Let me preface this blog post by stating that I am not an “insider” regarding Big Ten expansion nor have ever claimed to be. However, as this blog has received more attention from across the country, I’ve been sent a good amount of information from people that actually do have relevant contacts. Parsing through it all has been interesting since there has been a fair amount of conflicting stories by people who swear to be in the know (which has occurred in many places throughout the blogosphere and message board world). So, I don’t blame anyone for taking this particular blog post with a grain of salt. There’s a fairly good chance that all of this will be debunked by next week just like many other Big Ten expansion rumors. I will say that the ultimate sources of this information would be privy to what was stated last week at the Big Ten meetings with Jim Delany. Frankly, I couldn’t make this list up as it flies in the face of a lot of arguments and assumptions that I’ve set forth in this blog.
It appears that the Big Ten has been heavily discussing the following five schools: Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland, Virginia and Vanderbilt. I’m not saying that these are the only five schools being discussed, none of the “usual suspects” such as Nebraska and Rutgers will end up being included, or the Big Ten has forgotten about Notre Dame, but these are apparently all targets that the conference is focusing on.
Now, let’s not completely get tunnel vision with the names of the 5 particular schools that I listed above for the moment. (I’ll give my personal opinion at the end.) Instead, this is an opportunity to take a step back and re-evaluate and possibly re-calibrate what a lot of us have been assuming the Big Ten wants to do. Here are my main takeaways:
1. Texas is the Ultimate Goal – I know a lot of people believe that I’m a shining example of a Texas-to-the-Big Ten fanboy, yet there are multiple accounts from both the Big Ten and Texas that getting UT is the ultimate goal for the conference regardless of what anyone else is saying publicly. So, this isn’t something to be passed off as, “Well of course the Big Ten wants Texas, but they’re never going to get them, so let’s move on.” It is becoming clearer that the reason why the Big Ten is taking so long with its expansion plans is NOT because Texas and/or Notre Dame have rejected the conference outright, as many bloggers and message board posters seem to want to believe, but rather the exact opposite where at the very least Texas is returning Jim Delany’s phone calls. There’s a whole lot of public posturing going on here.
2. “Shifting Population” Comment is Literal – When Jim Delany made his comment that “shifting population” to the South and demographic changes was right alongside the Big Ten Network as the top factors for examining expansion, I initially was in agreement with Adam Rittenberg, who believed that the Big Ten really wasn’t looking South outside of Texas and wanted to shore up more population bases in the North. However, there are two things that all of the 5 schools listed have in common: they are all located south of the Mason-Dixon line (yes, even Maryland) and in areas that are projected to grow rapidly in population over the next 20 years. Just as importantly, those population changes are based more upon solid economic underpinnings (energy in Texas, federal government in Maryland and Virginia, health care in Nashville) than, as uber commenter Richard has argued, “Ponzi scheme” real estate aimed at investors and retirees in places like Florida, Arizona and Nevada. Considering the slow-to-no growth population trends in the home states of the Big Ten’s marquee schools of Michigan and Ohio State, getting into higher growth areas, not just new markets, may be key for the conference to maintain its current demographic advantages for the long-term.
3. Academics with a Capital “A” – Looking at this list of 5 schools, AAU membership in and of itself may not be enough for the Big Ten’s academic requirements. The Big Ten appears to be looking to raise its “academic brand” as much or even more than its athletic brand. Adding Vandy (top ranked BCS school after Stanford, Duke and Northwestern) and Virginia (in the discussion as the nation’s top public university) doesn’t just upgrade the academic reputation among the wonks that look at ARWU rankings and research funding numbers, but also for the average Joe upper middle class suburban high school student looking for colleges. In the academic world, there is an image associated with being a “Big Ten school” in a manner that doesn’t exist for any other conference outside of the Ivy League, so the university presidents are going to be fiercely protective of that. There would be no dilution of the Big Ten’s academic standing whatsoever, whether looking at the populist US News rankings or graduate research-focused metrics.
4. No Mass Annexation from One Conference – This particular mix consists of 2 schools from the Big XII, 2 from the ACC and 1 from the SEC. Whether this is ultimately the exact composition of expansion schools for the Big Ten (or even anywhere close to it), my general feeling is that we’re not going to see, say, 4 or 5 schools added from a single conference. Part of the reason that the Big Ten is so strong is that it operates as a cohesive unit more than 11 separate bodies. Therefore, in the event of a multi-school expansion, it would make sense that the conference would avoid adding too many schools from a particular source in order to prevent those schools from forming a “bloc” that never really integrates with the rest of the members.
5. The American Pastime – Baseball is likely reason number 1,587 on the priority list for Big Ten expansion, yet it’s hard not to notice that the conference would have a kick-ass baseball league with these 5 schools. As of the date of this blog post, Virginia and Texas are the top 2 ranked baseball teams in the nation while Vandy and Texas A&M are traditionally strong programs. Come to think of it, one of the most prominent criticisms of the Big Ten from Texas fans is the poor baseball league, so if adding some great baseball teams makes a potential move a little bit easier, then all the better.
6. Vanderbilt? – When Andy Katz said that a Big Ten source suggested Vandy as a potential expansion candidate a couple of weeks ago, I put about as much stock in it as the conference adding USC and UCLA. It seemed to be almost a lose-lose situation – a school that would be incredibly difficult to pull away from the extremely stable SEC and a clear #2 in its own home market to Tennessee. As much as I tell people to think like a university president instead of a sports fan, that doesn’t mean being sports ignorant. Out of all of the conference realignment scenarios, the one thing that I consistently assumed is that the SEC wouldn’t lose any members. Heck, I’ve continuously been skeptical about any schools bolting from the ACC.
Digging deeper, there is shockingly a lot of smoke around Vandy. One key fact to note is that there is an extremely important personal connection: Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee, who is in the midst of his second stint in that position in Columbus and was the chancellor at Vanderbilt from 2000-2007. As far as university presidents go, Gee is about as high profile as you can get. Time named him the best college president in the country back in November and I recall when I was an upper middle class suburban high school student flipping through the US News rankings 15 years ago or so (ugh – it doesn’t feel that long ago) reading a day-in-the-life account of him in his first stint at tOSU. By all accounts, Gee was incredibly popular at Vandy. The main hiccup during his tenure was a report in the Wall Street Journal that his wife at the time was using medicinal marijuana in the chancellor’s residence along with hoarding the university’s supply of Doritos while listening to The Dark Side of the Moon and watching The Wizard of Oz at the same time.
Regardless, Gee is extremely influential in the academic world overall, not just the Big Ten. He left Vandy on a high note and took the very un-SEC-like step of eliminating Vandy’s separate athletic department and consolidating its activities under the Division of Student Life. If Vandy somehow ends up joining the Big Ten down the road, this connection may prove to have been a key factor. I go back-and-forth as to whether this is a good idea (I don’t know if Vandy could get the Big Ten Network on basic cable in Nashville), but the main point is that Andy Katz’s original report has some legs.
So, if the Big Ten were to hypothetically add the 5 schools that I listed, I’d consider it on par with the LOST finale: pretty good overall and definitely can’t complain because it hit the main target, yet there’s a lingering feeling that there could’ve been a little more. Replacing one of the schools other than Texas with Notre Dame or Nebraska would still seem to make it a blockbuster sports move as well as still having an overall improvement to the academic standing of the league. In fact, one of the cited reasons that Vandy might be a consideration is that its academic strength would balance out adding a school like Nebraska in the minds of the university presidents.
As for the usual suspects, I still think Nebraska and Rutgers are in good positions to eventually get Big Ten invites if Texas doesn’t ultimately want to join, while Syracuse continues to hang around. The schools that need to worry appear to be Pitt (logical deduction based on such a heavy focus on shifting population while its academic fit argument could be trumped by demographically-friendly schools like Vandy and UVA) and Missouri (multiple separate rumblings that it wouldn’t receive a Big Ten invite in any scenario – please don’t kill the messenger on that one).
So, that’s the latest scuttlebutt on Big Ten expansion. Apologies to Twitter follower Cory Stinebrink for starting a rumor.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Inside Vandy)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Ha! Cutler!
Sweet article, Frank! Ask and ye shall receive. Thanks!
Virginia and Vandy? Wow. My degree from IU just earned about 5K in value just from that rumor. I’m all for it.
btw, I give 20 posts before Playoffs Now! finds a way to meld these teams into OMG 3 20-TEAM SUPERCONFERENCE! 🙂
LikeLike
Vanderbilt, eh? Was that a hot tip from Anderson Cooper?
Well, if nothing else, this rumor does have a degree of believability from a Texas angle. UT has often taken a ‘just enough’ approach to scheduling, and this scenario wouldn’t bring in too many competing alpha dogs. The Aggies would get the academic recognition their leaders prefer and wouldn’t be in a meat grinder conference. A better chance for them at BCS bowl slots than in the SEC, especially if the format avoids a conf champ game. MD and VA as a duo makes academic and some demographic sense, without wandering too far afield. And its never a good idea to underestimate the gutlessness and fiefdom protection instincts of big schools like Texas and Ohio State. But academically it is a strong expansion, even with VA’s reputation over research.
Vandy. Seems to be another Pitt, but with a slightly different mix of pluses and minuses. Might be key to getting VA, as it would open a slot in the SEC for V. Tech. Depends on if the VA legislature feels staying in ACC wouldn’t be good enough for the Hokies and how the SEC would react. Not sure this prods the SEC to go beyond 12.
Another oddball Vandy factor: Connection to Al Gore. Why on earth that matters? The potential research funding gold mine related to the carbon trading and ‘Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change/Your Scam Here’ poli pork. He’s become a billionaire off that scheme, and adding Vandy might be a cash-free buy in for the conference in the pay to play environment.
The SEC reaction: Beyond 12? Maybe not. VT makes the most sense as the replacement (though no doubt FL will argue for Charleston Southern.) The SEC and sports media will be impressed you lured Texas but otherwise laugh. My bet is they stay at 12, unless the P10 goes beyond Utah and CO and the ACC looks at 16. Not enough marquee adds to get ESPN to reopen the contract unless they raid the ACC. FSU and Miami’s long term desire AAU membership, so staying in an academically superior ACC may be their preference.
The ACC reation: Academically, replacing MD and VA with Syr and Rut is almost a wash, a Syr, Rut, Pitt, CT add an improvement. IF VTech goes SEC then one of those (CT?) probably gets left behind, though perhaps Cincy could get them back to 14. If they go to 16 to keep up with the Jones, WV (geo, Pitt rival) and S. FL (278 million in research and rising) could do it. But can they then hold off SEC raids? Unlikely to ever see the ACC at 16 if they lose MD and VA.
The P10 reaction: Might spur them to go ahead and add Utah and Colorado. Also might get them to listen to overtures from NE, KS, and MO to reach 14 or 16. Or maybe not. Weighing a W. Alliance tv channel joint venture with the B12 vs a P16.
The B12 reaction: Could stay cool, simply replace numbers, and pursue a Western Alliance for TV. Would require lots of Texas teams to approach a critical mass in the state for TV purposes. TCU and UH for sure, maybe SMU if CO goes west and a 3rd is needed. Or perhaps Lou or BYU as the 12th. Creating a W. Alliance or B12 channel would open the current ESPN contract to negotiations instead of having to wait several more years.
I could also see NE, MO, and perhaps other schools approaching the P10 for membership. With Utah and CO to a P14, or go to 16 with KS and one of ISU (academics) or OU (TV draw.) Can KS escape KSU? And there’s also the possibility the B12 tries to go to 16. Add TCU, UH, and as needed from a pool of SMU, S.Fl, UCF, Lou, Cin, WV, Utah, BYU, UNLV, CSU. The thinking being that without UT and aTm, the pie will now be so reduced that perhaps a cable channel, more inventory, and more Top 30 matchups might bring in higher $$ per school. Or perhaps rather to the top remaining schools. Might see NE and OU rake in an even more uneven revenue distribution in a conference of BCS hungry misfits with nowhere else to go.
Not sure how many dominoes this B16 combo would tip over, though the aftershock may well kill off the BEast and its BCS AQ. Which would thrill Texas and the current B10+ heavyweights.
Gonna go with a ‘Work in progress’ assessment for now. GT instead of Vandy seems to makes more sense ($100 million more in research and gotta love a Purdue-GT-aTm engineering triangle.) Unless going to 20 really is an option…
LikeLike
Interesting that we´re talking about killing off the BEast now without taking a single member. Again, not sure where that leaves Notre Dame.
LikeLike
TX, aTm, MD, VA, and VB. Heading in the direction of an eastern version of the Great AAU Conference concept. If the B10+ gets an agreement from all 5 on joining, that sure seems like a selling point to approach a few other diamonds. Recall that one of the rumors was that if TX joined, a 20-school conference was in play.
Seems like if anything would lure out Duke and NC, that would. Duke is 4th in research at 767 million and huge TV draw in Bball. NC’s 526 million is 16th in research and another Bball king. GT is 17th in research at 522 million and not a stranger to BCS bowls.
Duke, NC, GT, and either ND, Miami, or Rut for the 20th. Miami isn’t AAU, but neither is ND. The huge population and alumni base of FL has to be tempting. In which case VB might be ditched if ND joined. Put the Original Big Ten on one side and the newbies plus PSU on the other. Not too top heavy, but enough TV draws.
Going from 16 to 20 would be a tough sell to the relatively conservative conference presidents, but in this scenario it seems to be such a natural progression. Wraps up basically all the high growth states east of the Rockies. The seismic shift and nearly national scheduling that could lure ND. Impossible for the SEC to ever surpass, and relegating them to a permanently stuck 2nd tier academically. The Elites vs The Cheats.
LikeLike
Completely agree. From 11, a 20 team conference feels like a stretch. If the 5 team expansion, however, is really these 5 universities, you would get the feeling that you were laying the foundation for something bigger.
UT, aTm, Vand, UVa and Maryland would encircle the SEC and what´s left of the ACC. At the point, the only elite research and athletic schools left east of the Rockies would be Pitt, UNC, Duke, GTech and Florida. You´d also have a handful of schools jockeying to be considered among that group: Miami, Rutgers, UConn, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Now let’s play out the eastern Great AAU Conference strategy to its conclusion. Start with 16 by announcing the addition TX, aTm, VB, MD, and VA. ACC is rattled, SEC makes expansion noises, P10 and B12 consider an alliance, P14, P16, etc. ACC has to make a realistic assessment of where it could end up and its limited options. Could be a permanent 4th or 5th place conference. ND has to consider that we are indeed about to see the great shake out in a way that possibly leaves them on the outside.
With that backdrop the B16 makes a final inquiry to 8 of:
Duke, NC, GT, GA, FL, Mia, FSU, Rut, Syr, Pitt, MO, KS, NE, ND.
“We’re going to the AAU academic super conference format, any other option (outside of perhaps the P-whatever) will forever be viewed as 2nd-tier. With the P-whatever we intend to shake up the BCS format and will have the votes. Perhaps with the surviving current BCS conferences break away into our own DI-$$ division. Are you in or out of the AAU Alliance?”
At 24, the natural split is the current B11 and ND in one division, the newbies from Texas to NYC in the other division, in an AAU Alliance. The original goal of B10+ and just ND, but with a partner conference of the cream of the AAU crop in the east and south. Maximized BTN footprint and revenue. Something like TX, aTm, VB, GT, Mia, Duke, NC, VA, MD, Pitt, Rut, and Syr, brokered by the BTN and CIC.
Combine with the other academically superior partner conference, the P12, and you have the AAU half of a sensible 72 school breakout to a DI-$$. SEC would then likely put together a companion 3×12 ‘Alliance of the 2nd Tier’ with the leftovers, athletically equal to the Great AAU Alliance. Original side still plays a P12 in the Rose, Newbie side plays a wildcard in the Orange. Original SEC plays a wildcard in the Sugar, and the other 2 SEC Alliance divisions meet in the Fiesta. 4 winners continue the playoff with 2 on campus games and a national title in the 100K seat indoor JerryCotton.
3×12 in the (basically) AAU side, 3×12 on the SEC and leftovers side.
LikeLike
Would CO and Utah to the PAC 10 even still make sense in this scenario, or would the PAC maybe try for CO/NE to get to 12 instead. It would be interesting to see if NE would prefer to stay in the Big 12 or not, we’d essentially be back to the Big 8 except for the two tagalongs that were forced on the league by the Texas legislature.
LikeLike
Ore perhaps the P10 adding just CO and MO. Bigger TV footprint of +11 million vs +8 with Utah and CO or +7 with CO and NE. However, obviously a much worse TV draw if NE is excluded. But that might not hurt much if they can still do a W. Alliance TV deal with a rebuilt B12. Geography would still suggest Utah and CO.
End result would probably be a P12-B12 alliance in some combination of the current P10 plus Utah, CO, NE, KS, KSU, MO, ISU, OU, OSU, Bay, TT, TCU, UH, and either SMU, Lou, or BYU.
Unless the Big 10+ doesn’t stop intend to stop for long at 16…
LikeLike
IMO, none of the schools listed will end up being in the Big 10 expansion…..If it DOES end up going down this way, the SEC will kick our ass in football….but they’ll be hell to pay when the chess tourney comes around…..
LikeLike
‘shroomgod – I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Big Ten is a lot smarter than this. Do they really want to take on the SEC on the SEC’s home turf with Vandy? That’s worse than GA Tech.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Vandy. its a great school. I may send my daughter to Vandy in a few years. But, from an athletic standpoint, Vandy is the weakest link in the SEC. It has a 40,000 seat stadium and NO athletic director.
If Vandy wanted to leave, the rest of the SEC wouldn’t shed any tears. FSU, Clemson & GA Tech would be beating each other up for the 1st spot in line.
Or the SEC could go tell UTx to bring along A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. So with Vandy gone, the SEC could co-opt the entire Big XII South (minus Baylor). That would be an offer UTx couldn’t refuse from a political and rivalry standpoint.
Bottom line from this SEC fan’s perspective:
1. I doubt Vandy would leave, if asked.
2. Bad move by the Big Ten if they ask Vandy.
3. If Vandy goes, it may just help the SEC further distance itself from the Big Ten athletically.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – I’ve got to echo your sentiment. I question the judgment of the Big Ten wanting to go head-to-head against the SEC in any market. The only exception is in South Florida, where I’d be perfectly fine with the Big Ten going after Miami for the national TV draw and very large base of transplanted Big Ten alums. At least for the U of Illinois Alumni Association, the single largest base of alums outside of the Big Ten footprint is the southern half of Florida. I’m certain that this is similar for other Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
If you look at coverage maps for fall Saturdays from as recently as a couple of years ago, the northern 2/3 of FL usually broadcast an ACC or SEC matchup while the southern 1/3 generally carries a Big10 game. Hell, there’s a bar in Ft. Myers called Hoosier Daddy’s (which would have been my handle if I was thinking clearly after reading the first OMG TX to B10! article.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Now, the only other thing that I could think of for Vandy is if, for whatever reason, Texas would want them in a multi-school expansion. Who knows who Texas could be asking for to come along.
LikeLike
@Frank, the other obvious reason to include Vandy is as an ode to the conference´s vision for the future.
If further expansion is in the cards, JD may see the Big 10 as the elite academic conference (like-minded institutions) with strong athletic programs east of the Rockies. In that case, you´d want to include Vanderbilt at some point. If you do it now, you help your case in bridging further to the Southeast in the future.
Look at it this way, if we´re headed toward a 20 or 24 team conference that includes the five rumored schools ´+ UNC, Duke, GTech, Florida, Miami, etc, it makes sense to first fortify the perimeter before diving head first into SEC country. These five schools would effectively encircle the SEC, allowing the BTN to develop, the CIC to grow and the other dominoes to fall before going back for stage 2 of this expansion.
LikeLike
Vandy seems like something of a compromise candidate between the West Wing (Texas+ A&M) and East Wing (Maryland+Virginia) of this expansion.
Vandy is top-notch academically, Southern, and pretty much in the middle of the 2 wings.
The ‘West wing’ schools might prefer Rice or even Tulane as an academically strong regional rival; the ‘East Wing’ schools might prefer a Georgia Tech (assuming the North Carolina Schools are untouchable). Vanderbilt is right there in the middle.
LikeLike
Michael – The Big Ten would be crazy to take teams in the South that will get clobbered by the SEC in the TV ratings in shared markets, and the Big Ten isn’t crazy. The Big Ten has the dominant teams in every state within its footprint (the state of Indiana is up for debate with Notre Dame, but its been said here before that Notre Dame is just located in Indiana, but it belongs to the world).
Hypothetically, Vandy could play #1 Ohio State in Nashville, and it would be overshadowed by unranked Tennessee playing unranked Mississippi State. Would the Big Ten really want to be in that position?
LikeLike
m(Ag) – I vote for Tulane!
