
Yeah I was just bouncing that idea out there. There was a rumor that Texas might need more inventory, so it would look hard at sharing with A&M and possibly high schools but retain control over the channel.
In any case, the unequal revenue splitting is interesting, we’ll see how far the other teams are willing to bend (a lot I’d imagine), but it would still only create a bad situation.
I can’t really see Texas as going back and renegotiating a harder deal just to keep Oklahoma and A&M around. I think they’d bolt if it got to that point…
LikeLike
How much bending for Texas would one expect A&M and OU to do? It’s not like they’re valueless properties. They’re already in a low-paying conference, and they probably both can increase their income substantially with a phone call to the SEC. Texas doesn’t have unlimited leverage with them.
LikeLike
I agree completely, which is why I think Oklahoma’s in a tough spot after the ACC deal, since it knows it can punch a ticket just like Arkansas did in the SEC.
Either way, I don’t think that ACC deal was a positive for anyone trying to argue for the Big 12 holding on unless the Big Ten decides against expansion.
LikeLike
There are BCS haves and BCS have nots. I would rather be in a weak BCS have (B12, BEast) than a BCS-might-someday-be (Mountain West). As long as there are over 100 1-A programs and two classes of conferences, there will always be a home to the weak programs (lookin’ at you Sun Belt, C-USA, WAC).
It isn’t the B12 that’s in trouble, its the MWC. No MWC team is going to turn down the B12 — a certain entry to the BCS. The only (faint) possibility is if Utah gambles they can get into the PAC-10. But if I’m Utah, I figure a Big XII in the hand is worth more than a PAC-10 in the bush.
LikeLike
I disagree that the dichotomy is as simple as you posit.
There are BCS haves and have-nots to be sure, but then there are 2 much weaker BCS conferences as compared to the others, and there’s blood in the water.
We’re not even sure that Texas and Oklahoma wouldn’t favor a Big 9 or 10 (Pac-10 style), where they play every team in the conference and put Texas v. Oklahoma at the end as a de facto championship game that can be flexed.
The MWC may be in trouble, but we’re not really even sure of that. We are sure that the Big 12 and Big East are in trouble of become also-ran BCS conferences…
LikeLike
The BEast is in the most trouble. Weak, only 8 members so any loss must be made up, after UCF who do they get? Some valuable programs that are eminently poachable.
The MWC isn’t in trouble at this point in time. But, we’re playing out a game of musical chairs. The BEast and the B12 are the weakest conferences, but its a pretty wide moat between BCS and non-BCS. If it wasn’t then there wouldn’t be such agitation to change the system by the outsiders.
The reason why the MWC is at the most risk is precisely because it is on the precipice of being BCS. It has decent programs that could make it in a BCS conference and is geographically close to the B12. With only the (remote) possible exception of Utah, no school in the MWC would turn down a B12 invite.
It is a myth that outsiders want to wreck a system built by the insiders. All their rhetoric is BS. What the outsiders really want is to be on the inside.
LikeLike
If you’ve been reading my posts, you know I’d prefer A&M moved to another conference.
I don’t have any pull with anyone in the administration, but if we must stay in the ‘Big 9’, I’d like the following setup:
1) Highly unequal revenue sharing
2) Give everyone 2 permanent opponents, and then let the teams play 3 of the other 6 schools every year.
The big names would naturally get on TV more, but all schools would have some chance to get more tv money by scheduling big schools in the 7 non-conference games they could schedule each year.
It would be strange for a conference now to only schedule 5 conference games a year, but the SEC only had 6 games a year before it went to 12 schools.
FWIW: I think the permanent opponents are pretty obvious:
Iowa State-Kansas-Kansas State play each other
OU plays OSU and UT
UT plays OU and A&M
A&M plays UT and TT
TT plays A&M and Baylor
Baylor plays TT and OSU
OSU plays Baylor and OU
LikeLike
Your point about the revenue sharing is interesting, and I guess they could move to a 70-30% split in terms of revenue that’s shared unequally to equally. Either way, a lot of things change now that the ACC looks a lot more secure.