LikeLike
Or the SEC could go tell UTx to bring along A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. So with Vandy gone, the SEC could co-opt the entire Big XII South (minus Baylor). That would be an offer UTx couldn’t refuse from a political and rivalry standpoint.
Uh, no. TX is negotiating hard with the B10+ and P10, but any SEC negotiations are just a safety net.
Now I get the sense that the aTm AD might prefer the SEC, but his bosses sure don’t appear to. He’s not the most respected AD around, including having turned down the offer from TX to share in an in-state cable channel venture.
LikeLike
Playoffs – no negotiations with the SEC would be necessary.
Under my scenario, with the Big Ten “stealing” Vandy away from the SEC, UTx can bring all their rivals to a conference, take a conference cut of at least $22 million, and start their own network.
The only question for UTx would be, “where do I sign?” But we’ll never know because the Big Ten ain’t asking Vandy, and Vandy wouldn’t leave if asked.
LikeLike
You don’t think Bill Byrne is a respected AD? Based upon what? BTW, he didn’t participate in the Longhorn network because it is, well, the Longhorn network. He was for a B12 network, though. One of his A&M “bosses” is BOR member Gene Stallings. You think he would be against a move to the SEC?
You are right that Texas A&M would be highly interested in listening to the SEC but overall, your read on this is mostly wrong. Bill Byrne is much more likely to be pushing for a Western Alliance with the Pac-10 as he is from the West and was the AD at Oregon (before Nebraska). I think he would probably be more inclined to move to the B10 vs. the SEC unless A&M was only invited as a lure to attract Texas.
Many, many Ags (including the A&M President, the Texas Governor and many BoR members) would be just fine seperating from Texas if it means a better deal for A&M. I know a lot of posters here think A&M is a ‘tag along’ with Texas and doesn’t have a mind or will of its own, but I can tell you that simply is not the case. That is the primary reason why A&M said no to the Longhorn network. It is more interested in working with a larger group of conference members vs. aligning with Texas only.
LikeLike
Personally I think both Texas and TAMU are interested in showcasing their academic prestige.
While comments concerning the SEC’s academic status can wait, I think it fair to say the Pac, Big, and ACC are all better overall academic conferences and as such might entice either of those schools over a “neighbor” in the SEC (ok, maybe not the ACC) due to differing markets and academic rankings.
Point being, for those two schools the SEC strikes me as an option, but not a goal.
LikeLike
AggieFrank–Nebraska was happy to be rid of $ Bill Byrne, as he is known in Lincoln, because he was a big part of the reason the football program was left to crumble.
$ Bill’s failure is that while he wants all sports to succeed, he doesn’t realize you can’t kill the cash cow to make it happen, or all sports will eventually fail. Nebraska’s AD department, while entirely self-sufficient and doesn’t use a dime of taxpayer money, has to pay for all athletics at that school. If the football program doesn’t make $$, all sports suffer as a result. Bill just didn’t stick around long enough to see the decline happen, and he’s repeated the same mistakes in College Station.
LikeLike
Devaney,
A&M’s football program died at the hands of Dennis Franchione, whom Bill Byrne had no involvement in hiring. Besides, the football program is in the top 20 in revenue and overall the AD was 9th in revenue at $94 million last year. Would it be even better if the team was experiencing success on the field? Of course, but to call it a failure a pretty big stretch. There are lots of reasons that attributed to NU’s decline (partial qualifiers, the formation of the B12, Bill Callahan) so to lay it all at the hands of Byrne is also a stretch. The guy is a respected AD and the comment that he is not by “Playoffs Now” is just not factual.
For example, A&M basketball pre-Bill Byrne was DOA. Now both the men’s and women’s teams are constants in the NCAA tourney. He brought to life to dormant revenue producing sports. He has also drastically improved facilities for football as well and the benefits are helping turn around the on-the-field results (hopefully in a big way this year).
LikeLike
the guy is a respected AD and the comment that he is not by “Playoffs Now” is just not factual.
I guess you are unable to recognize the difference between ‘not respected’ and “not the most respected”…
One wasn’t written, one was.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
Shit. Forgot to add. Bacon.
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
Toast
LikeLike
ketchup – ewww!
LikeLike
Salsa — ketchup for grownups.
LikeLike
‘nado, i couldn’t agree more. the thought of ketchup on anything other than bad french fries makes me retch.
speaking of salsa, i found a new habanero sauce from the el yucateco people that i’m really liking. i’ve enjoyed their ‘salsa picante de chile habanero’ for a while, but they have a new one they claim is a mayan recipe that is every bit as good.
give it a shot, if you can find it. heb in texas carries it.
LikeLike
I’d be all for this!
Since the Presidents asked JD to look into expansion I wasn’t sure if football was the driving force behind it. I think that us sports fans may have failed to place enough emphasis on the academic branding of the Big 10.
Although, I must admit, if Rutgers and Nebraska are not in the expansion I’ll feel a little let down. Just a personal preference on my part.
LikeLike
Addicted
LikeLike
IF Texas were to jump, I think Notre Dame would, too. I think that’s what Swarbrick and Dodds have been discussing.
LikeLike
yep
LikeLike
Any evidence (public statements, decently-sourced news stories) tying ND & Texas aside from the Northwestern board rumor that ticked off Delany?
LikeLike
The USAToday article posted today ties ND and Texas:
Article: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-05-25-texas-notre-dame-expansion_N.htm
Quote: “It’s not something we have to think about. It’s something we are thinking about,” says Texas’ DeLoss Dodds.
“If we have our way, we’re never going to get caught in a situation where we’re not part of something that’s really viable nationally. If that’s the way the world goes, then we’ll go in that world.”
At Notre Dame, AD Jack Swarbrick says, “You’ve got to think about it and evaluate it, and make sure you don’t wind up with a different division of college football all of a sudden. DeLoss and I have a similar perspective.”
LikeLike
Also in that article:
“In the Big 12, Commissioner Dan Beebe says he’ll push for a deadline — probably sometime before the start of the 2010-11 school year — for institutions to affirm their commitment to the league, backing it up with stiffer monetary penalties for leaving.”
THAT could be an issue.
LikeLike
He can push for whatever he wants but could that really get enough votes to pass?
Nebraska, Missouri, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, OSU, and Colorado have all been mentioned as candidates for one conference or another . . . 7 out of 12 schools.
LikeLike
@WhiskeyBadger – The problem for Beebe, though, is that he works for the university presidents of the Big XII as opposed to the other way around. Beene can’t just mandate this type of commitment. He’s going to need a supermajority of schools to vote for this and there’s at least 3 schools who will bolt immediately (Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado) and 2 others that are highly considering it (Texas and Texas A&M). Plus, it’s a massive sign of weakness for any conference to start talking about increasing penalties. The only thing this would do is send school rushing to the exits quicker.
LikeLike
Plus, it’s a massive sign of weakness for any conference to start talking about increasing penalties. The only thing this would do is send school rushing to the exits quicker.
Well, with 5 or more schools considering moving, a conspiracy theorist might think that is the actual intent.
“Golly gee, we were planning to just sit here quietly minding our own business, but the threat of big penalties forced us to evaluate our options. Surprisingly, we then discovered that moving would be better. A shame that Beebe blew up the conference…”
LikeLike
On the other hand, if Beebe gets his supermajority extortion vote, it tells you everything you need to know about the plans of Texas for the immediate future.
Maybe Beebe is blustering. Maybe not. If Texas is really in play, I’ll guarantee you these threats will add up to exactly nothing.
LikeLike
[Assuming that the above rumor is, in fact, accurate]
The most thing about this list of 5 schools that first came to my mind was that it is entirely possible that not a single one of them ends up in the Big Ten (for reasons that have been advanced here ad nauseum). If the powers-that-be are indeed this focused on academics, it could be that expansion may not get enough traction to actually occur.
LikeLike
I can’t say I disagree with any of these options.
Vandy has never been a good fit in the SEC.
Maryland and Virginia are growth areas. Also gives Penn St. nearby rivals in the growth areas.
Texas and Texas A*M guts the Big 12 though.
Unlike Rutgers and Nebraska, you get teams that have had basketball success. The baseball issue is noted. Maryland, Virginia, and Vandy are good enough in football to not be perceived poorly, but not so good as to interfere with any team’s current success.
Academics are fine.
The dominoes will be interesting. If the SEC expands… does it add 1, 3, or 5 teams? Okla, OSU, Nebraska, Louisville, ACC targets? What does the Big 12 do? Does the ACC add 2 schools or 4-6?
LikeLike
“Vandy has never been a good fit in the SEC.”
However, Vandy is a founding member of the SEC, and was a member of the Southern Conference prior.
“Maryland and Virginia are growth areas.”
Mainly because of D.C. and government spending.
“Texas and Texas A*M guts the Big 12 though.”
A gut punch, but the Big 12 (-2) would still be left with the Texas market (TT & Baylor) along with the original Big 8 schools.
However, I give this “Egghead Expansion” idea very low probability of coming true.
LikeLike
seriously… TT & Baylor would not leave you with “the Texas market”…
LikeLike
SHIFT FROM SPORTS & BTN GROWTH TO ACADEMICS
Amazing how the convenional thought was for good football programs such as PITT & NU plus BTN markets/states such as Rutgers & Mizzou to now academic powerhouses such as Maryland, Virginia & even Vandy. Pitt has been noted as a school previous Presidents wanted and Nebraska applied around 1900 but was denied. Who were the other schools that have flirted with joining the B10 in the past?
LikeLike
Notre Dame =/
LikeLike
BTN Growth is still there. Texas is still added. Maybe the Big Ten has decided they cannot carry NYC, so they shifted focus to the next best target. Getting UMd and UVa gets 14M people between Virgina, Maryland and DC. Plus, it gets the political pull of DC, too. Obviously, Vanderbilt is there for Academics much more so than the BTN growth.
LikeLike
I don’t buy any of this. I’m still gonna keep reading, though. 😀
I think this has, and always will be, about getting ND to join. When Delaney said they wouldn’t be killing any conferences, I think he was alluding to this. Maybe that rumor that he and Marinatto were trying to work out getting ND to leave the BE had some truth to it. Now Delaney can just tell Marinatto “Hey bossman, sorry, I tried. Now bend over and get ready for your assfucking. We’re still friends, right?”
I still think UT is a huge case of wishful thinking by BigTen fans. As a current non-BigTen fan, this seems abundantly clear to me. Plus, UT to the Pac10 is much better for the sport of college football (imo).
I don’t think shifting population is literal. I see that more as Delaney preparing everyone for a “bleh” expansion. If people are disappointed, he can just point to the expanded footprint.
With that said, I really feel now that there will be no expansion. Or maybe just a 1 team expansion.
LikeLike
For those of you who put a lot of stock in “connections” being a big deal in getting some of these teams into the Big Ten (a la former and current OSU president E. Gordon Gee’s connection to Vanderbilt), it should be noted that another former OSU president, Brit Kirwan, is currently the Chancellor of the University of Maryland system.
LikeLike
While UT, TAMU & MD have been on many of our Wish Lists for some time, UVA & Vandy are surprises. I’d be okay with those four, but Vandy excites me about as much as RU does. I’d rather exchange Vandy for NU. That would be an amazing expansion, IMHO.
LikeLike
Although I like both schools, I’ve always wondered whether taking both Neb and Missouri, with their relatively low US News ratings, might be more than what the presidents could swallow…however, I would have thought both would be JD favorites…we’ll see….
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – My impression is that this is exactly what’s being thought about – the Big Ten would be willing to take one of Nebraska or Missouri, but not both of them. On that front, Nebraska wins out. The national football name, rabid fan base and top-to-bottom athletic department funding strength would end up being more important than local households for the BTN.
LikeLike
You might need academic “cover” to take both–ie…the other schools being all highly ranked academically—some combo of Tx, A&M, Pitt, RU, GT, Vandy, VA, MD, ND, or perhaps a western-based exp of TX, A&M, Neb, MO, RU…the academic issue would be most problematic with our “presumed” expansion of 3 we’ve discussed — RU, Neb, Mo
LikeLike
@Mushroomgod
Please take note — once again — Rutgers (and Pitt) are top tier research schools and not ‘problematic’. In the AWRU rankings (for the Americas):
UVa — 54,
Texas A&M — 53,
Vanderbilt — 33,
UMD — 30,
Texas — 31,
Rutgers — 39,
Pitt — 40.
All of these schools are middle of the pack in the Big Ten, which is to say among the very finest universities in the world.
The other candidates at the bottom or below, but not too shabby in the greater scheme:
Iowas is 60-77
Ga. Tech is 60-77
Nebraska is 78-99,
Missouri is 100-134,
The AWRU numbers are not the only measure, of course, but the point is that most of the schools in the mix are among the very best D-1 schools available in the country.
LikeLike
One thing I’d mention however is that Missouri and NJ tend to have very good football recruiting grounds (even if for other states).
That plus population makes them safe, if unexciting additions that can be “urged” to improve academics.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska is still a shoe-in. I have to assume Notre Dame will get a call a couple days before any announcement. Rutgers must still be in the mix. I love the news that Missouri is likely shit outta luck.
———
Assuming a five school expansion:
-Spot #12 goes to Nebraska
-Spots #13-#15 are offered to Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland, Virginia, Vandy, and Rutgers in that order
-Notre Dame gets a call asking them to decide if they want school #16 to be Notre Dame or School X (the next school in the pecking order that hasn’t already accepted or rejected — probably Vandy or Rutgers)
LikeLike
I disagree. If this rumor is even remotely true, then I think there’s a high probability that tBT is serious about letting ND be. For the most part, these five are/have…
* AAU Membership
* High Ranked in the USNWR
* Highly Ranked in the ARWU
* High-$ Research
* High Enrollment
* Prestige: + tBT’s Image
* Profile: Flagship State U’s
* Geographic Fit: < Footprint
* Large Media Markets: < TV $
ND has very few of these. ND is not a good institutional fit in the BT. They belong in the ACC.
LikeLike
Well, Vanderbilt has low enrollment, it is not a flagship state university and has no TV market.
For MD, Virginia and Vanderbilt, the research numbers are very good compared to the better schools in the nation (see my post below)–but they’d be on the very bottom of the BT.
LikeLike
@djinn,
I love your posts!
I agree with Vandy’s low enrollment, that’s why I said, “For the most part.” I like UT, TAMU & MD… but I’m not sold on UVA or Vandy. I’d rather them be replaced with NU & Pitt.
LikeLike
Agree with @Sportsman24 completely. I think ND and the Big 10 realize they’re better off as neighbors than partners. And I think there may be some “no” votes to ND among the presidents and chancellors where there weren’t in 99 and 03.
LikeLike
Sportsman you must have been watching too many games & not enough news to realize that ND was the last publicly announced invitee to the B10. The COP/C thinks ND fits in the B10, but are probably ready to move on. At one time, ND even applied to the B10 but I think it was 110 years ago with Nebraska. By your logic NW & UC would not be a good fit for the B10. Anybody who has been on the ND campus, other B10 campuses, & other conference campuses could label ND as either B10 or ACC, BUT the subconscious urges B10 due to the 3 games/yr in football, the midwest/rural setting, no real connection to BEast except for the other Catholic schools.
LikeLike
@SBD10,
While I appreciate your keen insight and ability to break a story of such magnitude, you may want to read all of my posts on this and the previous blogs before you jump to conclusions.
To recap some of my posts…
When this round of BT expansion began, my initial preference was ND only. Since I’ve been researching the issue on this and other sites, my opinion/preference has changed. I now believe that ND would not be a good institutional fit.
If ND joined the BT…
* they would be the only Sectarian instution. As you may have read here, that is very concerning to many a Domer.
* they would be the 2nd Private institution in the BT (the 3rd in the CIC). While NW does $400M+ and UChi does $300M+ in Research, ND does less than $50M.
The BT is comprised of universities that have similar goals in higher learning. ND would be a significant outlier in these goals.
Talks of ND in the BT go back much longer than I’ve been alive, but I am familiar with times when ND tried to join the BT (including 1900 & Rockne) and other times when the BT pursued ND (including 1999 & 2003). Each time, the other party decided against the union for whatever reason(s). They are star-crossed lovers, that are better off as Just Friends.
The ACC has multiple Privates, including at least two sectarian (including fellow Catholic BC).
There are only two reasons why ND is in the discussion for BT membership… Football Brand and proximity. If ND were less successful (historically) on the FB field &/ located outside the BT footprint, they would likely not be included in any expansion talk.
I do not believe that tBT & ND would be a mutually-fulfilling merger in the long run. This is not an emotional decision on my part (I grew up Catholic & have a soft-spot for ND), this is an intellectual decision. It appears that the BT may be thinking along the same lines as I am. Does this mean that I don’t think ND will join… No. It is possible that they will. I just don’t think it would be a happy marriage.
LikeLike
The Big Ten may not want to take the first three from the Big XII. I think Spot 12 goes to Texas. Spot 13 goes to A&M if necessary for UT to get No. 12. Then spots 14 and 15 go to Virginia and Maryland (assuming Texas is on board). Spot 16 is for Notre Dame if they want in. Otherwise, it would be Nebraska, Rutgers, or Vanderbilt.
If Texas and Notre Dame are both out, I think the Big Ten would only expand to 12 teams and the team that would get spot 12 in that scenario would be Nebraska.
LikeLike
Screw Vandy….get real
LikeLike
“us sports fans may have failed to place enough emphasis on the academic branding of the Big 10”
i laugh what’s left of my ass off.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Mizzou readers now on suicide watch.
LikeLike
Mizzou fan expectations peak, only to be crushed bitterly at the last moment. Somehow, everything is right with the world.
LikeLike
Wait, I thought Missouri fans just wanted to be away from Texas. Wouldn’t this accomplish that?
LikeLike
News item:
B10 announces expansion: Nebraska, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia to join.
Meanwhile, on a Big XII Conference call:
Bebbe: So, we’re agreed to invite Utah. If they decline, then BYU.
(murmurs of agreement)
(Ding)
Mizzou: Sorry about being late, guys. Great to be here.
Kansas: Were you expecting to be on the Big 10 Conference Call?
Mizzou: About that. Look, we really like it here. We weren’t serious about leaving. Just having a little fun. You guys are the best!
Oklahoma: While you were off the call we made some by-law changes. For starters, all schools from states that end in the letter ‘i’ are automatically last in the bowl order. Regardless of record.
Texas Tech: And those schools have to change their colors to pink and yellow. Since they’re girlie cowards.
A&M: And their team mascot is now a kitten.
Texas: And last, but not least, all schools from states that end in the letter ‘i’ have to spend then next 20 years eating shit and being grateful for it. So, how about a thank you?
Mizzou: (meekly) Thank you.
Beebe: Ok, I think we’re done. Great call.
(schools all click off)
(Ding)
Iowa State: Hey guys, thanks for waiting. Is anybody out there?
LikeLike
How about this for the new “dream” scenario:
Texas
Texas A&M
Notre Dame
Virginia
Maryland
I’d still love to see Nebraska in the Big Ten, but I don’t think Texas would come alone (or without Notre Dame). Because of its name and tradition, Nebraska likely would be the first alternate for Texas, A&M, or Notre Dame.
My question about the ACC teams is whether they would really leave behind the ACC. If so, then those two teams would be a great addition. Backup options for these teams would be Rutgers and Vandy (both have good demographics and academics like the ACC schools).
Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse would be second alternates.
My guess is that Texas and Notre Dame need to entice each other into the conference and that one or both would be needed to break VA/MD away from the ACC.
So if ND and TX say no, then the most likely way to get to 16 (for the BTN) would be back to the old plan of Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse.
LikeLike
East Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, Indiana
North Pod: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South Pod: Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Northwestern
West Pod: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois
LikeLike
If that were the setup killme now. How about
East PSU, MD, Va, OSU
North MICH, MSU, Wis, ND
South Ind. Pur. Ill. NW
West Iowa, UT, TAM, Minn
LikeLike
i’m going to tell you that i think you get texas, and i think the seal on the deal is these other five, if you get them.
many here and many in the longhorn community will squeal like stuck pigs, but academics is and has been the biggest driver in this outside of dollars. really, though, the academic shift discussed here will probably translate into a hell of a lot of dollars.
with all the talk on this blog and elsewhere about diluting the big ten’s academic profile i had begun to seriously doubt that the longhorns would head your way. now i have to wonder if discussions with austin haven’t had at least a small hand in zeroing on these particular schools.
i think delany tried to send this message when he spoke, but somehow it just didn’t get through.
LikeLike
If you got an initial four of Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland, and Virginia (and ND is out of the picture), would you want team number five to be Vanderbilt or Nebraska?
Texas is the only bona fide football power of the initial four. The academics are all stellar. In that situation, I think Nebraska would be a better pick than Vanderbilt or Rutgers.
LikeLike
That would be true, and I’ would love to see Nebraska in the Big Ten…but just imagine the reaction you would get for poaching from the mighty and invulnerable SEC.
LikeLike
This would be the reaction th the Big Ten poaching Vandy: “Yawn.”
LikeLike
We might be doing the SEC a favor (from a sports fan’s perspective). Florida State or Virginia Tech would be nice replacements.
LikeLike
Awesome apt reply!
LikeLike
I could see Vandy as a partner to Northwestern in a 16 team league. That gives the Big10 2 private high caliber research Universities.
I think in this scenario Texas is only needed to go along with the other 3 heavy weights in OSU, MI, and PSU
Texas A&M slides into the middle tier with Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan State.
This scenario seems believable. State flagships except for Vandy. Academic and research powerhouses. Includes only one powerhouse school in Texas. All the rest are solid schools that would not be “missed” from their previous conferences per se. Doesn’t destroy any conference.
LikeLike
@prophetstruth,
Iowa & Wisconsin have separated themselves from the MSU’s of the BT. They are solid Tier 2 FB programs in the BT, and climbing (hopefully). TAMU would join MSU in Tier 3 of the BT hierarchy.
LikeLike
what i would want is not important. i think texas would say vandy.
LikeLike
oops. forgot the format here. intended for paul.
LikeLike
It was a rhetorical question. I didn’t mean you personally.
LikeLike
Texas and A&M–no problem, as discussed ad nauseum. Slam dunks.
Maryland? 37,000 students. Ranked #53 USNews. #28 on ARWU. #41 in research with $395 million, (which would be 9th in the Big Ten). Very good market if it brings DC/Baltimore. Decent sports, though not exactly a football power.
My verdict? All in all, I think this would be a good addition, as many of us have stated previously.
Virginia? Nearly 20,000 students. Ranked #24 on USNews, #51 on ARWU. #70 in research with $257 million, which would be last in the Big Ten). Market? Does it take both Virginia and Maryland to bring in DC-Baltimore? Why do I think Maryland would draw this market better? Is the football team really any draw?
My verdict: Fine academically, but all in all, not the greatest choice, especially if you can get Maryland, which has significantly more alumni and appeals to DC just as well and Baltimore even more. I certainly wouldn’t turn on the BTN to watch Virginia play.
Vanderbilt? 12,500 students. Ranked #17 USNews. #31 on ARWU. #37 in research at $422 million, but would be 9th in the Big Ten. No TV market. And do they have sports teams?
My verdict: Vanderbilt just doesn’t make sense in any way other than academics. Or if you’re just trying to stick it to the SEC a little bit. If you want academics, invite MIT to join the CIC and let another school come in for the sports.
Overall: Anything with Texas would be a home run. A&M and Maryland, they’re fine, too. But I’d forget any school that starts with a V. (You may as well consider Vassar if you’re considering Vanderbilt.) Add Nebraska for football and one more. Maybe Rutgers for decent academics, more alumni and another large market.
LikeLike
Agreed. But, if we added UT/TAMU, MD & NU, I’d like to see Pitt over RU.
PS: @djinn, Thank you for your info regarding the CIC in previous blog comments. I have a much clearer understanding of what the CIC is and what it does.
LikeLike
Why do you and so many others continue to place a few million dollars in revenue over building a more powerful institutional brand.
Vandy + Virginia vs. Nebraska + Rutgers. The two Vs bring so much more to the table strategically, I can’t believe that the first instinct is to drop them.
Again, trends matter. In the last five years Virginia has supplanted Michigan as an undergraduate destination of choice. Certainly 2020 is part of the relevant planning horizon and Virginia will clearly have supplanted Michigan in the minds of the general public by then — as they say the recipe is simple — better more talented students year in and year out leads to a better reputation. In fact, by 2020, Virginia and Vandy could be top 16 universities. The Big Ten gaining the two Vs would be a tremendous coup — one I think that they would resist — I don’t see what they gain from joining the Big Ten as much as what the Big Ten clearly gains. I am not an acolyte of the Big Ten but if true, you should take this deal in a heartbeat — it is a better deal than I would ever of thought that the Big Ten would receive.
LikeLike
I meant to add: I realize that given the state economies of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan and their effect on budgets of state schools and the generally low endowments held by these schools, five million dollars is a lot of money to lose — but most Big Ten schools can simply admit another 250 freshman a year and you can easily cover it. 250 wouldn’t appreciably lower average ACT or SAT metrics, attrition is 15-20% per year for the first two years so after the first semester you can always find them space on campus, and adding five or ten students per section of the Introductory courses will not be noticed.
LikeLike
What’s your ongoing beef with Michigan? Post after post… Say what you want, but ARWU ranks it #22 in the world. The QS rankings list it as #19 in the world. If you can be even slightly objective, Michigan’s academic reputation speaks for itself.
Now whether Virginia or Vanderbilt is better schools than this or that is debatable. But I’m not going to say anything against either school on an academic level. They’re clearly very good institutions and would make fine additions to the Big Ten on an that level. I can see the Big Ten’s interest in that regard.
And while I’m all for adding quality institutions to the Big Ten, Big Ten expansion at this point in time is motivated by more than academics. Even BT officials have stated its been prompted by the BTN. And from that perspective–these two “V” schools don’t offer a lot of product worth watching by anyone outside of their alumni.
You could make a case for Virginia if it does get you the Washington DC market, and I don’t know if it does. But from the BTN perspective, I’d still rather have a school that gives you something someone in an outside market would find worth watching. Would you subscribe to the BTN because you heard Virginia is now a BT member?
As for Vanderbilt, it gives you what market exactly? Who on earth is going to tune in to watch Vanderbilt in either of the sports that generate cash? It’s Saturday afternoon and Notre Dame isn’t playing. Are you tuning into the BTN to watch Vanderbilt? I guarantee there’s an SEC, Big 12 or Pac-10 game more intriguing.
Seriously, if you want a good school with sports that cannot compete at a division one level, why not add Vassar? Or MIT? Or Johns Hopkins? Or Cal Tech? Or the Sorbonne, for that matter? All great schools. All would enhance the academic profile of the Big Ten. And all give you about the same BTN product.
If the argument is that you don’t need great football or basketball to make for a good expansion candidate, if all you need is enough alumni to tune in to make this worthwhile, well, neither school is particularly large, so its not like there are a lot of alumni to tune in either.
That’s my problem with these schools. Beyond a new market, beyond inviting a good school academically, the BTN needs to have something actually worth watching.
LikeLike
DC has the largest per capita college graduate population of any major metro area. These people will watch BTN, more UVA than Maryland, because I lived there. Virginia is the choice of destination over Maryland for HS students but Maryland has better BB & FB presently. Alumni in Philly & NY will travel I-95 to see games. DC is a 9 hour drive from MSU or a cheap Southwest flight from most BT campuses. DC is a great place to visit in the fall and I think COPC would prefer these 2 over Mizzou/Nebraska even if they do not bring the top sports.
LikeLike
Totallt agree rich2. UVA is an absolute no-brainer (full disclosure here: undergrad at Northwestern grad at UVA). UVA is the preeminent public university in the country (arguemnts from UC Berkely and UM duly noted). Athletic department is top notch across the board in numerous sports (men’s basketball and football have been down recently but have a ton of potential). Vandy is a world class institution on all levels. Also an absolute no-brainer. Let me ask everyone this? Would you accept Harvard into the Big 10. My answer is absolutely. Just by association with a prestigious university like that will elevate the the reputaion of all the other universities
LikeLike
@djinndjinn – My personal thinking is along the lines of yours, although I think the Big Ten would take UVA in a heartbeat without any questions. Research funding levels aside, UVA’s academic reputation is stellar in the general public’s eyes and that’s worth a ton for a conference that fancies itself as the “Public Ivy League”. Vandy still perplexes me. I’d switch out Vandy for Rutgers if I were running things (and I’m not someone that’s completely sold that the NY/NJ market can realistically be obtained). Of course, if you can switch out Vandy for Notre Dame, then it would be a massive grand slam on all levels. The sports fan in me definitely would rather see Nebraska in that spot, too. Finally, put me on the record as someone that LOVES the thought of Miami in the Big Ten even though I know it isn’t a “traditional” Big Ten-type school – great national TV draw, fantastic football recruiting base and improving academics (although not an AAU member).
LikeLike
Maybe Texas is really interested in improving its academic reputation. And I could see adding Vanderbilt if it gets you Texas somehow. Or if the BT goes to 20 maybe.
Right now, at 11 teams, I personally find only 5 or 6 teams worth watching (speaking about football).
But if you go to 16, a Texas would make it 6 or 7 teams worth watching. But I think you need still more TV product. Nebraska or Miami may not be as strong academically as Vanderbilt or Virginia, but to my eyes, both offer something a lot more watchable, at least on the football field.
If I’m not a BT alum and I live somewhere where the BTN is not on basic cable, I’m not subscribing if the BT adds Vanderbilt or Virginia. Great schools, to be sure, but I’m not interested in their teams.
However, I might well subscribe if it had a few more teams in the Texas, Nebraska or Miami sort of family.
LikeLike
@djinndjinn:
Does it take both Virginia and Maryland to bring in DC-Baltimore? Why do I think Maryland would draw this market better? Is the football team really any draw?
I lived inside the Beltway in DC for most of the 2000s, and my distinct impression is that the best way to this market, if obtainable at all through a single school, is through neither UVa nor UMD but rather through Virginia Tech.
I know that Vincent might disagree, but as an impartial observer in this particular case, it always struck me as peculiar how little Maryland seemed to matter to the DC market as a whole relative to its size and location. For those of you unfamiliar with College Park, it is not in the middle of the state. It is an inside-the-Beltway DC suburb.
That’s why I’ve taken assertions on this board that adding Maryland would “deliver” DC to the Big 10 with a big grain of salt. There are certainly other reasons Maryland may or may not be attractive, but that, to me, isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
Strongly agree on MD’s TV draw in greater DC (and to a slightly lesser extent on VA.) DC is like NYC, LA, and Houston: Half of the market is from somewhere else.
LikeLike
Should read: “MD’s anemic TV draw…”
LikeLike
I live in DC currently, and have been in the area since 1999. While I agree that UMD and UVA don’t necessarily have tremendous support in the area individually, taking the two of them locks down the area. IMO, there is no doubt about that. VT is not really any better than the other two on an individual basis. The area is actually dominated by Big Ten folks already, with a very large PSU contingent. The problem is that from the perspective of TV and cable, it’s considered an ACC market. That changes with the addition of UMD and UVA.
Keep in mind, however, that the above relates to football only. Once basketball season starts, things change. UMD has a very strong basketball following in the area. That alone would lock things up re: the BTN.
LikeLike
Virginia is a large state and will continue to get bigger in the years to come. While some of that population increase will come from elsewhere in the country, their children will grow up paying attention to the local schools and their rivals in whatever conference they play.
If Virginia + Maryland gets the BTN everywhere in the 2 states + DC, then it’s a good monetary addition for the Big Ten now, and a stronger in the future. Looking at US Census projections, Virginia will have 9.8 million people in 2030 (barely more than New Jersey, slightly less than Michigan), Maryland 7 million people (more than Massachusetts, Indiana, or Missouri), and DC .4 million people.
Maryland also might not come without Virginia. Virginia and Penn State gives Maryland 2 natural rivals in conference.
It is also possible that Texas has asked for more schools to improve the conference’s baseball potential.
LikeLike
I read somewhere that for every state the Big Ten has a member school they get ~$.70 per subscriber, and .10 sense for every other subscriber. If this is so adding the State of Virginia catches a lot of people that would not be caught by Md. Any subscriber in Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria etc. would only get the B10 .10 a month, as opposed to .70.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that’s accurate. It’s not around $0.70 per subscriber in the state, the way I understand it is that it’s about $0.70 per subscriber WHEN THE BTN IS ON THE BASIC CABLE PACKAGE, and about $0.10 per subscriber when it’s an upgraded package (i.e. sports package). So in theory, they don’t absolutely HAVE TO HAVE a school in a state to get the $0.70/subscriber, they just have to get the BTN on that state’s basic cable.
LikeLike
If we want Lost metaphors, this post is the moment Ben moved the island. It’s the moment where things go from “You know, there’s a lot of weird stuff happening” to “wtf just happened, I’m so confused”.
I think this has been mentioned before, but UVA’s new president Teresa Sullivan was formerly the provost at Michigan.
I am currently at Virginia for graduate school and I somewhat keep up with the sports (still figuring out lacrosse). Let me say that I have heard absolutely zero from anyone about potentially changing conferences, not even throwaway comments or crazy “what-if” scenarios. I’ve said multiple times on this blog that I would extraordinarily surprised if any of core 6 schools of the ACC (UVa, MD, WF, UNC, Duke, NCSU) or wannabe core member VT left the conference. I don’t have any particularly “inside” contacts though.
Academically this is a monster, in the “pick whatever 5 schools you want” variety. If you were allowed to select any 5 BCS schools not in the Pac-10, this is arguably the best possible grouping. (Duke, UNC, UF, and Pitt to go to 20?) The athletic equivalent would be something like Texas, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, and Notre Dame from 30 years ago.
One question though. Why Vanderbilt over Duke? Academically, Duke is better. Athletically, in football they are a wash and Duke is substantially better for basketball. They are both small private schools, so no advantages there in terms of alumni numbers. Is it strictly willingness to leave? Too many ACC schools at that point?
LikeLike
I only picked 3 out of 5. Is hitting .600 still the standard for a softball league?
Long ago in one of Frank’s earlier articles I mentioned Sullivan’s background which includes her undergrad at Michigan State, a Ph.D at Chicago and a long career at Texas. Has she been at UVA long enough to build momentum in the UVA community to take a serious look at a possible invite?
LikeLike
I understand why Duke is getting much love from everyone, but (as a sports fan) I just do not want them in the BT. While I respect Coach K and what he has done with their BB program, I am not a fan (to say the least). Also, from prior commenters, it sounds like the don’t have true fans… just band-wagoners (that don’t travel).
LikeLike
As someone married to a Dukie I can honestly say that their alumni are freakishly loyal / committed to their sports teams.
However, I think they would need one hell of a Don Corleone for them to even think about leaving the ACC. The only way they go is if UNC goes as well.
LikeLike
Fallacies, fallacies, fallacies.
I would like to pre-empt a bit the onslaught of “connections” conspiracy theorists. There are two fallacies at work:
1) Analysis of issues in a vacuum.
Gee has a strong connection to Vandy. Spanier has a connection to Nebraska. A commenter on the previous post noted the Illinois-UConn connection. The world of presidents and provosts at major universities is a small one. Every 11 of the B10 presidents has their own ties. It would not surprise me if every candidate has some close tie to at least one B10 president. Now, Gee may be the most respected and may have the strongest connection. So, in a tie on all counts, he could push a school over the top. But most likely these “connections” cancel each other out and the matrix of qualifications the B10 develops makes the decision, not the right phone call at the right time. I would grant that a school not originally thought of might be able to get on a list to consider in this fashion. But, at that point only the full range of merits of that institution will out.
2) Coincidence as causation
Let’s say Nebraska gets in. The story written by the semi-competent sports journalism community will probably talk about how NU’s AD or President worked with this AD or that President in the B10 to midwife their entry blah, blah, blah. The real story would be NU’s strong national brand, programs, good academics, strong traditions, history, etc. But that story is too boring — it’s much more interesting to write some silly gossipy story.
If Nebraska gets in, the causation is its value as a school and athletic program. It will only be a coincidence that, say, Graham Spanier (Penn State) used to be at Nebraska.
See ya at the grassy knoll, ‘connections’ proponents.
LikeLike
Um…don’t forget that Barry Alvarez, who is a key cog in all of this, is a former Nebraska player and was even discussed briefly as a potential replacement/caretaker for Bill Callahan at Nebraska if Bo said ‘no’.
As for Nebraska, there is no way that the Big 10 doesn’t invite them. Despite the small population base, they have built one of the premiere college athletic programs in the nation.
Being that Nebraska is contiguous to the Big 10 footprint and the program has bucked all of the socioeconomic indicators that suggest Nebraska should not have such a caliber of program, you have to take them–Nebraska is more or less golden, population shift or economy be damned.
As far as Missouri goes, folks need to realize that at least 1/3rd of those TV sets are Nebraska’s in that state. Having a poor program like Missouri for as long as they have will do that to a viewership base.
LikeLike
um there are not 2 million nebraska fans in the state of missouri. that’s just f’ing stupid
LikeLike
@ Whatever
Do you really believe that the entire state population of Missouri tunes in to watch college football? Of the population that tunes in to watch college football it isn’t “f’ing stupid” to say that 1/3 of those people are Nebraska fans.
LikeLike
ok fine point taken but honestly it doesn’t matter what the number of is but for argument’s sake let’s say 1 million people tune in to college football on a given saturday in Missouri. You honestly think almost 333,333 of those people are husker fans? that’s just another shining example of over the top husker arrogance (i.e. f’ing stupid).
LikeLike
@ Whatever,
You obviously know nothing about Nebraska’s following. I’ve attended watch parties in Tulsa (way farther away from Lincoln than Missouri; reference a map) where 250-300 people show up for watch parties; and that is just in the city of Tulsa alone. It is not farfetched to think that 333,000 people would turn on their TV sets in the entire state of Missouri to watch Nebraska play. It’s not arrogance if you are pointing out plausible scenarios……you sound like a bitter Missouri fan with the f’ing stupid remark; it is very unbecoming.
LikeLike
trust me…i’m not bitter about anything. i’m just calling this what it is. now you’re using an example of a tulsa watch party with 300 people as an argument. The more likely argument is that those 300 people were the majority the nebraska fans in tulsa. in either case it’s impossible to extrapolate anything from that let alone that it’s even plausible that 333,333 husker fans live in missouri. if you said there were 10-20,000 total that would be a much more meaningful number. i’m sure there’s plenty of husker fans in missouri and elsewhere but just be reasonable.
LikeLike
You know, I’m not a particular fan of teams like Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Miami or USC. But assuming they have a quality opponent, I’d tune in to see them play. (I can’t say that’s true about Maryland, Virginia or Vanderbilt.)
I’d believe the same thing could be true about the Huskers for a TV audience in Missouri. I’d imagine a lot of people in Missouri would tune in. I’m not sure you have to be a fan of the school. Just a fan of quality football.
LikeLike
As a Kansas fan, I’ll vouch for the Nebraska fan’s numbers. They aren’t a stretch of the imagination by any means– especially during a historically typical year where Nebraska is doing well and Mizzou is bad to mediocre.
LikeLike
Or maybe you just hate Nebraska. Or Texas, or USC, or Florida, so you watch their games not as a fan, but to root for the underdog. It makes not a whit of difference to the cable company or the advertiser what your motivation for watching is.
LikeLike
Thanks Gopher86.
To add another point, Nebraska has apparel stores outside of the state of Nebraska, even including Colorado.
Considering that Nebraska has better TV ratings that all candidates being discussed, save for (only on occasion) Texas, it’s not far fetched.
LikeLike
The last 2 invitees were PSU & ND. Mizzou & Nebraska are not in the same academic league & the COPC would likely pick UMD, Pitt, Rutgers over them. The main reason they would take a year to analyze this is to see if high academic schools could deliver the BTN in the footprint notwithstanding their lesser athletic profile. They want the other public Ivies over sports I think.
LikeLike
Yes, fundamentals are the most important underpinning in forging partnerships among schools. But in the 1980s, the Big 10’s expansion would not have happened without Bryce Jordan reaching out to Stanley Ikenberry, who had a strong connection to PSU. That’s not conspiracy theory, its fact. Both of the principals have discussed the deal, at length. So it is not knollery to think about what connections may exists between and among decision-makers and institutions. It is reality. When you look for a job, you are selling your talents and qualifications (the fundamentals) but the first phone calls you make are to people with whom you have a relationship. There is no tension or contradiction between these two ideas.
LikeLike
I think it is likely that the B10 presidents were aware of Penn State’s existence before Mr. Ikenberry came along.
This phone call may have been a catalyst. But you are fixated on this relationship. A more plausible explanation is that Jordan and the Penn State trustees decided that joining the B10 was their best alternative, once spurned by the eastern schools. Jordan started the ball rolling by calling the person he had the closest relationship with. If Ikenberry had been on sabbatical in Nepal, I’m sure Jordan would have called his second choice among the B10 bigwigs.
By your logic, if Ikenberry had been president of the Univ of Akron, Penn State would be playing in the MAC.
Like I said, there is a complicated web of relationships. Everyone in the B10 has connections. They will probably cancel out.
LikeLike
Personal relationships in business only start or facilitate mergers. Otherwise two good friends Gates & Buffett would merge companies by your logic. Mergers occur for synergistic purposes or in this case universities seeking their strategic affiliation. Do you marry a woman because you have known her for a long time or marry the right one?