LikeLike
You guys are running too far with this new ACC deal. Sure, they may bring in a couple million less than the SEC schools now, which in turn bring in a couple million less than the Big 10 schools. But what´s the attraction to the Big 10? The biggest of these still exist and would be awfully difficult for an ACC school to turn down.
1) CIC research money and access to shared resources
2) The increased money and exposure that the Big 10 network can bring in now, and especially after expansion. Remember, the number these schools would be working with is not what each Big 10 school pulled in last year but the expectations for the future. And frankly, the ACC still can´t compete with that.
Maybe with this new television deal, certain ACC schools feel more attached to the conference, but with universities across the country being in the red, money will talk. And the money that an expanded Big 10 would bring in from day 1 would significantly help any new member. Over the course of five or ten years, that is only going to grow.
Unless the ACC itself has plans for expansion and for creating its own tv network immediately, that conference is still very vulnerable.
LikeLike
Well the Big Ten wasn’t looking that hard at the ACC other than the D.C. angle (and some other wild scenarios), but the SEC had to be focused a lot more on the ACC.
That’s why I think it’s a bit of a game changer. The ACC schools value their academic standing, so it was unlikely that they were gettable by the SEC, and now that the money is similar, that makes it less likely still.
As for the Big Ten, we might be interested in Maryland and maybe the Virginia teams, but most of us still think NYC/Texas are the play…
Anyways, I think the SEC angle is more important because the SEC’s main plan would shift over to the Big 12 if expansion is their focus and ACC teams don’t want to play ball. That puts Oklahoma on the board if the SEC wants to move after the Big Ten…
LikeLike
Agree with you here.
If this announcement changes anything, it´s from the SEC´s perspective – not the Big 10´s.
For the Big 10, under any successful scenario that brings in at least two big fish, we are talking about doubling or even tripling what the ACC can offer – even with their new deal.
And that´s just from the athletic angle.
And I think we should be careful speculating what the Big 10´s plans actually are. This is still the ¨silent period¨ and it has been incredibly quiet.
If we´re talking about UT and aTm making sense, we have to acknowledge that an ACC raid could be just as likely.
LikeLike
There are two interesting dates coming up. The first is June 2nd. The BEast has a penalty for schools withdrawing from the conference. 27 months and $5 million. If RU wants to leave for the B10, it will have to give notice before June 2nd in order to avoid spending 3 seasons as a lame duck in the BEast (it’s first game of the season is 9/2). Now, I am assuming that the first game of the season is the trigger. It may be that there is an earlier trigger date for the start of the season. Regardless, the neighborhood around June 2nd is key.
The second key date is June 30. I posted this earlier:
“Now, a “breaching member” wanting to withdraw would owe the Big 12 a payment equal to 80 percent of its two-year conference revenues if notice is given by June 30. The penalty increases to 90 percent before the end of the year or 100 percent is notice isn’t given until 2011.” (AP – 5/13)
Frank noted that it would be “penny-wise and pound foolish” to not leave b/c of the escalator clause. That misses the point. If the B10 has decided it wants NU and/or Mizzou, why dither around and cost your new members and extra million (or whatever)? My guess is that, if the B10 has decided on these schools, they will want to invite them before any added penalties kick in. The mid-June B12 meetings are a good point. An official invite right after those meetings allows Mizzou and NU to drop the bad news at the meetings (or not go).
So, here are some possibilities:
#1: The B10 knows who it wants and is done with ND/Texas. Prior to June 2 they invite NU, Mizzou, Rutgers and (if going to 16) 2 of Pitt/Cuse/UConn.
#2: B10 still wants ND/Texas. They invite Mizzou, NU, Rutgers. Now that expansion is real and not just speculation, the pressure on everyone else goes up. They can always pick off teams from the BEast if things fall apart with ND/Texas (or they just stop).