LikeLike
Couldn’t resist a pod-shot:
Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Vanderbilt (really should have been an ACC school this whole time)
Ohio State
MSU
Michigan
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Texas
Texas A&M
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
LikeLike
Here’s a Pod shot back at you…
* West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
* East: MD*, OSU, PSU, Pitt*
* North: IU, MI, MSU& PU
* South: IL, NW, UT*, TAMU*
LikeLike
These are always fun:
School (permanent opponent, secondary opponent):
Atlantic:
Penn State (OSU, Texas A&M)
Maryland (Texas, Michigan State)
Virginia (Vanderbilt, Wisconsin)
Purdue (Indiana, Northwestern)
Central:
Ohio State (PSU, Iowa)
MSU (Wisconsin, Maryland)
Michigan (Minnesota, Texas)
Northwestern (Illinois, Purdue)
River:
Illinois (Northwestern, Indiana)
Iowa (Texas A&M, OSU)
Wisconsin (MSU, Virginia)
Minnesota (Michigan, Vanderbilt)
South:
Texas (Maryland, Michigan)
Texas A&M (Iowa, PSU)
Indiana (Purdue, Illinois)
Vanderbilt (Virginia, Minnesota)
—————————————
Year 1&2: Atlantic Central & South River
Non-conference games:
PSU v Texas A&M
Maryland v Texas*
Virginia v Vanderbilt*
Purdue v Indiana*
OSU v Iowa
MSU v Wisconsin*
Michigan v Minnesota*
Northwestern v Illinois*
—————————————
Year 3&4: Atlantic River & South Central
Non-conference games:
PSU v OSU*
Maryland v Texas*
Virginia v Vanderbilt*
Purdue v Indiana*
Illinois v Northwestern*
Iowa v Texas A&M*
Wisconsin v MSU*
Minnesota v Michigan*
—————————————
Year 5&6: South Atlantic & Central River
Non-Conference games:
PSU v OSU*
Maryland v Michigan State
Virginia v Wisconsin
Purdue v Northwestern
Texas v Michigan
Texas A&M v Iowa*
Indiana v Illinois
Vanderbilt v Minnesota
LikeLike
Actually, if these are the schools they are really picking, I think they might want to just have 7 official conference games per year. This would allow schools to schedule at least 2 good non-conference games. While some old Big 10 schools could schedule each other for an 8th game, Penn State could schedule Rutgers for an East Coast rival; Virginia could schedule Virginia Tech and North Carolina; Texas could schedule Oklahoma and Notre Dame (or Texas Tech, if the legislature pressed).
To do this, you would need to preserve as many rivalries in your quadrants as possible:
OSU, Michigan, MSU, PSU
Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vanderbilt
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland, Virginia
A more geographically balanced approach would be to pair the 2 Texas schools with the 2 Illinois schools, and the Atlantic schools with the Indiana schools.
LikeLike
When you break it into pods, these expansions breaks down.
On this one, you don’t end up with a 4th anchor school. This only matters because you end up with a few pods that are woefully inferior to other pods. How do you decide who gets stuck with Texas & A&M? Ohio St.? No offense to Wisconsin, but it is quite a lucky break to end up with them as your anchor school.
Why not just split into two divisions:
Texas…. Ohio St.
Texas A&M… Penn St.
Wisconsin…. Michigan
Iowa…. Michigan St.
Minnesota…Maryland
Illinois…Virginia
Northwestern…Vanderbilt
Indiana…Purdue
The tough spot would be splitting Purdue/Indiana for football. But I just don’t see any other way. Pretty parallel talent-wise.
Then you play 2 of the other schools on a rotating basis each year. Play everyone every 4 years.
LikeLike
You could always flip-flop Vandy and Indiana in that scenario. Keeps Purdue/Indiana as a divisional game. Creates a divisional game between Northwestern and Vandy.
LikeLike
Because in 2 divisions (which I prefer) some of the schools may moan about only playing MI, OSU, and PSU only once every four years. Could do 3 of 8, but TX may not want to play 10 conference games.
Alternately, you could do quads with more focus on maintaining as many annual rival games as possible rather than pod balance.
Make pods A & D division anchors. Rotate B and C between the divisions every 2 years. Those schools would play each other twice per four years. Have A play D twice each year, same for B vs. C.
Make A & D division anchors. Rotate B and C between the divisions every 2 years. Those schools would play each other twice per four years. Have A play D twice each year, same for B vs. C.
Years 1 & 2:
A – TX, aTm, NW, IL
B – WI, IA, MN, VB
C – VA, MD, PU, IU
D – PSU, OSU, MI, MSU
Years 3 & 4:
A – TX, aTm, NW, IL
C – VA, MD, PU, IU
B – WI, IA, MN, VB
D – PSU, OSU, MI, MSU
9-game conference schedule, makes temporary divisions every 2 years, but everyone plays each other at least twice per four years. 3-2-0-2 schedule for two years, 3-0-2-2 for two years.
Again, this is more about keeping annual rivalries than geography and balance. We’re only talking the difference between playing every year vs. twice per four years.
LikeLike
Dang it, I screw up my math. It would be 3-4-0-2 and 3-0-4-2.
For pods A or D: 3 games every year in your pod, play every team in rotating pod B and none in rotating pod C for two years, play two teams in D each year. After two years swap B and C, playing every team in C and none in B for two years.
For pods B & C, 3 games every year in your pod, play two from the other twice per year, play every team from pod A and none in pod D for two years. Then swap A and D, playing four from A and none from D for two years.
LikeLike
BTW, using anchor pods could also allow an 8-game schedule, which might be key in landing ND. The difference being that A vs D and B vs C only play one game per year.
More fun with Rubik’s Quads:
A – TX, aTm, VB, NW
B – MN, WI, IA, IL
C – PU, ND, PSU, RUT
D – OSU, MI, MSU, IU
Years 1 & 2:
National Division: A+B
American Division: C+D
Years 3 & 4
Nat Div: A+C
Am Div: B+D
A and D play one game per year, same for B and C. 7 games in division, 1 cross-division.
Any way you slice it, an 8-game schedule while making ND and TX happy is going to require compromises.
LikeLike
I’m sure these five schools are being examined. Word has been leaking out that around 20 schools are under consideration, so it would make sense that these five would be in that list of 20.
But Vandy really doesn’t make sense unless it’s just tagging along with the other four to up the academics and baseball. I don’t think you can take Vandy unless you get these other four. Of course, if you get UT, TAMU, UVA and Maryland, you could add Alaska-Fairbanks as the final school and it would still make sense. You’re playing with house money in that case.
But it really doesn’t work without Texas. Without Texas, I don’t think TAMU moves to the B10. As football programs, Maryland is Michigan State in a good year and Illinois in a bad one. Virginia is Minnesota and Vandy would give Indiana someone to beat. Those may be compelling markets, but they’re not compelling games.
I also don’t know what Vandy brings that Rutgers can’t deliver. Yes, it’s a better school but it’s not that much of a better school, and Rutgers actually has a football program. For all we talk about Rutgers not delivering NYC, most of us agree it delivers NJ at least. Vandy probably doesn’t even deliver Nashville for the BTN.
The appeal of the ACC schools is obvious, except for their football programs. If you added them, you’d have to add Nebraska if UT and TAMU don’t join. This expansion has to have at least one football power and if UT and ND say no, that only leaves Nebraska.
Missouri only has one thing going for it–it’s willing to join and even the conference out at 14 or 16. It wouldn’t mess things up academically too badly and it would probably be a great team player.
While of course the Texas schools are the ultimate prize, if they don’t join, I don’t see how any of the other schools get invites over Nebraska and Rutgers. I understand the appeal to make the “Public Ivy League” slogan a reality, but the football sense has to be in there somewhere.
LikeLike
Josh & All,
Like you say Josh, these are some of the 20+ schools being looked at.
It won’t be five southern schools any more than all western or eastern schools, rather some combination.
LikeLike
Agreed, Josh. Nebraska has to be a near-certain lock. If they don’t invite them, the Big 10 is just pissing away guaranteed at that point, Texas be damned.
LikeLike
What if Nebraska and Missouri are deal-breakers for Texas? If they are so unhappy with the Texas revenue sharing issue… well, be careful what you wish for… now that issue is gone. Enjoy the Big 12.
I think it would be great if all the early
whores (Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers) get shut out.
LikeLike
In this scenario is Texas the high-class callgirl?
LikeLike
And, by the way, just as Nebraska or Missouri instituting demands involving what schools they would be willing to come in with would be extremely unwise, the same applies to Texas. The Big Ten isn’t going to fall apart if Texas or Nebraska or whomever doesn’t come in. The Big Ten is a massive upgrade, even for Texas, and perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity. Nebraska’s interest has nothing to do with shedding Texas (best case scenario they both come in) and everything to do with all that being in the Big Ten offers on all sides of the equation.
LikeLike
@ eapg
Coming from a Nebraska alum perspective you hit it right on the head. We (atleast the alumni and fans I am in contact with) don’t dislike being in a conference with or playing Texas….there is no desire to ‘shed’ Texas and it certainly is not a motivating factor in moving to the Big Ten….what we see in the Big 10 as alumni and fans is a conference where no one’s say out weighs another and that is what we are after. Its not Texas as a program we dispise at all; we actually enjoy competing with Texas although we’ve come up on the short end more often than not recently in the series. What we do dispise is the influence Texas has over the conference and the descisions being made regarding the conference (conference offices, title game location, partial qualifiers, etc.) granted I know that these issues would not necessarily go Nebraska’s way in the Big 10 either (i.e. partial qualifiers) but atleast the decisions wouldn’t be influenced heavily by a single team. If Iowa St was the dominant voice in the conference we would be treating the situation just the same. This is reflected in quotes by AD Tom Osborne when he said “the gravity of the conference seems to be moving south” once again we don’t necessarily want our way, we just are looking for a conference where the influence is more balanced.
LikeLike
@HH, serious question. I see NU fans on other boards also complaining about Texas. But it amazes me that they complain about 11-1 votes where Nebraska is the outlier (such as having the CCG in Jerry World). Shouldn’t NU be looking much more at themselves instead of blaming Texas?
LikeLike
@ Loki
That’s a fair question. I for one can’t speak for those fans because I don’t mind the CCG being played at Jerry’s World; as long as it is in a rotation with a northern site. (2 years at Jerry’s World, 2 years at Arrowhead etc) Take this year for example; the majority of the tickets for the Big 12 CCG were offered to Cowboy season ticket holders first……then a fraction of the tickets were divided up between Nebraska and Texas. Who in that matchup are most Cowboy fans going to be routing for? The 11-1 vote is a little skewed. First of all A&M, Tech, Baylor, OSU, and OU would all be for having the game in Jerry’s world for location reasons….as for why the ISU, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, and Colorado all voted for it, i’m not completely sure. The popular belief among Nebraska fans (although i don’t completely agree) is that Texas’s influence sways the votes of the smaller income schools. They need the money, and the money is in Texas. They aren’t looking at it from a competitive standpoint but from a economical. As long as Texas is happy, they are happy. I’m not sure I completely agree with that; but that is what is said. Notice Osborne didn’t say “the gravity of the conference is moving to Texas” he said “the gravity of the conference is moving south”. The northern schools really have the short end on alot of descisions (yes the vote was 11-1, but the belief is that the smaller northern schools are playing ‘follow the leader’) and I think this is what alot of the belly aching is about by Nebraska fans. With money comes influence/power and right now that is in the south. In the Big 10 that isn’t the case. Unless I am reading the Big 10 instuation relationships horribly wrong; and if I am and one school has more influence than the rest, then please correct me.
LikeLike
HerbieHusker, has it every occurred to you that maybe the other North schools want the championship game in Dallas because Jerryworld will make the most money? Did you ever think that is far more important to them than which location Nebraska or Texas prefers? Have you stopped to think maybe Nebraska, by asking them to pass up money in order to make the game less of a drive, is the selfish party here?
LikeLike
@m (ag) – As an outsider on this issue, that’s pretty much what I’ve thought all along. Jerry World has 30,000 more seats than Arrowhead, an avalanche of high value corporate suites and a larger population base to draw from. There’s no single stadium in the country that can milk revenue like that stadium. As a result, financially, it’s a no-brainer for the Big XII to make Jerry World the permanent home for the championship. The Rose Bowl is a home game for USC when it’s the Pac-10 rep, but Big Ten fans that travel there never complain about the location.
LikeLike
Less of a drive, or a flight, isn’t the issue. Nebraska fans travel as well as any fans in the country, and they certainly like their breaks from winter weather.
The issue is competitive balance. Elemental fairness. Not giving the South division of the conference a permanent home game for the championship. Texas (and the South division) should be ashamed that this was even put on the table. That Nebraska lost 11-1 doesn’t burden my conscience one bit.
LikeLike
“Not giving the South division of the conference a permanent home game for the championship. ”
As far as I am aware, this is not what was voted on. There have been 7 games in the north and 7 in the south so far.
LikeLike
@m (Ag)
That is precisely why the North schools are voting it. It is also an easy vote to make when 3-4 of the schools don’t have a realistic chance of going to the title game either. From Nebraska’s prospective, they expect to go to the Big 12 championship game every year. And yes, having it in Kansas City where it is a 3 hour drive from Omaha and Lincoln, and where Chiefs fans get extra tickets is a more appealing deal than playing a game in Dallas where Cowboy ticket holders get extra tickets. Nebraska has no problem with the game being in Dallas every other year, they are just worried the Big 12 appears to be breaking the “traditional” rotation.
LikeLike
@ Loki
“As far as I am aware, this is not what was voted on. There have been 7 games in the north and 7 in the south so far.”
What was voted on was a non-binding resolution to play the next three title games in Dallas. Historically it has rotated between a North site and a South site every other year except back to back games in Texas and then two back to back games at Arrowhead.
LikeLike
The SEC Championship Game is always in Atlanta. Atlanta is in the SEC East. The Eastern team always has twice as many fans. Makes no difference to teams from the SEC West.
If you’ve ever been to the new Cowboys Stadium (I have) you’d understand why the Big XII wants the game there. Its the greatest sports venue in America.
LikeLike
“The SEC Championship Game is always in Atlanta.”
And the Big 12 Championship Game hasn’t always been in Dallas.
”
Atlanta is in the SEC East. The Eastern team always has twice as many fans. Makes no difference to teams from the SEC West.”
The difference to me in this though is that for the majority of the West schools in the SEC (other than Arkansas and LSU) the drive to Atlanta is an easy day drive or less. In the Big 12 the only North schools that have under a 10 hour drive to Dallas are the Kansas schools.
“If you’ve ever been to the new Cowboys Stadium (I have) you’d understand why the Big XII wants the game there. Its the greatest sports venue in America.”
I was there for the Big 12 championship game and it is a very nice facility. Personally I don’t care what happens with the decision, but I understand Nebraska’s perspective and why they voted against it.
LikeLike
Nebraska has been in 5 B12 championships. They won twice in San Antonio and came within a second of a major upset in Dallas. They lost as an underdog in Kansas City and lost in a major upset in St. Louis. Maybe its to their benefit to have the game in Texas.
LikeLike
@ezdozen,
Nebraska isn’t unhappy with the revenue sharing deal. They are one of the four schools that block equal revenue sharing, as they consistently benefit from the unequal sharing model.
LikeLike
Agree on RU v. Vandy, and would add that RU’s enrollment is 3X that of Vandy…and one factor recently mentioned has been alumni base…
LikeLike
How do you know its 20 schools being considered? I still am amazed that they are thinking of 3 or 5 schools when the last rounds of expansion in 90’s & early 2000’s only one school was offered. You are considering only sports/BTN whereas the COPC are looking primarily at academics. Example is they only had 7 votes to offer PSU & after that they went for ND, two schools with much higher academic profile than Neb or Miz.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Hawkeye national champs!!
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
When Sewanee, Tulane, and GT left the SEC (for reasons revolving around athletic competition and academic standards) it kind of left Vandy all alone in the SEC. Sure, Florida is up there, but outside of Florida Vandy has no academic peers in the SEC.
I think Vanderbilt would be right at home in the Big 10 from an academic standpoint. That said, I think most Vanderbilt fans would throw up in their mouths at the thought of becoming a Big 10 team, simply because they are an SEC team with SEC pride.
In thinking like a University President, moving to the Big 10, in Vandy’s case, is a slam dunk. More $$$, more academic peers, and an opportunity to finally compete on a level playing field.
Vandy is 1 of only 2 schools in the SEC that do not practice oversigning of players, Georgia being the other. This puts them at a huge disadvantage (the same one that drove GT out of the SEC back in 1964) against the other SEC schools. Whereas in the Big 10, Vandy would not have to compete against schools that blatantly oversign players and essentially run spring mini-camps for players to try out for scholarships.
If Vandy were to go then I think you would see the SEC look to add however many teams it would take to get to the same number of teams as the Big 10.
The irony here is that no matter what, you can almost bet the ranch that every school the SEC adds will be based on football and very little if anything else.
LikeLike
The other issue with Vandy is that baseball is a big sport at that school. Moving to the Big 10 would be a huge step down. It would be like Minnesota leaving the Big 10 and taking their hockey program to a new Big XII hockey league. (Yes, I know the B10 and B12 don’t have ice hockey.)
LikeLike
Tagging along with Texas would be nice though.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
Interesting, but the only reason why this works is Texas (& TAMU) and the fact that the Big12 remains a very stable/viable entity, but even then it completely destabilizes the ACC/BigEast (SEC has to replace and match & will probably do so from ACC-since Big12 is stable-ACC thus takes from BigEast, etc). Other that those two points, I just don’t get it.
MD/VA would be a nice get, but again the ACC seems stable.
Vanderbilt is definately an outlier in the SEC, but it doesn’t seem unhappy.
Baseball additions would be nice for the BTN spring line-up (slots that I think are lacking currently), but while a sport may be important to a school, I have to believe baseball isn’t anywhere near as important as football.
Academically, true a powerhouse, but as mentioned there’s needs to be some balance with $$$.
VA, while a good school with solid markets, I think provides minimally more if MD is already added. Besides, I’d argue VT is the better draw in the area. Vanderbilt (as noted) might not even provide its city (and I know it won’t provide its state).
You’d in effect be adding “two” Vanderbilts.
And really, what would those three schools (MD, VA, Vande) add that would more entice Texas to join? I don’t think its baseball…
And besides, why add VA or Vanderbilt when Rutgers is the equal or better athletically and academically?
Personally I think this (5 school expansion) is even more unlikely than a 20 team scenario and maintain the “move south” comment was an ackowledgement that the Big10 needs to become more than a mid-western regional conference, not necessarily that it needs to add schools in the south.
Whether that “non-regional” means movement into the SW (via Texas), the northeast (ND, Syracuse, UConn), or more mid-atlantic (Rutgers, MD, VA) is a matter the conference is investigating right now.
LikeLike
“MD/VA would be a nice get, but again the ACC seems stable.”
I’m not sure that we really know how stable the ACC is. They’re still digesting past expansion schools. I do know that there is tension between the Carolina schools and the non-Carolina schools though, even amongst the founders.
“Baseball additions would be nice for the BTN spring line-up (slots that I think are lacking currently), but while a sport may be important to a school, I have to believe baseball isn’t anywhere near as important as football.”
I don’t think you can ignore the importance of this. Adding premiere baseball programs gives the BTN a ton of watchable content in the spring. It’s not just that you’re adding good teams, you’re adding teams with fans who want to watch. Also, you can’t forget about lacrosse. I guarantee you that adding UMD and UVA cause the Big Ten to start sponsoring lacrosse, and gives the BTN even more solid content for the spring. That creates year round marketability for the network, with football in the fall, basketball in the winter and baseball/lacrosse in the spring. Summer? Well, no one watches tv in the summer anyway.
“VA, while a good school with solid markets, I think provides minimally more if MD is already added. Besides, I’d argue VT is the better draw in the area.”
I’ve already touched on this above, but VT really is not any better in the DC market, individually, than UMD or UVA. Perhaps further down into VA, but not really up here. DC is a hodgpodge for school affiliations, but UMD and UVA locks it down as far as a tv market.
“And besides, why add VA or Vanderbilt when Rutgers is the equal or better athletically and academically?”
You’re crazy if you think Rutgers is anywhere close to being on par with UVA or Vandy as an academic institution.
LikeLike
Rutgers is on a par with Vandy and UVa as an academic research institution. If you only consider undergraduate rankings, then I’d tend to agree. The Big Ten presidents will consider both of course, but from the standpoint of the CIC all three are strong choices and reasonably equivalent to one another.
LikeLike
Yes maybe that is why it takes a year to analyze this. Seems there are 3 or more regional options: East to slay the BEast, Mid-Atlantic ACC raid, West B12 land grab, maybe even the South route for SEC/B12 takings, or even a combination of the above regions. That is a huge strategic decision especially after the previous looks have centered on ND or the BEast area.
LikeLike
eggs.
LikeLike
Tabasco
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
more guesses.
▀ nd is NOT coming. perhaps a good thing all around.
▀ market study showed the nyc market cannot be impacted to any significant degree.
▀ like academics, shifting demographics and the associated concerns for the future are more central to this process than any of us realized.
▀ while this group of FIVE (thank you, glenn, for waiting until you are awake before commenting again) is perhaps the hot five, it may well not be the final five. so what should we expect a final five school to look like? very much like the school it replaces. you guys pining for nebraska are likely sol. (is there an echo in this room?)
▀ when it is final, going this direction will be hooted from every rafter in college sports. the espn guys are going to go nuts. they have pounded every drum for months that ACADEMICS DON’T REALLY MATTER, and they are going to be blazing hot because academics don’t matter to them and get in the way of their business. expect trouble, but the big ten guys have their shoes on the right feet here.
LikeLike
The only problem is then I’d be forced to watch ESPN get even deeper in the hind ends of the SEC as “the BEST college football conference in the HISTORY of the WORLD”…
Though it would be fun to watch their heads explode like “Scanners” when the announcement is made.
LikeLike
it’s hard to imagine espn deeper in the hinys of the sec, but your point is well taken. those guys are going to howl like scalded goats.
LikeLike
Off topic – I’ve gotta ask…what’s with the “adding” and “added” posts? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
Whenever you post a reply, check out some of the check boxes besides the “Submit” button. It allows you to have emails sent to you when someone replies to your/anyone’s post without having to parse through 1000 posts.
LikeLike
Ah, makes sense. Tks.
LikeLike
This expansion poses an interesting problem from a “game theory” perspective. The Big Ten with Texas or Notre Dame is much more attractive than a Big Ten without these teams. Getting one attractive piece greatly increases the likelihood of getting the other and then the likelihood of getting teams to leave other good situations (ACC/SEC).
Based on this, I assume that the Big Ten is (or would like to be) negotiating with both Texas and Notre Dame–together–in a coordinated fashion. Without knowing where it stands with these two schools, the Big Ten would not want to move forward with the less attractive options that would come without the need to align so many other moving parts (Nebraska, Missouri, Big East).
As part of its negotiations with the two big prizes, it would be in the Big Ten’s best interest to create the impression that it is going to expand to 16 one way or the other (to let ND and Tex see what they will have to deal with in the event they decline.)
If ND and Tex ever get on board, at least conceptually, then I would expect the rhetoric to change.
An interesting question, to me, is whether the Big Ten will follow through with its threatened expansion in the event Notre Dame and Texas say “thanks but no thanks.” My guess is that the optimum strategy would be to undertake a slightly smaller expansion that would (1) still shake things up considerably, (2) make lots of money, and (3) leave room for the big prizes to change their minds after seeing (1) and (2) happen.
In the “thanks but no thanks” scenario, Nebraska would be the most obvious team to add, because it would destabilize (without destroying) the Big Twelve, shift some football power to the Big Ten, and get fans excited. Rutgers would also make sense because it is a big market, it has good academics, and it would destabilize (maybe without destroying) the Big East.
I can see the Big Ten stopping at 13 instead of filling the spots with less optimum choices like Missouri and the other Big East teams.
LikeLike
‘optimum’ is a funny word. it means different things to different people.
LikeLike
To me it means “spaghetti”.
LikeLike
Are you guys saying I’m stupid? I get that feeling a lot on this board.
LikeLike
absolutely not at all, paul. far from. certainly didn’t mean to suggest that.
this is such a nebulous situation that it is hard to know what optimum would look like. we don’t truly know the goals of the various key parties, and without that we are throwing darts in a dark room.
LikeLike
I’d actually argue they’d take that last one now and make the move to 14. Whether is be a Pitt, Mizzou, Syracuse the point is to show the Big10 is serious this round of expansion is it “unless something amazing comes along”.
If Texas or another big school suddenly come along, then they can revist, but its important to show at least the face of a conference willing to maintain its current status until then.
LikeLike
If they stayed stuck on 11 for so long, then there is no reason they could not stay stuck on 13 until just the right situation comes along. Although the logo design would be trickier.
LikeLike
They’ve made it pretty clear they don’t want to be at an odd number of schools, so I don’t see 13 or 15 happening, even for a limited number of years.
LikeLike
13 and 15 don’t work. MAC found that out the hard way. You have to play everyone in your division for a championship game per NCAA rules. That means mathematically, its impossible to have teams playing the same number of games. For example, with 13 teams, for everyone in the 6 team division to get 8 games, 4 teams in the other division will have to play 9.
LikeLike
But is there a complete round-robin in the MAC in both divisions? Last year each team plyed 8 games, which means not everybody got a full division round-robin. Do they have some kind of NCAA waiver?
LikeLike
If they all played 8 last year they had to have gotten a waiver. Prior to last year I know they didn’t play the same number of games. The 1st year they were at 13 they had to redo all the schedules and make sure everyone played a complete round robin after the NCAA informed them of the rule. That was sloppy expansion.
LikeLike
This is why 16 is a must. The logo couldn’t be simpler:
“B16 TEN”
LikeLike
0MG B16 T3N 1Z T3H R0XX0R5!!1!
Sorry… l33t speak moment.
LikeLike
I still maintain (as someone else posted) that the name will remain the Big10…since 10 in hexidecimal = 16 decimal!
LikeLike
I love your logo, Pez.
LikeLike
If this new rumor is a negiotiating ploy with the Irish and/or Texas what is it trying to accomplish?
Is it to frighten the Irish? If so, how? At best it indirectly destabilizes their conference. Is it to give them an incentive to join because of the smaller non-Texas schools floated? Does adding to mid-Atlantic schools and two Texas schools suddenly make the B10 National?
Is it an inducement to Texas/TAMU? Is it providing them more Southern competition? Would UT really prefer Maryland over a more nearby Kansas or Mizzou?
The more I think about it, the more I think this may be something the Big Ten explores, but I don’t think it’ll work. I doubt any UVa or the Terps will leave the ACC for the Big Ten, and I don’t think the Big Ten really wants a Southern Northwestern-type school that can’t guarantee it’s own city.
If the presidents have an issue with Nebraska because of the open admissions or whatever, and the BTN has an issue with Mizzou’s ability to help get TVs, maybe we will see a Rutgers-only expansion.
LikeLike
Or maybe the Big 10 just isn’t that interested in Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Not with my luck. =)
LikeLike
Personally I think this is the the million dollar post.
I really don’t think the Big10 is all that interested in that school, let alone “forcing” ND’s hand.
If at the end of the day ND ends up requesting admittance, due diligence will be done, but until then the assumption will be ND isn’t joining.
LikeLike
Maybe this will be a two stage expansion, pick one or two & see what other fruit drops to the ground.
LikeLike
Vandy and Virginia both bring gigantic endowments, which I’ve pointed out as being ignored ’round these parts. This 5 team pod brings 4 gigantic endowments, plus Maryland.
LikeLike
lots of things have been ignored here. there is a reeducation underway which i see is going to take a while. that’s ok.
LikeLike
I fail to see how endowments mean much to the Big10.
Sure it means the school in question is more likely to maintain those aspect of the school the endowments fund (typically academics and infrastructure, admittedly important to the Big10), and thus its less dependent on the demographics of its home state (if publicly funded), but in the end these funds aren’t shared or leveraged among the Big10 members(as far as I know).
IMO, in the end, its just a good indicator of stability.
LikeLike
We are talking about adding $5M a year in revenue to a school. Yet a $4B endowment doesn’t mean much.
Think like a university president. Endowments mean A LOT.
LikeLike
Thank you for not answering my question…
Again, how exactly does a large endowment mean anything but @#$% all other than a gross measure of stability?
LikeLike
Just as eapg suggested in the last thread that I had written my Texas-to-the-SEC post as a trial balloon, I suggest that this post is Frank’s trial balloon to see if he can move from a blogger of news to a shaper of news. We’ll see if anyone else starts picking up this specific rumor over the next few days, and, if so, congratulations to Frank for taking the leap forward.
Reading the analysis, it makes sense, but in much the same way as an analysis of why the Big 10 would be adding any five schools pulled out of a hat containing the names of 20 or so plausible schools would be. Does it sound plausible? Sure. But is it realistic? Not really. I still don’t see any school, including Vanderbilt, abandoning the SEC, and I tend to think the ACC is more cohesive than many here want to give it credit for. Time will tell, I suppose.
I do want to take issue with one specific thing you wrote, Frank:
Just as importantly, those population changes are based more upon solid economic underpinnings (energy in Texas, federal government in Maryland and Virginia, health care in Nashville) than, as uber commenter Richard has argued, “Ponzi scheme” real estate aimed at investors and retirees in places like Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
First of all, the very reason that Texas has fared relatively well during the current nationwide economic slump is that it has deliberately diversified well beyond its status as a mere energy state. Texas is home to the headquarters of more Fortune 500 companies than any other state, having passed New York a couple of years ago.
Second, to dismiss the economic strength and growth of the Southwest and Florida as being based on a mere Ponzi scheme aimed at investors and retirees is laughable. Come on Frank, you’re smarter than that.
LikeLike
Speaking as a person who spent 2 years (of the past 3) living in Florida (St. Augustine) and traveling it fairly well I have to say that observation of the Florida boom is (sadly) more accurate than not.
I saw nothing but service industry businesses focusing on tourism and “living the good life” (basically getting the locals to double and triple mortgage their houses to spend spend spend) or contruction related jobs looking to build more homes. Also much of the new business construction stood empty, even before the recent troubles.
Where I did see “true growth business” it seemed to revolve around the same “seed” that had existed there prior…government (or government contractor) based companies working in very specific sites scattered across the state. While I’m sure they did grow, they certainly did not impart the numbers seen in the national media.
I have friends with family in the Gulf area and they say one of the biggest jobs in the area now-a-days is being a cleaning crew…to go through the forclosure homes remove debris, repair damages, and minimally maintain homes that people walked out on.
Listen, I’m not saying Florida is a death trap. Fact is its always going to have strong tourism and northern retirement and it certainly has seen some real growth in the past couple years, but the levels of growth (in almost all areas) were very much based around construction overbuilding and cheap money and I really think it’ll be playing “keep head above water” for the next couple years while it sorts out the over supply of housing (and business real estate) and waits for folks to get back into their “Florida summer vacations”.
LikeLike
I could be wrong, but I read Frank’s comment as suggesting another poster implied the “Ponzi scheme” growth in places like Florida, Arizona and Nevada.
LikeLike
The “ponzi scheme” is actually not a bad description because it happened as such…
People were “churning” houses as fast as they could…buying a place, putting $20k max into it and selling it for $50k+ what they bought it for. Real estate agents made profits off overall price so they pushed these numbers and estimators got paid on houses that sold for the prices they estimated so as long as a known realtor with a legit buyer came along they just fast tracked the paperwork (it happened to me in MD).
Meanwhile construction built as fast as possible trying to fill the “demand” that the quickly rising house prices “indicated”. Eventually there were a ton of homes on the market (and still are) and everyone realized there was actually a relatively small number of people actually buying the places to keep (most were just buying to sell).
In the end the only folks who made out were those that cashed out before the crash or never bought in at all…typical of that type of scheme.
LikeLike
Yeah, I posted it, and stand by it. As PSUGuy has attested to, the economic vibrancy of Florida is heavily dependent on more and more people moving there. There really isn’t a lot of industry there besides construction & services for people who moved there. Same goes for Arizona. I guess Florida & LV have tourism as well, but while LV is small enough to survive solely on tourism, that’s not enough to employ every soul in an 18M people state like Florida.
Look at it this way: Now that we’re moving to a knowledge-based economy, the industries you want generally are the ones that hire MBAs, yet Florida, the 4th most populous state in this country, doesn’t have a b-school ranked in the top 45 (using Businessweek’s b-school rankings). Every other state that’s top 10 in population has at least 1.
As for Texas, you’re right, Texas has more than energy; like Atlanta, Charlotte, and the Research Triangle, the cities in Texas have attracted headquarters and knowledge-based companies. However, I don’t think having energy as your biggest industry is a bad thing; that’s actually the reason why Texas rode out the past recession so well, not so much because of diversification. The past recession hit virtually every sector hard (which is why Chicago, which has the most diversified economy of any major American city, suffered as much as everyone else). The two sectors that managed relatively better were energy and agriculture.
LikeLike
Its far more complicated than that. For one thing, TX and FL don’t have an income tax so both have scored big with office relocations. Miami has become a major hub for Latin America, benefiting not just from related (white-collar) service industries but an increasing number of businessmen establishing 2nd homes/offices as their primary countries have become more dangerous and/or destabilized. You are correct about several of FL’s major weaknesses, but it comes across as too stereotyped. Sort of like someone claiming the Northeast is experiencing major flight to other states and thus NYC must be losing population and declining. Some truth to that, but NYC is simultaneously experience significant in-migration from both domestic and foreign locations, for a variety of reasons.
Another factor for Texas that is relatively unknown is that we have very different state laws regarding taking out 2nd mortgages, much stricter. Between that and the massive home building that basically mirrored demand, Texas didn’t really see the huge appreciation bubble and thus didn’t have much to burst. Some overbuilding, but nowhere near the scale of Vegas or Phoenix. But I don’t want to give the wrong impression, we aren’t strangers to boom and bust cycles either.
LikeLike
Well, we’ll see how long Florida can sustain it’s no-income-tax policy if they stop getting migrations inward.
LikeLike
Long time lurker, first time poster. This site is great, all of the insights (from Frank and all the commenters) provided here are amazing
Having lived the majority of my life in Ohio, attended Ohio State, and now working in in the DC area after graduating, I thought I could share a Big Ten perspective on how this area feels about local college athletics:
First: in the DC area, a lot of people who live here, aren’t from here. Go to any DC-team sporting event, and at least 10 to 25% of the crowd will be rooting for the other team (the team from the area they’re from). Also, if people end up staying here, they continue to support their previous city’s teams, and their kids do the same thing. So, saying something like “adding MD will secure the DC/B-more market” isn’t necessarily true because even though MD is the big state university here, it’s not like the majority of the population went there. So, even if you add MD and get the BTN on basic cable here, you’re not getting the majority of the population’s eyes on it. This is all in contrast to adding Nebraska, where you can guarantee that 99% of the people in that state are going to root for the Huskers
Second: For the population who are from this area, yes, they do root for MD just like any area roots for its local state school. However, it’s not extremely intense, especially when it comes to football. Basketball is popular here, and, therefore, so is hating Duke basketball. For MD, they’re kind of like Illinois (sorry Frank) in that Illinois has the Illibuck trophy game with Ohio State, but the Buckeyes really only care about Michigan. In the same sense, MD plans every year around playing Duke in b-ball, but Duke only really cares about UNC. This kind of mellows out the passion of the MD fans overall
Third: As far as I can tell (I’ve lived here for 2 years now), no one in this area cares about UVa. If something happens at UVa, it gets reported and discussed, but that’s about as far as it goes. Case in point: the unfortunate murder of the UVa lax player. It was a bigger deal around here that she was from B-more than she went tot UVa. So, saying “adding UVa will really help secure the DC market with MD” is for the most part completely untrue. Obviously, people care about VT even less (it’s much further away)
LikeLike
“adding UVa will really help secure the DC market with MD”
As I mention above in a related post, I lived inside the Beltway for most of the 2000s and would tend to agree with that statement.
It is important to throw out the caveat, though, that both of our DC-related experiences have occurred during an unusually-long dry spell for both UVa football and hoops. Neither one of us could know for sure how much more prominent UVa would be in the DC market with some improvement.
LikeLike
Obviously, people care about VT even less (it’s much further away)
Forgot to mention — I disagree with this based on my personal observations over several years. Supporters of the Hokies seemed much more visible than supporters of either UMD or UVa.
LikeLike
“experiences have occurred during a … long dry spell for UVa”
That is a fair statement, however, that shows that the fan base in UVa is more of the fair weather variety. Would that get eyes on the BTN, even during slumps? Compare that to Nebraska which has been in a slump as well…
“disagree with [people not caring about VT] based on my personal observations”
I’m not saying that there is not support for VT in DC. My point is that VT does not bring the ‘local state school’ support that Ohio State does in Ohio. Yes, there are supporters of VT here, but there are also supporters of Ohio State, Florida, ect. It is easy to make the connection of “hey, there’s a VT supporter, and I’m close to Virginia”, but I don’t see VT supporters here vastly outnumbering supporters of other schools.
LikeLike
Concur.
LikeLike
You can argue about Maryland’s fan base — but just as many people have noted the number of Big Ten alumni in metro New York as a plus for Rutgers, so is it true in D.C. as a boon for Maryland. Those Big Ten alums will come out to Byrd Stadium and Comcast Center to see their teams play the Terrapins. And as government grows, metro Washington will grow and become insulated from economic downturns. This is a good market for Delany to target, given its long-term growth potential.
Virginia is a good complement for Maryland, a traditional rival and a more multifaceted one than UNC or Duke. And both have the all-around athletic programs to fit in with the Big Ten.
As for Tech, its fan base is more SEC-like, football-centric (you don’t hear much about Gobblers basketball, even though they’ve had some success in the ACC). Tech would be right at home in the SEC.
I sense Vanderbilt is sort of an ACC wannabe — for several years, it has played Wake Forest in football, and occasionally has met Duke and Georgia Tech. So a move could lead it to become the “Northwestern of the South.”
Finally, pods for this 16-team Big Ten:
PSU, UMd, UVa, Vandy
OSU, MSU, Mich, Wisc
Ind, Pur, Ill, N’west
Minn, Iowa, Tex, A&M
LikeLike
I agree with your points about Big Ten alumni in the DC area. However, that just plays more towards the fact that you cannot count on MD to deliver the entire state on its own. Yes, obviously the DC market is important: it’s large and it’s growing. However, there are more markets in Maryland than just DC. Baltimore, to name one. There is also Annapolis and the entire western half of the state. MD does not carry these areas. This would be like Ohio State bringing the Columbus market and not carrying the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Youngstown, ect. markets
I don’t have a problem is UVa, and, yes, they would bring a nice pairing in for MD, however, you cannot assume that UVa will help MD carry any markets
I only mentioned VT because of their recent success, to say that even when they’re doing amazing, they don’t do anything for the DC market. Also, remember the last ACC expansion. The Virginia government threatened to derail any expansion effort without VT. If UVa tries to jump to the Big Ten, who said that won’t happen again?
One thing I did not mention in my initial post is the difference in cultures from the Midwest and the East Coast. When I was in school, one of my best friends was from Rockville, MD (just outside of DC). He used to tell me all the time how different the culture in the Midwest is than in MD. Now that I’m living here, I can see what he means. As Delany said: “Didn’t understand the logistics, didn’t understand the culture, didn’t understand the academic fit, …” (emphasis mine). By adding an East Coast school, or Vandy, at what point do you get away from the Midwest culture which currently defines the Big Ten?
LikeLike
What cultural difference(s) are you referring to?
LikeLike
Culture is probably referred to as the school such as their strategic goals, emphasis of education over athletics, research school vs. commuter school, alumni support, etc. UMich seems different than MSU in that MSU has a great aggie/vet program yet UMich is strong in law/med/biz but they are similar in their desire for research. Maryland & UVA may be south of the Mason Dixon line but they have the culture of a public Ivy just like the last 2 invitees ND & PSU.
LikeLike
Speaking as another Big10 alum in the MD area for the past 6 years you’re typically right, though I would make one aside…if MD joined we would be combining the large, but not overly rabid, local alumni of MD with the large, and rabid, prescence of the PSU/OSU transplants.
I really think MD is almost Big10 country already and getting a MD would only cement that.
LikeLike
adding …
LikeLike
If ND is off the table, it’s because the Big 10 has realized what Frank the Tank, et al have discussed–that there are better football properties (read: Nebraska, Texas) to add which fit the Big 10 better.
Hell, a commenter in one of Frank’s earlier posts brought up Notre Dame’s television ratings (2.6 average, 4.1 highest against USC). That means Nebraska generated the best ratings of any expansion candidate, save for possibly Texas (but not certain–the NU/UT saturday night game was the second-highest rated game, while UT’s other saturday night game was ho-hum).
Nebraska is the only sure-bet as an expansion target in all this mess.
LikeLike
the NU/UT saturday night game was the second-highest rated game, while UT’s other saturday night game was ho-hum
Well, yeah, one was a conference championship game and the other wasn’t.
Oh, and which Saturday night game for Texas were you referring to? We had multiple games in prime time on ABC last season (Tech, Okie State, Mizzou, Kansas).
LikeLike
Texas is a slam dunk based on TVs or really any other measurement. While I’m inclined to see Nebraska as a top priority given its success and fanbase, my guess is that the B10 will try to accomodate Tex and ND first. If that means taking TAM, it’s done (and in actuality TAM may be a bigger target than Neb anyway). I have to think an addition of Tex would make the Domers think long and hard about joining.