#3: The B10 cannot get the Rutgers deal done in time. Call it transactional friction. The approvals of the various schools, trustee boards, whatever, simply cannot be done in time. So, Rutgers is told they’re in, but the invite is delayed to April of next year. Rutgers avoids one lame duck season (even if it is de facto). B10 then has to decide if it wants to go to 13 in the interim. If so, invites Mizzou and NU before June 30.
#4: The B10 really is still mulling things over. They have actually been telling the truth all along. No announcements this summer.
If the B10 is ready to expand, these cut-off dates for Rutgers, NU, and Mizzou are all convenient deadlines for decisions. If there are still doubts, the B10 can still wait – these candidate schools aren’t going anywhere else.
LikeLike
I think Delany and the “breaching schools” will view the clawback payments as sunk costs.
They have almost no weighting at all in this process. We’re talking about many millions of dollars in TV and research money at stake over the next couple decades.
I think the answer to your question is a mix of scenarios #2 and #4. Until the presidents meet, there are going to be no invites. Also, Delany will want ND and Texas until the very moment that the 16th team has been accepted into the conference or ND and Texas say they’ll never join in unequivocal terms (which they would never do)…
LikeLike
There’s also another possibility concerning the “breaching” penalties and that is to negotiate a lower payout. It’s been mentioned in the Omaha paper that the Big XII is not likely going to want Nebraska and Missouri to stick around in the conference for two and maybe three seasons while they wait out their penalty. It just looks bad on your product.
Whenever the schools announce they are leaving, I’d expect negotiations to start to get them out of the conference as quickly as possible. They’d certainly have to play at least one football season in their old conference because it’s too hard to change schedules that quickly, but after that I see a lot of OOC road games against Big East or Big XII opponents in exchange for reducing the exit penalties.
LikeLike
That may be dependent on how quickly the B12 can replace 2 departing members (or more). They will likely want to stay at 12 to keep the championship game.
I would expect a very quick invite to Utah and UNM/UTEP/BYU/TCU/SMU/Houston/AFA. They might even try to grab 4 teams as insurance against any additional departures.
LikeLike
Why though, won’t that just dilute the payout yet again?
There are a lot of secondary consequences to re-expanding with weaker draws than Nebraska/Missouri if those two do leave (and possibly Colorado).
If you’re Texas and Oklahoma, you might even favor going to a 9 or 10 team Big 12 where you just play every team and don’t have a CCG…
Personally, I don’t think they’d go for a buyout of Nebraska/Missouri unless they really think that replacing them is a sustainable strategy. That’s going to require a lot of thought and commitment on the part of Texas/A&M/Oklahoma if they really want to make a long term Big 12 work…
LikeLike
It’ll be an interesting game of poker. NU and MU might be better served to hold the Big 12 to their bylaws, because once teams start moving the Big 12 might not last long enough to impose any truly damaging financial penalties. Everybody might want out.
LikeLike
If we are indeed in the 80/90% buyout range assuming a 24 month notice at this point, it really become interesting. It may be in Nebraska’s best interest to play a season as an independent school if they can put together any kind of television package at all (maybe put the games on the BTN and use the revenue as Nebraska’s equity buy-in).
LikeLike
The AP article referring to the Big 12 buyout was a little misleading in that it gave percentages and figures based on an assumed buyout date but they never gave the actual date they were using. Here is a link to a .pdf of the Big XII bylaws. http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410 Page 14 deals with the buyout for leaving. There really isn’t a scenario in which anything more than the 50% buyout comes into play unless you are assuming on a staggered expansion. With the Big East schools needing to give 27 months notice, the Big 12 schools will in all likelihood be able to give 24 months.
LikeLike
Never trust a reporter.
LikeLike
Actually the reporter was more accurate than I was. The Big 12 buyout is based on how much time is left in the 5 year membership term, not a blanket advanced warning like the Big East. The only thing to fix from the AP report is the technical date is July 1.