In the best case, if you can add Tex, TAM and ND, you do it, almost regardless of what other schools those guys force to come along or veto. I have no idea whether Texas would veto Nebraska, but if they did, its sayonara Nebraska. If Texas demands Texas Tech or Oklahoma comes along, maybe its a dealbreaker. Based on Frank’s current post, academics might be driving this even more than we think. But the bottom line is, I think concessions get made for Texas and ND before anyone else gets an offer.
LikeLike
Pingback: Dirty South for the Big Ten?
This convinces me of 2 things.
1) The Big 10 is really dragging this out to get more attention and this rumour is showing that they are top dog. They can pull from more than disjointed conferences like the Big East and dissatsified members of the Big 12. This expansion would suit the game theorists as it strikes at all 3 of their Central and Eastern time zone competitors.
2) The Big 10 is telling the truth. They are still just brain storming and running numbers. There is no firm plan and no sort of committment. Vanderbilt????
I believe there is just one lock in this expansion. That’s Rutgers. New Jersey is a nice addition by itself, growing faster than any B10 state except MN (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html table 1) and the possibility of gaining New York City and connecting with alumni there is too good to pass up.
I also think David Boren is being honest and accurate. Leaving the B12 would be bad for anyone who left. As a Texas fan who remembers the SWC days, I think it would be a major mistake. 93% of the Longhorns’ revenue does NOT come from TV. Do you put it at risk to improve the 7%?
LikeLike
As a Texas fan who remembers the SWC days
It’s funny that we have different perspectives, because I am also a Texas fan who remembers the SWC days quite well, and my takeaway from those days is flee a dying, geographically-limited conference as quickly as possible.
My personal guideline for Texas is that the schools needs to leave the Big XII one step ahead before point at which the best replacement school on the table is another school from inside Texas.
LikeLike
The Big 12 has been great for Texas. The stadium is full at 100k instead of not quite full at 80k. Tickets are $70-$110 a game next year instead of $18 the last year of the SWC (less than 15 years ago). Not sure what donation requirements are with the bigger stadium and bigger Cotton Bowl, but before expansion I heard 1k to by new season tickets and 10k to get OU tickets. No donations were required in the SWC days. One of the prime benefits of season tickets was that it guaranteed OU tickets.
Besides the competition, the biggest factor is success. In the closing days of the SWC, half to blue chippers went out of state to various SEC, B10, P10 schools, Miami and ND. Now, except for a few who just want to go out of state, Texas rarely loses recruiting battles except to OU and A&M. Then OU, A&M and the rest of the Big 12 get who they want. Finally, other schools get their pick. And the top schools from those other conferences usually don’t bother. Maybe a Kentucky can pick up players who help, but Ohio St. isn’t going to put out the effort.
The Big 12 has helped OU, Tech, Ok. St., Missouri and Kansas as well. I don’t think you can explain that away by simply saying its Mack Brown. Part of OU’s decline in the 90s had to do with the out of state schools taking Texas talent. Texas has now been carved out as Big 12 recruiting territory. If Tech goes to a different conference it might hurt that “wall.” If OU or A&M go to a different conference it tears it down. Plus, UT is opening up Texas to the Big 10 the way it opened up to Kansas, Missouri and Ok. St.
LikeLike
If UT had gone to another conference instead of the Big 12, it would likely be selling out the stadium every week as well. The chief reason for that is the on the field success, not their particular opponents.
The Big 12 has been a big step up from the SWC, moving on to the Big 10 would be even bigger.
One nice side effect of a ‘pod’ alignment is that only the 2 schools in the pod with Texas and Texas A&M would have an annual game in the state, so UT and A&M would still have first choice for recruits from the state.
LikeLike
You get no arguments from me as to the positive effect leaving the SWC and helping to found the Big XII has had on UT athletics. And I don’t attribute it fully to Mack Brown — the school is performing as well as one would expect it to when firing on all cylinders.
My fear is that, in a scenario in which NU and Mizzou leave for the Big 10, and Colorado and Utah join the Pac 10 after Texas decides to stick with the Big XII, the Big XII is fatally weakened by replacing the three departing schools with BYU, TCU and (insert name of intolerable third-rate school here).
You mention the stadium being no quite full at 80K. To be more precise, when I attended UT for the 1992-1994 seasons during the dying days of the SWC, stadium capacity was only 72K, and, for most games, at least 10K seats were empty (half of the west-side upper deck and most of the old horseshoe).
The 100K+ plus crowds of today are a result of a giant school playing at a top level of competitiveness. But there’s no guarantee that such competitiveness will continue after Dodds, Brown, et al leave the scene. And when things do go downhill for a few years, I’d rather have the assurance that we’re in the strongest possible possible rather than relive the days of having 30K empty seats show up to see a meaningless conference tilt against TCU.
LikeLike
Clearly CU, NU and Mizzou would be losses. Individually very tolerable, but collectively significant. That might be too much. But then I think the Pac 10 would be an option. And one where Texas has more ties than with the Big 10.
Illinois and Texas may have shared the top 2 spots in Accounting for most of the last 30 years, but that just doesn’t translate to the football field. USC, UCLA and the Arizona schools fit better (even if not geographically).
And there are more options than TCU. I think Colorado St. is an adequate replacement for CU (they’ve been beating them on the football field lately). CU doesn’t add much other than football (cross-country is not a big spectator sport and UT doesn’t have a ski team). BYU has a good following. UNLV adds very little to the Pac 10, but might be valuable to a revamped Big 12. New Mexico is a possibility as are Memphis and Louisville. And if you’re going east, WVU and Pittsburg might be available. With BYU, Louisville, WVU and Pitt you are adding teams with some historical success in football. BYU, UNM and UNLV have had basketball success.
LikeLike
The Big 12 has been great for Texas. The stadium is full at 100k instead of not quite full at 80k. Tickets are $70-$110 a game next year instead of $18 the last year of the SWC (less than 15 years ago). Not sure what donation requirements are with the bigger stadium and bigger Cotton Bowl, but before expansion I heard 1k to by new season tickets and 10k to get OU tickets. No donations were required in the SWC days. One of the prime benefits of season tickets was that it guaranteed OU tickets.
Well, that and the fact that the state population is 40% larger and a heck of a lot wealthier than at the end of the SWC days.
LikeLike
Since 1969 maybe, but Texas hasn’t grown 40% since 1996 and isn’t significantly more wealthy. And the student population stabilized around 50,000 after 1980. Texas was filling those 70-80k seats throughout most of the 70s. Then UT went in a slump starting in 1985 as the SWC started its death spiral.
LikeLike
http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/tx190090.txt
1990 TX population 17 million, 2000 almost 21 million, currently approx. 25 million.
And we sure as hell have seen substantial growth income, both median and even more for college graduates during the multiple boom cycles. Same for the Austin-San Antonio corridor, where UT football is their de facto pro sports team (besides the Spurs.) A-SA is now adding as many people per year as greater Houston, placing they and DFW all in the top 10 in the US for metro area growth. Lots of hi-tech jobs have moved to Austin since the SWC days. With no state income tax we’ve also attracted a disproportionate share of high-income earners and entrepreneurs. Boom times and startups = disposable income.
LikeLike
Crap. Beat me to it Playoffs. Well, here’s another census link for Texas:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/census.html
LikeLike
Bullet, I have to disagree with your perspective.
I admit I’m an outsider, and I know Texas is more of a self-autonomous state than any other in the lower 48.
But I really don’t see how UT leaving the Big XII really risks 93% of their revenue, or their recruits.
From a purely football standpoint, if Michigan or Ohio State left The Big Ten, I know that these schools would still sell out their stadiums, and still get plenty of revenue. So long as they weren’t joining the MAC, and had a relatively decent schedule. And UM-OSU could be a non-conference game if it had to be.
Michigan and Ohio State still bring in 100,000+ when they play Western Michigan and Bowling Green.
Likewise, it’s been pointed out by many Texas posters that UT-OU was a non-conference game for many years, so there doens’t seem to be a worry that this rivalry would end.
So you’re really talking about a likely exchange on the regular schedule of Baylor, TT, Ok St., and a non-conference game or two (for OU and maybe A&M) to add Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.
And then the non-division matchups every couple of years change from Kansas, K St, Colorado, Iowa State, and maybe Mizzou or Nebraska to Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St….
I’m sure some people will be a bit disappointed, and maybe one or two folks cancel their season tickets. But I think plenty of people will remain, and some folks will be more excited. There’s going to be plenty of people waiting in line to grab any open seats.
Also, I fans root for their school first, and their conference second. Except for Ohio State, which roots AGAINST Michigan second, and then FOR The Big Ten third. That won’t change.
As for recruits, I’m sure that some kids will look around elsewhere. But Texas, (like Michigan or Ohio State if they left The Big Ten), not only is going to remain very strong in-state, but also regionally. There is just such a name-brand recognition and attachment by a lot of these kids that the conference isn’t going to matter a lot. Ohio State would still clean up the Ohio recruits and UT would still clean up the Texas recruits if either school were in SEC. Maybe a kid in Chicago is less likely to look at Ohio State, but if the Buckeyes are competing with Notre Dame for a recruit, the kid is already accepting of playing many road games out of the region.
LikeLike
For Cliffnotes
The 2nd paragraph is my main point-recruiting and success. If you aren’t successful, you don’t sell nearly as much merchandise, don’t appear on national TV as much, don’t get as many or as large donations and you may have 20-30,000 empty seats. You can’t raise ticket prices 500% in 15 years. That’s why the 93% would be at risk-because top flight recruits would be spread out instead of staying with Texas.
And Playoffs is right-UT is the Austin/SA “professional” team so there are a lot of bandwagon fans.
As HopkinsHorn pointed out, he saw lots of empty seats when he was in school and Texas was struggling. I remember Texas’ lone non-winning season between the late 50s and mid 80s and having only 50,000 in the stands for A&M (nearly half of them Aggies). It was Thanksgiving night, rainy and miserable (in more way than one), but I can’t imagine not selling out an A&M game now. Prior to that year in the 70s, UT was selling out virtually every game every year.
I’ll disagree about the wealth issue. DFW and Houston are about the same. Austin was booming like crazy in the 80s and 90s before a slump in the mid to late 90s that didn’t slow down the surge in UT athletic revenues. Austin is now booming again.
LikeLike
Texas gets nearly all their recruits from the top 100 in Texas. They had to dip a little lower in the SWC days. About 2/3 of the recruits stay in the Big 12. Most importantly, Texas and the Big 12 dominate the top part of the list.
For example in 2007 UT had 22 of the top 100 (Houston Chronicle list). Big 12 had 68, other Texas schools had 8 and schools from neighboring states (LSU, Arkansas, Tulsa) had 9. In the early 90s, over 50% were going out of state and out of conference. And most at the very top of the list were leaving.
So Texas has to be concerned that if they join the Big 10 that Big 10 powers, SEC powers, Miami, FSU, ND, etc. will start raiding Texas’ top talent again. It happened before, but was dramatically reversed with the formation of the Big 12. The Big 12 schools had traditionally recruited Texas anyway, so they weren’t letting anybody new in the door and they shut the door on a lot of out of state schools picking up the top talent.
I believe concerns about losing the success is why Texas is so reluctant to join the Big 10. The administration is probably salivating about the possibility of being in the CIC. They consider Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. to be their peers and want to be viewed like Michigan and Berkeley.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I still think you are taking too big of a leap.
A few random points:
Texas was #1 in athletic revenue last year. Even a slight slip in success is not going to turn that program into Baylor.
Ticket prices across the country have exploded. To say Texas ticket prices went up 500% in 15 years… I’d like to see how ticket prices went up elsewhere. At Michigan, in 15 years, the ticket price went from roughly $25 to $50, but they added a PSL, so that $50 seat is really about $120. Which is roughly a 500% increase. And at the time UM added the PSL, the UM tickets were amongst the cheapest in The Big Ten, so I know that the ticket prices at the other schools have increased, too.
As for recruiting, there are certain inherent advantages that Texas has that few other schools can match. The name recruits itself, just like Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame… Even in down times, these schools are always going to be on TV more, have better facilities, tradition, etc.
You’re right, that Texas may not be able to pick and choose from the Top 25 kids in Texas. But if the SEC or Big Ten makes inroads, Texas is still going to be #1 over time, and Texas will adapt. Texas will start recruiting Florida and Georgia and California more, too.
Besides that, recruiting goes in cycles. Sometimes kids want to “get away”. Sometimes kids want to be a part of “closing down the borders”.
If you want Texas to do everything possible to have an easy path to the National Championship game, then your argument is much stronger that you want to keep a “just strong enough” Big XII schedule that doesn’t beat you up too much instead of a more difficult SEC or Big Ten schedule.
Texas moving to the Big Ten is not going to suddenly drop UT down to the level of Oklahoma State; you’re not going to lose all your recruits and see 40,000 empty seats.
LikeLike
I don’t have specific #s, but I know Rice and UGA haven’t gone up that much. And as I mentioned, UT for the 1st time required donations to purchase new season tickets, so the increase is even more. Looking at UGA, away games are 40-65 and season tickets are only $240 (vs. $400 at UT). Back in the mid-90s ticket prices were comparable, but UGA like most SEC schools required donations to buy tickets. So the effective price was higher. The required donation is not 500% higher at UGA than it was back then.
If UT goes back to the Mackovic era of mostly 7-4 seasons they won’t draw 100k. They won’t drop all the way to 60k, but 70 is possible. Using $70 and 7 games, that’s $14.7 million or 10% of revenue not even counting concessions. And Mackovic did do a lot of California recruiting (remember Ricky Williams?).
We don’t know if the recruiting “wall” will break down if UT goes to the B10, but its a risk and there is a history. There’s a reason Arkansas is playing home and away with SMU. There’s a reason B10 schools love FL bowls-and its not just the beaches. Presence gives you a better shot at recruiting. And if the whole B10 and whole SEC have a presence, its a big risk.
UT was still winning more than anyone but A&M during those years. And there were some good years, but it wasn’t what UT was used to and it wasn’t competitive with the powers then (UNL, FSU, Miami) And it wasn’t enough to fill an 80k stadium (let alone 100k) and lead the nation in licensing revenue.
LikeLike
On the topic of non-TV revenues, there is an Atlanta article about UGA’s athletic association. They earned $85 million and gave $2 million to the university on top of $6 million they already committed over 3 years. Their fund for donations in order to get football tickets brought in $22.8 million in 2010 down from a peak of $26.1 million in 2008. That decline was credited to both the economy and the decline in the football team’s success.
I would guess the figures are similar for the top half of the SEC teams and presumably for the top half of B10 teams also.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/uga/uga-athletic-board-gives-536954.html
LikeLike
BTW, One more thing about recruiting…
If the population trends continue, there is just simply going to be more D-1 players coming out of Texas (and CA and FL), and more BCS schools will simply have to expand their recruiting in Texas (and CA and FL) to get talent.
UT is going to be right in the middle of it, but they can’t can’t get them all.
I don’t know how many Texas recruits went to D-1 or BCS schools, or some arbitrary list of power house schools, but it’s going to reach a point where if you don’t recruit TX and FL and CA, you won’t survive. And UT and A&M simply don’t have room for all of them. So regardless of what conference UT belongs to, the SEC and Big Ten will be increasing their recruiting in Texas more and more each year.
LikeLike
Once you get past the big three, it drops pretty quickly. Signees by state:
1. Texas – 408
2. Florida – 355
3. California – 323
4. Georgia – 182
5. Ohio – 172
6. Alabama – 90
7. Louisiana – 90
8. Virginia – 84
9. Pennsylvania – 75
10. Illinois – 72
11. Michigan – 62
12. Mississippi – 62
13. New Jersey – 59
14. North Carolina – 57
15. Maryland – 54
16. South Carolina – 49
17. Oklahoma – 42
18. Tennessee – 38
19. Arizona – 36
20. Utah -34
http://www.maxpreps.com/football-signing-day/football/home.htm
LikeLike
Loki – so does the population. For example, Louisiana, with 90 D-1 signees, has a population of 4.2 million. That’s less than the Houston MSA.
LikeLike
Alan, agreed. The real outlier is New York. Huge population but doesn’t crack the top twenty in recruiting. More evidence to me of the folly of the strategy of ‘capturing’ NY. Outside of them, demographics is destiny to some extent.
LikeLike
I ran across Ivan Masiel’s EPSN blog on demographics and recruiting. The total state population doesn’t tell the whole story. PA, IA and OH are likely to be losing population by 2030 and MI will be at 0 growth, but more significant is the age of the population. OH HS population has dropped by 25% since 1980 and the trend is accelerating according to the article.
LikeLike
I like point #2. The Big 10 IS indeed telling the truth (to an extent…)
Outside of Texas and Notre Dame…I doubt there are any “offers” on the table currently. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t talking with 10-15 different schools informally…but it means that no one has been told “You’re in!” other than UT and ND.
The conference is doing its due diligence, getting its ducks in a row, so when he day comes (this June? sometime in the fall? January?) when UT and ND give their final answer, they’ll know exactly how to proceed. They will have plan a, plan b, plan c, plan d, and plan e all worked out perfectly before they actually IMPLEMENT plan a.
Outside of Texas and Texas A/M, I think Frank’s “egghead five” are probably part of plan c, d, or e rather than plan a or b.
LikeLike
How long do mergers & acquisitions take in business? Months right? This is the same thing but instead of taking the slam dunk athletic teams such as Neb or Pitt, they are looking at many scenarios on how the good academic schools can deliver the BTN to ensure the annual payout is not diluted. They already know about the schools they are interested in, just need to do the $ crunching.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Assuming these 5 schools, the Big 10 would be in great shape for further expansion.
– Maryland and UVa would seem to destabilize the Big 10 – at what point would UNC, Duke, GTech and Miami be considered?
– You haven´t taken a big jump into SEC territory, leaving any member isolated – but you have poked at the perimeter and maybe paved the way for UNC, Duke, Georgia, Florida down the line.
– The Big 12 is obviously significantly weakened – whether the damage is reparable is debatable. Nebraska, however, is now a clear outlier in terms of geography. Great football school, good/improving research school but where do they go from here? Pac 10? SEC? Big 8 revival? The Big 10 may make the most sense if we ever consider moving to 20.
– Where does this leave Notre Dame? Along with Pitt, they could probably effectively replace UVa/Maryland in the ACC. Why would this scenario, however, be better than joining the Big 10? Any ND fans out there with any idea about this?
LikeLike
I don’t know that for ND it would be better. Likely as not, it would be about equal, all things considered. But I’m a Domer and find all conferences for ND football a bad idea.
The ACC and B10 are surprisingly similar in Domer eyes: excellent academic schools that care about athletics, too. The Big differences are athletic focus (B10 football vs. ACC hoops) and geography (Midwest vs. Coastal South).
What the ACC has over the Big Ten potentially are two things. First, ACC schools are smaller and are perceived to have more undergraduate focus than B10 schools. They have multiple private schools including the only other FBS Catholic school. Potentially there’s less reason for ND and the other conference schools to be at odds in the ACC than the B10+ since the school sizes and aims are similar. Secondly, ND fears being considered a “Midwestern” school. In the ACC, ND would be considered an outlier. In the B10+, we’d potentially be “the Catholic Northwestern” in the eyes of kids in NYC, Boston, Etc.. OK, probably not that bad, but when you’re talking about fear, rationality is at a disadvantage.
The loss of the nothernmost ACC core schools might force the ACC back to Tobacco Rd., or it might force them to get Syracuse. Hard to say what the UVa and MD losses would do to the perception of the ACC.
LikeLike
Playing through this scenario, I could see the ACC making a real effort to bolster its northeast presence. It would lose Virginia and Maryland, and probably counter by trying to add Syracuse and Rutgers, or perhaps just some combination of Syracuse/Rutgers/UConn/Pitt. I could see Miami and BC being for that strategy, and adding most of these schools would help enhance basketball.
LikeLike
Just a thought about how viable Virginia would be in Big Ten expansion…
After the strong-arming involved in having Virginia Tech join Virginia in the ACC, what would keep that from happening again if the Big Ten just wanted Virginia?
Shouldn’t UVA/VT be treated just like UT/TAMU? And if that’s the case, would that make UVA worth it if it meant excluding a school like Vandy/Neb/MD?
LikeLike
Agree about VA. If they WANTED to come, which they wouldn’t, they wouldn’t do so because of Va. Tech/politics.
Maryland’s also a non-starter.
The Vandy rumor worries me because they might actually be interested….and the SEC wouldn’t care if they left. Hopefully, they’re only thrown in as a fill-in in the event of the “egghead expansion” (thasnks PSU guy), which won’t happen.
LikeLike
Although couldn’t one argue that the price of VT accepting UVa’s help in upgrading conference affiliations is not throwing a roadblock in front of UVa wanting to do the same?
LikeLike
Bringing Vandy in as part of this helps UVa’s cause, as VT could then become the 12th SEC member. They aren’t joined at the hip, and the respective moves would be profitable for both schools.
LikeLike
Yeah, it would seem the SEC invites Virginia Tech first to get back to 12 teams, then maybe looks to add more schools to 14 or 16.
Virginia Tech will be in a better conference than they are now, though maybe not as good as Virginia (depending on how you rate academics and football).
LikeLike
The entire state politics interdependency thing has been overblown by commenters. The VA/VTECH/ACC thing was a perfect storm: one of the top conferences was expanding, the vote was falling so that any one additional nay vote could submarine expansion, one of the existing schools in the expanding conference held a vote that could sway it, the “little brother” school was at least good enough to claim they belonged, and the “little brother” school wanted out of an unstable conference. Somehow that perfect storm has morphed into a conventional belief that every pair of state schools is handcuffed for eternity.
If VA was considering being added to the B10, most of those factors go away. Virginia wouldn’t hold a vote. VA Tech is already healthily established in the ACC, and wouldn’t need to panic about their future. VA Tech can’t claim that they have the chops to be invited into the B10.
KU/KSU it may matter, as a KU B10 invite (which I don’t see happening) could totally F over KSU by leaving them in a dying conference. But would the Kansas legislature decide its better to have both state schools in a dying conference by submarining KU? Or would they be glad that KU is going B10, and hope for the best with KSU?
TX/TAMU are probably not tied, as TAMU doesn’t need TX to survive. TAMU could easily join the SEC or P10, although there is some doubt there. But the politics will matter somewhat.
ISU may squawk if the B12 was dying, but to somehow get Iowa to force ISU into the B10, you’d need the B10 vote to be 7-3, with Iowa holding the swing vote. Even then, its hard to justify ISU in the B10, due to lack of TVs and athletic chops, and borderline academics.
OSU may successfully make a stink if OU was invited to the SEC without them, in part due to Daddy Oil’s billions.
I just don’t see another perfect storm on the horizon.
LikeLike
I agree… I don’t see how UVa leaving the ACC ruins that conference. In the case of The Big East, it was clear that the power schools in that conference were leaving. Va Tech might be tied to UVa only if UNC and Duke were leaving the ACC and it turned into a free-for-all.
Likewise, I think the replacement for Vandy would be Texas A&M. Supposedly, UT and A&M are not tied at the hip, and A&M prefers the SEC anyways. If A&M did get a Big Ten offer, I’m sure they would at least let the SEC know they are considering it, and want an offer from them, too.
Knowing the bluster of the SEC and Slive, I think they would LOVE to brag about how A&M chose the SEC over a Big Ten invite.
While I know that A&M on its own would be a pretty solid addition to The Big Ten, I think that getting only UT allows The Big Ten to make in-roads into another state and additional markets that an addition of A&M doesn’t allow.
LikeLike
UVA to BT is a step up academically from the ACC. The pols wanted VT to go from BEast to ACC as a step up. You have a good point but VT is probably where they belong in the ACC whereas UVA as a public ivy is a step up from VT who could reasonably be argued as a non-qualifier in the B10. Do the pols really want VT in the B10 instead of ACC anyway?
LikeLike
If going after the DC Market is a priority, UVA is the 3rd banana out here after Maryland and Va Tech.
State of Virginia households on Basic Cable for BTN is another thing, but living in DC, not too many people out here follow UVA compared to MD and VT
LikeLike
The focus has shifted from ND and taking multiple teams from the Big East to make this happen to seeing what combination of teams would appease Texas. If the Big12 is destroyed that meants that the can of worms is opened with where Tech will go to in the legislature. So if Texas comes and A&M presumably gets an invite, then I don’t see Nebraska or Missouri getting invites. Especially if the SEC comes in to poach Oklahoma.
Also, note that PA is contiguous with MD which is also with Va which is also with Tennessee…starting to build an end-around to connect to Texas. Maybe coincedence, but that looks like a more national appeal…ND’s schedule would have teams from East Coast (PSU, Maryland), South (UVA, Vandy), Southwest (Texas, A&M), Midwest…the only region not really cover is the Pacific Coast, but their USC rivalry would fulfill that itch. Such a strategy might work out better for everyone
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Re newest rumor (Frank)
Frank, another well written post. Your advocacy skills are outstanding: I’m sure you are a great attorney. However this seems like yet another interesting trial balloon.
1) On the surface this would be an ideal combination from a President’s perspective: all great schools outside the footprint that theoretically could attract each other.
2) Problem: I really doubt and would be very surprised if UVA or Maryland or even Texas at this point want in any more than ND. These 5 proposed adds highlight what the Big 10 is not: a close knit group of southern or ACC schools.
Texas seems currently to be moving along a western alliance joint channel option. Combining UVA with UMD makes a lot of sense but I doubt these schools see the Big 10 as a great affinity match compared with the ACC.
3) What is interesting about this post is the possibility that Missouri may not be in. Personally I am skeptical that Missouri adds anything by itself or in combination that actually strengthens the conference.
4) Conclusion: The end of this post states Nebraska and RU may be in if desired targets say “no thanks”.
It may be the Big 10 just adds a 12th team like Nebraska.
However the idea that SU “continues to hang around” leads to the thought a 3 school expansion may be Nebraska, RU and SU. Adding RU alone is leaving the other half of the NY market open and SU might make an interesting supplement and combination to RU to make a play for the combined market.
This prediction is subject to change without notice based on next weeks rumor or news.
LikeLike
Considering their athletic revenue would likely triple and their research value would increase dramatically, I doubt UMd and UVa officials would worry too much about an “affinity match.”
LikeLike
This is all about schools finding their fit such as all the public ivies flocking to the B10. UVA & UT are public ivies, Pitt, Rutgers, UMD are honorable mention. Although I agree UMD & UVA seem happy, they can get huge payouts & join a killer football conference. Besides the BTN is another big recruiting advantage.
LikeLike
I don’t see Vandy. Yes, they’re an academic outlier in the SEC, but they don’t seem to be discontent with that. Using academics as a reason for Vandy to bolt the SEC feels similar to using enrollment/research/private numbers as why Northwestern would leave for the ACC. On paper, sure, it’s kind of plausible I guess. But in reality? No way. Gee’s a very influential man, but I don’t think he’s quite that influential.
As for Virginia and/or Maryland, eh, ok. It doesn’t set my pants on fire, but I could live with the rational. If you can grab Virginia, do you really need Maryland? Is Maryland, which by all accounts is lukewarm to the notion, worth the headache over Rutgers? Can’t help but feel like these are comparable.
Do you seriously leave Nebraska at the alter if you’re already taking Texas/TA&M? Sure, on paper, you’ve only taken two schools out of 12 in the Big12. But you’ve also gutted that conference out of it’s biggest draw in its biggest state. Leaving Nebraska behind just seems silly at that point.
To be honest, this feels like an argument where the “academics importance slider” has been moved too far. I really don’t see a scenario where you should abandon Nebraska (expect in the most unlikely scenarios). As for Missouri, well, I’m not broken up about that.
If we’re tossing stuff against the wall, this is probably my current “expansion home run”: Texas, TA&M, Nebraska, and pick two from ND/Rutgers/Maryland/Virginia. In every combination you have a population increase, a football brand increase, and an academic and research increase.
LikeLike
I’m going to comment from a different perspective than many of the commentators on this blog, which is a non-big 10 perspective/lense.
I have no doubt the Big 10 loves the spotlight expansion is causing, and is talking to many schools at some level as part of their process. Schools tend to avoid being rude to each other since schools in different conferences work together all the time in academic, administrative, and athletic settings (out of conferene scheduling, tournaments, etc.)
However, in the end, for many of the same reasons the Big 10 wants to expand southward, most schools are not going to be interested in joining the Big 10 and moving toward the north/midwest. As an athletic conference, looking at the combination of Basketball and Football primarily, the Big 10 is not considered elite by most outside the Big 10. Among the BCS conferences, an argument could be made that they are viewed right now as fighting with the Pac-10 between the #5 and #6 overall conference. Many might argue that point, but I do think people outside the Big 10 generally see it that way.
Most schools want to be playing regular games where the recruiting hotbeds are, the top 3 generally being Florida, Texas, and Cal (listed in no particular order). Schools in conferences that already hit those markets are not going to be jumping at the chance to leave them behind to play games in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana.
Academics seem important, but you can’t get the school to change conferences by only convincing the faculty it’s a good idea. And schools like Vandy, Duke, and Stanford have all done quite well to maintain their academic reputation without needing to be in a conference with each other.
In the end, the schools that would actually move are going to be ones that are not happy for one reason or another where they currently stand. Which brings me back to Rutgers, Missouri, and Nebraska. They have all indicated they’d be interested at some level and have reasons for wanting out of their existing situation. It allows for a championship game to be played and enhances the football brand of the conference to help it be more appealing nationally. It also expands the geography of the conference so that years from now, when more expansion comes up, the “Big 10 footprint” will be something larger than it is today, perhaps making it seem more logical a destination for schools that today would just see it as being too far away.
LikeLike
I’m coming from a B10 perspective (UW). I see what you’re saying, but only to a certain point. Some people here seem to think of the college landscape as a candy store where the B10 can pick whomever it likes. I don’t think that’s totally true. However, I think that’s probably closer to the truth than a statement that the B10 isn’t an “elite” conference that is desirable to the candidates for expansion. I think it has underachieved to a certain extent in recent years, but only on the field, not in terms of money, academics, prestige, etc. Part of the reason Neb, Rut or Mizz would jump to the B10 in a heartbeat is because is an overall better conference than the Big East or Big 12. That may have more to do with stability, academics and money than with current success on the field, but (1) current success is overblown, most of the BCS conferences (other than the SEC at #1 in football) flip-flop overall strength on a yearly basis; and (2) adding really big fish to the WILL make it undeniably “elite” even in the most ardent B10 haters. Let’s face it, Tex and TAM to the B10 is a better conference than the current BXII. Texas could easily say no, but it won’t because they see the B10 as a minor league.
LikeLike
Among the BCS conferences, an argument could be made that they are viewed right now as fighting with the Pac-10 between the #5 and #6 overall conference. Many might argue that point, but I do think people outside the Big 10 generally see it that way.
I think this is absolutely false. Even through the prism of “what have you done for me lately” from a football-centric worldview the Big Ten is no worse than fighting the Pac 10 for the third best conference, behind the SEC and the Big XII.
LikeLike
Not to mention from an overall sports perspective, the only thing that the Big Ten is fighting the Pac-10 for is the #1 spot.
LikeLike
Guido: “Among the BCS conferences, an argument could be made that they are viewed right now as fighting with the Pac-10 between the #5 and #6 overall conference.”
I think you are sadly mistakenly. In terms of overall athletic performances, the Big Ten and Pac-10 are tops. Average Directors’ Cup rankings, for all 16 years of the Directors’ Cup:
Pac-10: 28.0
Big Ten: 29.8
SEC: 36.4
ACC: 40.5
Big 12: 45.5
Big East: 87.4
The Big Ten’s worse team, Northwestern, with a average Directors’ Cup ranking of 50.9, is easily the “best worst” of any conference:
Big Ten: Northwestern – 50.9
ACC: Virginia Tech – 77.5
Big 12: Kansas State – 77.6
SEC: Mississippi State – 84.5
Pac-10: Washington State – 90.3
Big East: Cincinnati – 129.9
Northwestern also ranks higher than all Big East schools, 6 Big 12 schools, 3 ACC schools, 3 SEC schools, and 2 Pac-10 schools.
In reality, the Big Ten is fighting with the Pac-10 for the #1 conference.
And that is just on the athletics side. Couple that with academics, revenue, etc., and you’d probably have conclude that the Big Ten is the best overall conference. Period.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised by that type if response, nor do I neccessarily think it is incorrect. Was just stating that for purely BB and Football, as a whole, people not tied to the conference. But rather obseving from a distance, do not see it as being as strong as “Big 10” folks do. Not that there are no premier programs in each sport, just a top to bottom assessment of the strength of the league today (not historically)
LikeLike
Good post.
LikeLike
Your thinking sounds like a fan not a University President. Put on your Prez cap and consider that you have 30,000 students of which maybe 750 are athletes. Now look at the $6B research going on in the CIC compared to your $50M athletic budget, throw in an annual $10M increase in your athletic budget as a signing bonus and you can see why all the other conferences are waiting to see what the B10 is doing. They have to wait because they don’t know who they will have left unless you happen to be the PAC10.
LikeLike
this is fun. frank’s source(s) sure know how to poke a nebraska wasp nest.
or is hopkins saying that frank has no source on this?
LikeLike
@glenn – Personally, I think that Nebraska will ultimately end up in the Big Ten unless Texas makes it clear that it won’t join because of the Huskers. Mizzou, though, is on thin ice on a lot of levels.
LikeLike
frank, i think schools/conferences of schools are jockeying for position in the expected economy of the future.
it is hard for us sports fans to not see athletics as the key to the future, but they are not. assuming your source(s) is indeed tapped into big ten thinking, i see them preparing for rough seas ahead, and football has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
umm . . . actually football may have something to do with it. or it may have something to do with football.
i can imagine a time in the not too distant future when most schools have had to cut way back, and many, in fact, have had to close their doors.
people all over the country are anxiously awaiting saturday afternoon on the btn to see whether virginia has an answer for that vanderbilt defense that handed them the title last year.
LikeLike
another thing–and i’m certainly not knowledgeable about the big ten–my guess is that even if texas chooses a different path, the message here–IF IT TRULY REPRESENTS BIG TEN OPINION–is that nebraska is not right for what the bt wishes to do anyway.
that would dovetail very nicely with my impression of the conference, so i guess i am predisposed to see it that way. that said, the strong nature of this latest leak, if that’s what it is, certainly lends credibility to my impression.
LikeLike
or is hopkins saying that frank has no source on this?
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
What I am saying is that Frank has become a leading source for those interested in realignment-related news. By becoming a source, he has put himself in a position to receive unsolicited “inside information.”
Frank has taken a look at the evidence sent to him and has concluded that the Big 10 might very well be looking at this particular group of five teams.
As a result, for the first time, Frank has moved from being, like me, a mere speculator or an analyst of rumors broken elsewhere to someone able to break his own news about what the Big 10 might be doing.
And it will be very interesting to see whether this rumor gets picked up elsewhere. I suspect it will. If so, Frank will have successfully made himself a player in the expansion media game.
LikeLike
actually just poking you with a stick, hh.
i absolutely agree with you that frank is positioned to be a key conduit in all this. my great suspicion is that the bt/delany were pretty stunned that delany’s comments have been sidestepped so adroitly by sports fans in general. i can imagine them saying, ‘what does it take to get through to these people?’
frank’s blog has become central to the public experience in this issue and is the perfect place for them to throw the next hatchet. in part, too, because posters here have been so immune to outside thinking. i suspect that is what happened.
LikeLike
In fairness though, he now has to watch out for plain old fashioned crack heads.
Just because a lot of crap washes up on my shores doesn’t make it good or useful right?
LikeLike
well, certainly. i think we all expect him to at least have a good idea the validity of things he is given.
i gather this recent bit of information was deemed pretty substantial for him to write a new entry. but not substantial enough for him to change his basic viewpoint.
LikeLike
UVa and Maryland are extremely logical choices….would love to see the ACC get a taste of their own medicine for what they did to the Big East.
LikeLike
Sorry about the length of this comment, but there is so much to chew on in this post, Frank.
Interesting and plausible scenario. I’ve always thought that Andy Katz was one of the better reporters at ESPN, where journalism is so up-and-down, with uninformed speculation presented within seconds of solid reporting, and when he brought up the “Southern strategy” I knew we should take it seriously, especially when JD started talking about growth states.
But there are still so many things that give you pause. Most importantly, the preponderance of public statements indicates that Texas is looking weat, in the form of a Western alliance, or joining the Pac 10. The willingness of UVa and, to a lesser extent, Maryland, to leave their historic conference home is a complete unknown. And the Vandy story breaks one of our “iron rules:” no one leaves the SEC.
Moreover, Nebraska and Rutgers still bring a lot to the table and I can’t believe they are totally off the table.
However, if the “Southern strategy” is real, that may spell the end of the dream for what I call the “complementary” schools: Missouri, Pitt and Syracuse. It means that JD is trying to hit a home run or at least a stand-up double with every choice:
The northern candidates:
Nebraska (home run — football tradition, rabid fanbase)
Rutgers (stand-up double — brings the Big 10 and its marquee schools to the frontdoor of the NY market; natural partner for Penn State)
The “Southern strategy” candidates:
Maryland (at least a stand-up double — brings the Big 10 to the frontdoor of the nation’s capital and it political influence; solid sports program; natural partner for Penn State)
Texas (HR — no explanation necessary)
Texas A&M (stand-up double on its own as a major research player and sometime sports powerhouse; rabid if quirky fanbase; natural partner for Texas)
Vanderbilt (academically a HR, in sports terms an out — averages out to a ground-rule double, let’s say)
Virginia (a triple — HR academically, the major prestige builder in the DC market)
While none of the five schools Frank discusses may end up in the Big 10, the message to my ears is clear — if you want to be in the Big 10, you must, in and of yourself, be a strategic addition, not a complement to some other other school. The “encircle NY” strategy, in other words, is dead. Also, audacity counts. This is Delany’s legacy move, and if it happens at all its going to make an impact.
LikeLike
A few points:
1. Just because these schools might be on the B10 list doesn’t mean they will be the Final Five. But going after a group like this sure makes it easy to demonstrate to faculty/alumni/community that academics are extremely important.
2. Going after these 5 to begin with makes it easier to take a lesser academic star like NE once one of the coveted says no.
3. The presidents want money, yes, but at a B10 meeting they want to sit with the Vandy president a lot more than they want to hang out with some presidents from some of the other schools mentioned here.
4. Likewise with UVA. You think B10 presidents don’t salivate over THOMAS JEFFERSON’s school?? They see it as their crowd.
None of this means their interest is reciprocated by any of the 5, nor does it mean the deal will get done, but don’t underestimate the power of academic elitism in this scheme.
LikeLike
I thought Jefferson attended William & Mary? Either that or Harvard since those are the only schools that existed then. I could be wrong.
LikeLike
Virginia is getting rocked on this board, so I thought I would defend it.
As far as fan support, I am not sure exactly what sort of pull the school has in DC. However, even in the worst season in 25 years (3-9), attendance was still better than Maryland (and Miami for that matter) and just 1000 behind 9-4 Rutgers. These people are not all coming from Charlottesville. The stadium seats 62000 which puts in third in terms of capacity out of all ACC and Big East college football stadiums and effectively tied for 7th in the current Big Ten.
Competitively, in football Virginia would again be the middle of the 5 candidates. From 1989-2009, UVa has a .600 winning percentage which would be 5th in the Big Ten, behind the obvious 3 and Wisconsin. I doubt Virginia would win the title with regularity, but they wouldn’t be a doormat. They’ve also had 30 drafted players in the last 10 years for what its worth.
I cannot believe I am having to defend Virginia academically, but whatever. UVa is the original impetus for the term “public Ivy”. It is the best undergraduate public school in the country. While it’s research dollars are not the monster of a Wisconsin the school has a top 25 medical school, a top 40 engineering school, a top 10 law school, and has top 10 programs in a number of “prestige” departments (e.g. English). Also, for all the talk about total research dollars, it’s not like UVa is ND. The school is within spitting distance of UChicago, Rutgers, and is more than CMU, Princeton, and Syracuse. I seriously cannot understand that commentators here who are ready to welcome in schools like Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas would have any objection to Virginia.
LikeLike
Agreed on Virginia. It’s a great academic fit and probably presents one of the best mixes of academics, population (the whole Southern move Delaney seems to be talking about) and athletics. I would probably atke it over Maryland if there was only one spot. I’d take it over Vandy in a heartbeat. But over Nebraska? Hard to say. I think the B10 needs to add at least 2 home runs in terms of football. Nebraska could be one of those (probably the third best option in that regard after Tex and ND) but Virginia seems more like a school that gets added after locking down some big-time football schools first.
LikeLike
@M – Yeah, I could see some of the critiques of UVA as having a so-so sports program, but any criticism of the school’s academics based on a supposed lack of research dollars is insane. Adding UVA from an academic perspective for the Big Ten (which sees itself as the top academic conference for public universities) is every bit as huge as getting Texas or ND for football in terms of public perception. UVA is a school that truly moves the needle for the Big Ten’s academic reputation (not just fits into it).
LikeLike
If by “so-so sports program”, you mean “an outstanding overall sports program with an average to above average football team”, then I agree. Last year Virginia placed 8th in the Director’s Cup which I think is higher than any Big Ten school ever (except Michigan).