LikeLike
I wonder if the ACC deal now makes it more likely it will stand pat and not pick up leftovers from the Big East. I suppose it depends on renegotiation clauses in the contract, but it sounds as if the ACC got a great price. If that is the case why would the ACC member dilute thier shares.
Along these same lines, why is the SEC is going to expand? Is there an assumption they can renegotiate the ESPN/CBS deal or is it the threat that they start their own network? If they start their own network why the push to do it immediately? Otherwise, they will have to make the case that it is worth splitting the pot more ways. Absent a play for Texas or maybe A&M (because the time is now) all of the other plausible candidates are unlikely expansion candidates for the Pac-10 or Big Ten. So why bother expanding?
LikeLike
I don’t really think the ACC will do anything. The schools are fairly happy with the arrangement, although I guess BC might feel lonely.
They might make a move on a school like Pitt. and Syracuse if the Big Ten leaves those on the table, but there’s no real incentive, since neither really improves the footprint as a Penn State or Rutgers would (presuming that Rutgers heads to the Big Ten).
I’d imagine there are renegotiation clauses, and that’s where the SEC might give a hard look at Oklahoma/A&M/Texas if Nebraska/Missouri do bolt for the Big Ten.
If a school like Texas is on the table for the SEC, I think they could easily go to their partners and ask for improved deals since neither would want to harm a relationship with an SEC+Texas, so there is rationale there depending on the school that is targeted.
LikeLike
another reporter with alleged inside info
http://spartannation.com/?p=11990
Hondo in the past has at times known inside stuff that turned out to be true from his contacts in the NFL & college.
LikeLike
Interesting take I guess, not really anything we haven’t discussed.
What I find most interesting is that we here on Frank’s blog mostly focus on A&M joining with Texas, and yet I really can’t find much media at all that consider A&M going with Texas to the Big Ten in the scenarios…
LikeLike
I’m more interested in Delaney’s “livid” response to an internet report. Did a reporter actually find something out? Did one of Frank’s articles hit too close with real info? Has this blog brought speculation, rumor and analysis to a comedy art form worthy of some Chi-town based movie, Blues Bros., FB’s Day Off?
LikeLike
If one of my missives/shots in the dark actually came close to a real plan, I hope that I can become the new Sausage King of Chicago.
LikeLike
You’re Abe Froman?
LikeLike
White shirt, sweater vest, devastatingly handsome.
LikeLike
The Mountain West, apparently hoping to add Boise State to the conference roster in time to make a run at an automatic BCS bid in the next round of contracts, officially moved the deadline for adding new teams up two months, from Sept. 1 to July 1, on Friday. To get the Broncos in the fold by 2011, the last year of the ongoing four-year evaluation period for an auto bid, the MWC will likely extend an offer after upcoming conference meetings on June 6-8. Boise would have to accept by July 1, or no dice. [Idaho Statesman]
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/05/16/1194508/what-you-need-to-know-about-mountain.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+IdahostatesmancomBSUFootball+(IdahoStatesman.com+Boise+State+Football)
LikeLike
Watch out ESPN, Here Comes the Big Ten Network?:
(Interesting article speculating on Fox Sports Network collaborating with B10 and P10.)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/393021-disneyabcespn-starts-worrying-speculation-on-big-ten-expansion-pt-ii
LikeLike
New to the discussion, but I have been actively following the information in this blog and comments since I was first looking for info. on the Texas to Big 10 rumors. Is there any chance that the Big 10 looks at aTm as an expansion target WITHOUT Texas? aTm seems to only be mentioned as a possible add-on along with Texas to the Big 10 or fleeing to the SEC/Pac-10 if the dominoes cause a collapse of the Big XII. Seems Texas to Big 10 (at least in an initial round of expansion) have died down as Texas seems to be hell bent on the idea of a possible LSN. While Texas very well may toss aTm a bone for inclusion in a Texas sports network, surely aTm is out looking at alternatives to protect their own best interests in case of a diminished Big XII future. Certainly an equal cut of the BTN may be more appealling than a possible share of any LSN. If the Big 10 is already looking toward the southwest for expansion with NU/MU, why not go ahead and shoot for part of the large Texas media markets with aTm if the Longhorns won’t play ball. It may increase the chances of landing the big kahuna of the Longhorns in the future if they can’t get their LSN off in running in a diminished Big XII or Western Alliance type conference. Rutgers/Syracuse seem to be gambles as to how much of the New York media market they can truely deliver. Why not gor for a guaranteed share of the lucrative Texas market with a preemptive strike with aTm who may be willing to bolt for greener pastures rather than waiting for reluctant Texas to let the Big XII collapse around them? aTm certainly fits the bill of large public research institution better than many of the other expansion canditates, is certainly also looking for an escape route if the Big XII collapses and may want a home other than with the (perceived favorite home) SEC and it’s lower student-athlete requirements, perceived academics and lack of research institutions. They are already AAU members and their large research university status would be a great addition to the CIC. As has been mentioned, the political landscape has changed dramatically in Texas since the collapse of the SWC for such a move especially if the Big XII starts to crumble. Geography may be a bit tough, but not any worse than inclusion in the Pac-10 for aTm. I’m sure a deal to keep the annual Thanksgiving date with Texas could be worked out. Culturally, aTm is a bit of an outlier in ANY conference they end up in as their culture/traditions grew largely out of being an all-male military college for 90 of it’s roughly 130 year history. A little “out of the box” thinking from most of the prevailing rumors swirling around out there, but seems to be a win-win for both aTm and the Big 10 whether or not it later draws in the Longhorns or not.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting idea and probably one that might be on the table if A&M were interested and Texas said absolutely not.
We don’t really have any clue as to whether the Big Ten is interested in A&M alone or even at all.
A&M does fit the profile in terms of its research capabilities and academic prestige as well as its draw as a football team/market, and Delany has probably thought about A&M as related to Texas in his expansion scenarios.
We’ll have to see whether Notre Dame bites, if not, then there’s a much greater chance that Delany focuses most of his attention on Texas and possibly A&M if either or both are interested.
One thing is certain though, A&M would be a major get for any conference and would easily fit into any expansion plan.
LikeLike
Is there a chance of the B10 taking TAMU without UT? Yes, I’d say there’s a chance, although clearly it wouldn’t be the B10’s first choice. As you point out, TAMU is a good school and an AAU member, although a bit out there culturally and geographically. But it is clear that the Big Ten would access to the money that the people and corporations of the state of Texas can provide. If Texas isn’t willing to play, then TAMU might.
There are problems with TAMU going to the Big Ten alone other than I’m not sure they’d want to do it for cultural and geographic reasons. The first is the same issue as Rutgers–I’m not sure TAMU “delivers” Texas the way UT would. I think cable systems in Texas wouldn’t be as eager to pay 70 cents a month per customer for TAMU games like they would UT games, especially if the closest other schools are Iowa or (theoretically) Missouri. Secondly, TAMU just doesn’t have the national cache of UT. People with no connection to the state want to see the Longhorns play, just like Nebraska, Alabama or USC. Nationally, people will watch them when they’re good, but otherwise they’re not the draw of UT. They wouldn’t add as much to national TV rights and advertising. (Although they’d be a lot more useful than Mizzou.)
If TAMU was willing to go alone though, I think we’d have to look at it. They’d certainly make a better addition than Missouri, for example, whose appeal escapes me. I think TAMU would make a better 14th or 16th team than a 12th one. Adding them along with Nebraska and Rutgers might be an idea worth exploring. But again, I wonder how open the administration at TAMU would be to being out on an island like that.
LikeLike
UT AD Dodds recently said something to the effect of, “Wouldn’t it make sense for each school to have their own channel?” So could they be considering setting up a conference channel network where each state has their local school’s channel as an affiliate? The big schools like Texas and OU could have their own channel in state, but it would also carry prime time or feature games of the Western Alliance. That could be on basic, with a co-channel on the sports tier to handle most of the network filler and overflow. For dual school states or regions perhaps it is a shared channel? There was an article recently stating that UT was considering sharing their channel with other schools, presumably aTm. A Lone Star Channel instead of a Longhorn Sports Channel. Another option would be to give each subscriber the option of UT or aTm as their basic Western Alliance affiliate, while the other and the W.All. feed on 2 sports tier channels. Conference schools that can’t afford the start up costs could simply go with the core WA network channel.
Lots of ways to pull that off, though negotiating revenue allocation and costing could be tricky. Just seems that if Fox Sports can regionalize their cable network into regional branded affiliates, why not do the same for schools?
Would the BTN be willing to allow a Longhorn or Lone Star Channel to be their local affiliate in Texas, with the pure BTN feed on the sports tier? All the BTN football games would be on the Lone Star Channel when Texas and aTm weren’t playing, the rest on the sports tier. That would cut the flow of some revenue into the conference pot, instead going to the Texas schools. OTOH, you’d still get increased demand for sports tier side, so there’s some incremental revenue increase for the conference (plus of course the increased value of bringing Texas into the conference.)
If the B16 won’t bite, the P16 almost certainly will.
LikeLike
I think that strategy is best tried in the Big 12 while allowing the Pac-10 and Big 12 to try to team up in negotiations or whatever the “Western Alliance” would entail.
Texas knows that the Pac-10, Big Ten, and SEC won’t all be at 16 teams if it ever comes to Texas needing to join one and that they’re such a big prize that any league would jump, so that functions as the most effective safety net in terms of allowing them to try their own model out…
LikeLike
I dunno, Dodds quote on every school having their own channel seems pretty disingenuous. Are there really many schools besides say UT, Michigan, OSU and ND that could even pull it off and have enough programming and subscribers to make it a major money maker? Not every school has the market of TX. Could even Texas support UT, TAMU, and Tech with their own channels? Its one of those things that sounds very democratic on its face “your own channel and free money for everyone”, but the reality is its a benefit that the rest of the conference, regardless of which conference UT is in, won’t be able to match. “Texas gets their own TV channel because they need even more money” does not sound like a major incentive for the Big 12 schools with options to stick around. I get that Texas is simply exercising its market power and doing what is best for its own interests, but its tough to run a sports league as survival of the fittest, not if you want a league that will produce a competitive entertaining product. I really don’t want to see the AL East model of just 5-10 elite schools having a shot brought to college football. At some point the other schools may need to tell Texas that if they want their own TV deal that badly maybe they should be an independent and stop trying to have their cake and eat it too (plus everyone else’s cake, soda, and leftover sandwich).
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 may be best served if it doesn’t try to hedge its bets by targeting both Notre Dame and Texas. I’m just not sure landing both is a likely outcome. Instead, if I were the Big 10, I’d decide which school you’d prefer and launch your expansion in two rounds.
If you want Notre Dame, I’d look east and offer invites to Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn. That kills the Big East, and you then tell Notre Dame this is your last chance if you want in. If Notre Dame accepts, you can then take whichever of Missouri of Nebraska you prefer. If Notre Dame declines, you take both Missouri and Nebraska.
If you want to target Texas, you offer Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas. That’s the end of the Big 12, and at that point, you offer Texas and A&M. If they say no, you can then grab two of the Big East schools.
It just seems if you go after the trio of Mizzou, Nebraska and Rutgers first, you may not kill enough of either the Big East or Big 12 to force either Notre Dame or Texas’ hand.
LikeLike
Frankly, it’s dumb to take schools you don’t want (Syracuse, U Conn, KU) to try to force the nand of ND or TX. In any event, PSU won’t want all western schools picked, and the western-most Big 10 schools won’t want all eastern schools picked.
LikeLike
If there is any lesson to be learned from the last week and the B12, it is how fragile a conference contrived out of desperation is. It would be a huge mistake to *force* a school into the B10 conference for the sake of a 24 hour news cycle, sports pundit, declared “win” or even a few extra dollars in the next network TV deal.
LikeLike