LikeLike
90% of the population is only interested in 2 sports…bball and fball. In these 2 sports Va. has been mediocre….forever. That said, Va. would still be a good addition to BT, but it won’t happen.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod, UVa haters
Here are the winning percentages of the expansion candidates over the last 25 years:
Nebraska 0.772
Texas 0.699
Texas A&M 0.660
Notre Dame 0.652
Virginia 0.590
Georgia Tech 0.580
Syracuse 0.574
Boston College 0.561
Connecticut 0.517
North Carolina 0.512
Pittsburgh 0.497
Maryland 0.471
Kansas 0.445
Missouri 0.442
Rutgers 0.411
Duke 0.286
Vanderbilt 0.282
In other words, in terms of long term football success, Virginia is only behind the “Big 4”. If Virginia is mediocre in football, then every other candidate is that or worse.
LikeLike
@M
That’s well and good, but winning percentages for an arbitrary time period don’t tell us too much and can active hide certain trends. For example what kind of schedules did these teams have? Are they trending up or down or periods of highs and lows? Are they continuing to invest in their athletic facilities and brand?
I don’t mean for you to provide answers/analysis for these questions, but obviously there is more to the issue than football winning percentage since ’84.
LikeLike
@Kyle
I agree that winning percentage over the last 25 years is a bit of crude measure, but it does give an indication of the historical dedication of a school to the sport. Comparing schedules over a long period is tricky, but note that a number of these schools are in the same conference as Virginia.
LikeLike
Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State have all placed in the top 5 of the Director’s Cup multiple times each. That’s not to take away from your point that UVa has a strong overall sports program, an assertion I completely agree with.
LikeLike
@M:
Uh, “any Big Ten school ever (except Michigan)” is just false.
Current standings, according to http://www.nacda.com/, has OSU #2, PSU #3, and Minnesota #4.
If you can trust Wikipedia, you see the Big Ten frequently sits in the top 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACDA_Directors%27_Cup
You are correct that Virginia placed 8th in last year’s final tally (http://www.nacda.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/june29d1). Michigan was 5th, OSU 10th, plus three others to round out the top 20 (Minn, PSU, Illinois.). But, again, the assertion that the BigTen, with the exception of Michigan, never cracks the top 8 is entirely false. OSU finished #3 in 2002-03, for example.
LikeLike
Directors’ Cup rankings:
Penn State:
3rd (1998-99)
4th (1999-00)
5th (1993-94)
5th (2002-03)
8th (1994-95)
Ohio State:
3rd (2002-03)
4th (2003-04)
6th (2000-01)
8th (1996-97)
Minnesota:
7th (2001-02)
And, of course, Michigan has finished 8th or better almost every year:
2nd (2003-04)
3rd (1999-00)
3rd (2007-08)
4th (2000-01)
4th (2002-03)
4th (2004-05)
4th (2006-07)
5th (1995-96)
5th (1997-98)
5th (2008-09)
6th (1998-99)
6th (2001-02)
7th (1994-95)
LikeLike
Can you provide the Directors’ Cup standings in recent years for the five schools listed in this thread (Maryland, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt and Virginia)?
LikeLike
@Vincent
I took a 10-year average of Director’s Cup standings. Here are the Big Ten schools and other schools of interest.
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Texas
6. North Carolina
8. Ohio State
12. Penn State
16. Notre Dame
17. Duke
18. Minnesota
20. Virginia
22. Texas A&M
23. Nebraska
25. Wisconsin
30. Michigan State
31. Illinois
33. Maryland
34. Purdue
37. Indiana
44. Miami
45. Missouri
46. Northwestern
47. Georgia Tech
49. Iowa
51. UConn
All of the above schools finished in the top 100 of the Director’s Cup in each of the last 10 years.
Vanderbilt — had respectable standings, but below those listed above.
Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt — performed poorly.
LikeLike
With all the B12 & BEast Commish saber rattling going on, I find it odd that there is nothing from Swofford of the ACC now that UMD & UVA are making headlines as candidates. Same goes for Slive of the SEC now that Vandy is getting some love. Further I have seen no denials from the ACC or SEC schools which again seems odd since all the other candidates have made public statements throughout the process.
LikeLike
Let’s be clear: Adding UVA improves significantly the academic prestige of the Big Ten. UVA does not “fit” it, it improves and elevates the academic image of the Big Ten. Which is why I can’t figure out why UVA would agree to join the Big Ten. Has anyone explained on this thread why UVA (or Vanderbilt) would want to join the Big Ten?
LikeLike
I believe the belief is inclusion in the CIC is a big factor that any institution would be interested plus the increase in revenue.
LikeLike
Plus not everyone thinks as little of the Big Ten as you do. If you read any rankings other than USNews, (which you, yourself stated was flawed, yet continually look to for rankings) you’d see that.
ARWU, for instance, ranks Virginia at #51 in the US. That would put it 9th in the Big Ten. QS (The Times in London) ranks Virginia #128 in the world, which would put it 8th in the Big Ten.
I know you can measure schools in a million different ways to get different results, and clearly Virginia is a fine school ranked much higher in other surveys, so I don’t mean to insult them–but my point is that I wouldn’t go solely by a USNews ranking that is mostly subjective–it uses few objective measures at all, and the ones it does use can be manipulated–just because it ranks Notre Dame highly and the Big Ten schools lower.
LikeLike
I think highly of the Big Ten. One of the Big Ten schools is my employer for 22 years since I received my doctorate from the University of Chicago (another member of the club).
This is simple: look at average SAT or ACT scores, measured at the median or the 75% percentile. Using this measure, Virginia kills. Of course Virginia undergrads (or ND undergrads) can pursue graduate degrees at CIC or Big Ten Schools. Few reasonable people argue that the graduate program molds the student. Some credit sure – but ultimately not in the ways that matter: student alignment or alumni donations. Graduates are about three times likely to donate to their undergraduate than graduate school. This is where affiliations are made. You and few others on this thread represent the outliers who believe that graduate experience, not undergraduate experience marks a person’s affiliation for life. You are insulting Virginia because you wish to measure them on a dimension that they do not prioritize. Virginia has done quite well, thank you, without aping Iowa or even Wisconsin.
Which schools of the current Big Ten do you rank ahead of Virginia for an 18 year high school applicant? To paraphrase from a different context “thrill me with your acumen, Djinn Djinn; explain to us why so many higher academically-qualified applicants are mistakenly applying to Virginia when they should be applying to the entire Big Ten.”
LikeLike
@rich2
Show me what those SAT/ACT scores are going towards.
Point being Big10 tends to focus heavily on engineering and physical sciences, which mind you VA does well on, but IMO the Big10 schools do better.
My own PSU has been top 10 in the world the past 10 years for engineering (Michigan even better), per ARWU anyway (FYI, VA is 50-75, ND not ranked) and yet I’m sure they’re SAT/ACT scores are worse. Fact is folks who do well in logical thinking may not post the best verbals.
Then again with a standard undergraduate admittance of double+ what UVA/ND have is it a wonder their average is lower?
As for “why are more going to VA”…I’d argue they aren’t. I count a grand total of 13k undergraduates going to that school. UoM probably has that in its engineering department (exaggeration of course, but you get the point).
Long story short, stop taking schools that are exceedingly selective in their undergraduate admissions as proof positive that “they are the best schools around”. Especially when they have literally millions of prospective students in the mid-atlantic region to select from.
Its just one more measure of academics and really needs to be broken down to truly be informational.
I mean I’ve known plenty of idiots (myself included) that scored 1500 SAT’s (myself included). 😛
LikeLike
Sorry in advance for the long post…
Rich says, “I think highly of the Big Ten.”
Rich, you’ve already made it clear that you’re a Notre Dame alum. You know you’re 100% biased towards the Irish, are you not? Would you not agree that the school you most care about in all this expansion talk is Notre Dame? Isn’t Notre Dame why you keep up with this blog? Or is it your love for Indiana or Michigan?
You may be employed by Indiana, but it would appear you are reluctantly so. Some time back, after one of your many “the sky is falling on the Big Ten” posts, Frank even asked why you even work for Indiana if you think things in the conference are so dire. Do you not recall? Your response was something to the effect that you were there because the economy was in bad shape and there weren’t a lot of jobs. Do I misrepresent your statement? Your response certainly didn’t sound like you were there for a love of Indiana University.
Post after post, I haven’t seen this high regard for the Big Ten. For example, look at your last post. You asked why a school as prestigious as Virginia even want to consider joining the Big Ten. Evidently nothing wrong in your mind with their associating with Florida State or NC State or Clemson. But why would they conceivably want to associate with the likes of Michigan, Wisconsin or Penn State? Yes, Rich, that sounds like a lot of love for the Big Ten to me.
But let’s use a more tangible measure of your love and respect. Where do you donate more of your money, Rich? To the U of Chicago that gave you the degree that got you hired? To Indiana, the university that clothes, feeds and houses you and your family? Or to Notre Dame? Where does your financial “love” go?
“Graduates are about three times likely to donate to their undergraduate than graduate school….You and few others on this thread represent the outliers who believe that graduate experience not undergraduate experience marks a person’s affiliation for life.”
While this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on this thread, I’d like you to show me my quote, because I don’t think I’ve said this at all. In fact, I know I said the opposite. On the previous thread, I even listed several reasons WHY people donate at higher rates to their undergraduate institutions. So I agree with you.
What I HAVE said is that a university is defined by what it does. At your Notre Dame their emphasis is, far and away, undergraduate studies. And because that’s Notre Dame’s emphasis, in your mind all schools are measured by the same yardstick. It’s all about the undergraduates.
Of course, at Big Ten schools they have a completely different mandate. They educate a LOT of undergraduates and they educate a LOT of graduate students and they do a WHOLE LOT of research. For Big Ten university presidents voting on an expansion, this is how they look at their schools. It’s not just about undergraduates to them. So that’s the lens most of us on this blog apply in looking at expansion candidates. We’re discussing how other universities would fit the Big Ten as the presidents view it. Get it? Hence, the value of a Big Ten school just simply has a different measure than the one yardstick (SATs, ACTs) you use. To them (and to me, frankly), a university means undergraduates, graduate students, and research. The whole enchilada.
“Explain to me why so many higher academically-qualified applicants are mistakenly applying to Virginia when they should be applying to the Big Ten.”
Virginia is a fine school. People should apply there.
However, I’d be curious to see what information you have that shows who is applying to which schools. My guess is that you only have academic stats on those accepted or admitted, which is a function not only of applicants but of positions available.
“You are insulting Virginia because you wish to measure them in a dimension they do not prioritize.”
When did I insult Virginia?
When I said in an earlier post on this thread that Virginia and Vanderbilt are “clearly very good institutions”?
When I said they “would make fine additions to the Big Ten”?
When I said “I can see the Big Ten’s interest in that regard”?
Or when I simply made the point to you that despite your feeling that there is no conceivable reason for a school like Virginia to affiliate itself with the Big Ten, that not everyone thinks the Big Ten would rank so low in comparison to Virginia. And as proof, I provided a couple well-known and unbiased international organizations that ranked the Big Ten schools much higher you can accept as possible. Again, these are not my rankings, but theirs. I’m just reporting them.
Or maybe the insult was when I purposely followed that point by stating that “clearly Virginia is a fine school ranked much higher in other surveys, so I don’t mean to insult them”?
Please point out the insult, Rich. It’s lost on me.
As for your point that I want to measure Virginia “in a dimension they do not prioritize”, that’s hilarious, because that’s exactly the complaint I’ve made about you.
EVERY time you discuss a school’s value or prestige, it’s all about SAT or ACTs. That’s it. It’s what you used to justify the ridiculous claim that Michigan’s academics were “plummeting”. And it’s the same measuring stick you use here.
Why do you use this one single metric to value a school?
Because that’s how private schools like Notre Dame measure their worth.
Like most privates, their claim to prestige is exclusivity. By whom they keep out. That’s easier to do when you have 1/2 or 1/10 the number of positions.
SAT’s and ACT’s are certainly one way to measure those attending. However, as I’ve previously written on this blog (and I don’t believe you ever responded), the job of large public schools like those in the Big Ten is not to keep people out, but to educate large masses of people—both at an undergraduate and a graduate level–and to contribute to society by doing the sort of research that actually advances society.
Large schools with a lot more open slots to fill are almost by definition going to have higher acceptance rates. Is that not obvious?
That doesn’t mean the school is worse. Or that the facilities are worse. Or that the teaching staff is worse. Or that the quality of teaching is worse. Or the educational opportunities are fewer. It’s merely reflective of different sorts of institutions with different missions.
Hence, I’d argue that above and beyond SATs and ACTs, the value of a school could be measured in many, many ways. Graduation rates. Numbers of people being educated (BS, PhD). Nobel prize winners produced, NAS members on staff, Fields Medal winners on the faculty. Highly-cited researchers. Awards won by faculty. Scientific papers produced. Class sizes. Numbers of majors offered. The list of measures goes on and on.
I’ve made this point—that not everything boils down to ACT scores, that you can use many metrics to measure a school—on more than one thread on this blog. Yet while you continually use the same ACT / SAT scores for all of your evaluations of schools, one that is clearly biased to favour small schools over larger schools, you tell me I’m measuring Virginia in a “dimension they do not prioritize”?
With that said, you write ”look at average SAT or ACT scores measured in the median or 75th percentile. Using this measure, Virginia kills.”
Here’s the example of my last point. SATs and ACTs–that’s your one measuring stick.
But for fun, here’s a quiz for you. Which school is “best”?
School A
88% in top 10% of their high school class
98% in the top 25% of their high school class
75th percentile of composite SATs : 99th percentile
75th percentile of best SAT section: 730 score (Math)
75th percentile of ACTs: 99th percentile
25th percentile of ACTs: 89th percentile
15.9 students per faculty
26 Fulbright Fellows
Out of state tuition and fees: $32,000
School B
92% in top 10% of their class
99% in the top 25%
75th percentile of composite SATs: 98.5th percentile
75th percentile of best SAT section: 740 (Math)
75th percentile of ACTs: 98th percentile
25th percentile of ACTs 89th percentile
15 students per faculty
31 Fulbright Fellows
Out of state tuition and fees: $35,000
Which university is better?
Personally, I’d call that pretty close. Based on this information, I’d consider those schools to be almost identical. Peer universities.
Not you. One of those schools “kills” the other.
So, honestly, is there really a lot to separate these two schools based on this information?
Or are you just completely biased against the one in the Big Ten?
But what if I now added this information:
Would it matter if one university offered 2 ½ times the number of majors as the other? Does that make one better?
Would it matter if one university had 63% more applications than the other? Does more interest in attending mean that school’s better?
Would it matter if one university turned down more applicants than the other?
Would it matter if one university had 80% more volumes in its libraries?
Would it matter if one university had 73% more undergraduate students?
Would it matter if one university had 61% more graduate students?
Would it matter if one university had 34 National Academy of Science winners and the other had 4?
Would it matter if one university had 30 National Academy of Science members on staff teaching students and the other had 12?
Would it matter if one school had 19 Nobel Prize winners associated with it and the other had 4?
What if one had more award winning teachers?
LikeLike
I for one love the combo of UVA/UMD for the Big Ten. I’m not a fan of either school, but as a Big Ten alumnus and fan, I think this duo brings a lot to the table. I don’t, however, like either one by itself all that much.
LikeLike
The only issue I see for the B10 in re UVa is enrollment.
LikeLike
The academic prestige of Virginia is high enough I’m sure enrollment size isn’t an issue. Much like the prestige of ND is enough for the BigTen to overlook similar presumably negative factors.
LikeLike
Hey Frank;
Thanks for the post, it all makes plenty of sense and of course who knows what will happen next.
Here is my question to #4. Do you think it may end up being necessary to bring more teams that share some tradition from the Big 12 to get Texas and A&M to pull the trigger?
I believe this to be true for a couple of reasons. 1st Travel, Delany has spoken about the troubles the WAC had with teams spread out to far. and B, don’t you have to sell the fan base on some things staying the same and some things changing?
In my example. Tex, A&M, NEB, Miss or Kansas, and ND were the teams of choice. This not only keeps some SWAC, and Big 12 tradition but also makes travel that much easier because many of these schools they would be familiar with already.
But maybe the most interesting part of this example is that it almost dictates what Silve has to do. He must clean up after the big 10, the remaining big 12 teams. because going to the acc doesn’t make sense for them. they already own those markets and it would have to piss off members like fla, sc, and ga.
So to sum up, if they concentrate on the big 12 they not only broaden their scope for the league and the BTN, but they force SEC to act a certain way (virtually) hurting their revenue stream, because they now share with four more teams without the additional revenue streams to offset the expansion. while the bug ten increases its revenue divide with a champ game and BTN expansion.
What do you think?
LikeLike
The SEC won’t hurt its revenue stream. So I think they stay at 12 regardless of what the Big 10+1 does. The only way they improve the revenue stream is to expand their market-schools like UVA, UNC, Texas and Texas A&M. And the 1st 3 will not join the SEC.
The game theorists might think UVA is a bad move for the Big 10. VT would then be free to go to the SEC. Coupled with an OU that might be a revenue enhancer and it would certainly be a competitivness enhancement.
LikeLike
Let’s assume Maryland and Virginia go to the Big Ten, along with Vanderbilt, Texas A&M and Texas, and Virginia Tech goes to the SEC as team 12. It would be intriguing to see what happened next.
Might the SEC match the Big Ten bu going to 16, and if so, who joins the Gobblers? (I refuse to use the “Hokie” nickname because it sounds stupid.) West Virginia has been a longtime Tech foe (though it ended with VT to the ACC), and it would certainly covet SEC membership. Would Mike Slive pursue Oklahoma, even if he had to take Okie State as well? They would give Arkansas two nearby rivals. That leaves one slot left, and I sense Florida State would get the nod over Clemson because it hails from a bigger, more recruit-laden state.
Under that scenario, the ACC is now minus UMd, UVa, VT and FSU. It likely would pick off Rutgers, Syracuse, Connecticut and Pittsburgh from the Big East, giving it more visibility in the New York market. Then again, under this scenario, that wasn’t all that important to the Big Ten, was it?
The Big 12 is left as the Big Eight again, only with Texas Tech and Baylor instead of the two Oklahoma schools. It’s vulnerable to a Pac-10 pickoff of Colorado (and Nebraska? Remember, there are a lot of former Nebraskans on the West Coast). It would likely be forced to take in Brigham Young abd Utah, though the latter could also go to the Pac-10. Texas Christiam could also be a candidate.
LikeLike
In the above scenario, the SEC might also want a member in North Carolina, a fast-growing state. Its first choice would obviously be UNC, but I can’t see it leaving the ACC, especially without Duke; it also probably wouldn’t mesh culturally with the SEC. Wake Forest is too small from an SEC perspective. That leaves N.C. State, whose athletic program hasn’t done much of late, and for whom SEC membership could be a shot in the arm, especially for football. Would the SEC accept NCSU if UNC turned it down? That’s the question.
LikeLike
Good point. If SEC goes ACC they should go after teams like NC, NC State, Va Tech, maybe Duke?
I just can’t see Fla, Ga, SC, even KY signing off on, fla state, ga tech, miami, clemson, and even louisville for that matter. The SEC is the grade A beef in those states why would they want rivals getting a piece of that pie?
$ and recruiting wise.
LikeLike
I don’t think The Big Ten President’s necessarily care how the SEC responds.
Any SEC expansion is focused on making a “stronger football conference”, and, with the exception of Texas, appears to focus on their current footprint.
The Big Ten expansion is looking at a “stronger football conference” as only one of many criteria. Academic Prestige, Research, Expanding the footprint, following the population growth, cultural fit, and increasing revenue are all a part of the criteria for the Big Ten.
So even if the SEC maximizes their “football conference power”, the Big Ten will have grown in many, many more ways, whichever path they choose.
LikeLike
Not looking at your main competition is a major mistake. just look at the auto-industry.
must be part of the equation IMO.
LikeLike
15 year deals are not re-done after a year, with an addition of teams that already fit the conference footprint.
if they get ou osu kansas maybe tech than that maybe a different story.
But you only have so many slots that are big payoffs for the network. that is why they draft the games they want to show.
I respect your points but I do not think Delany is sitting down with espn before he expands to make sure everything works out. he has the ace in the hole, The BTN, the SEC does not.
LikeLike
I do however, I think ESPN is trying to save the cash as well.
ESPN and The SEC have a great thing going. I mean look at that deal. But I don’t think they are going to pony up a bunch of funds because the SEC expands because there likely expansion partners r in the bag so to speak.
I also agree ESPN isn’t going to re-do the Big Ten deal either. But I think Delany knows that. and is insulated.
As for compelling games vs market. I hope Delany doesn’t fall in the market trap and disguise it as an academic decision. I would take Pitt b4 Rutgers all day because ultimately it is about product.
You build it and they will come type stuff.
LikeLike
Willarm1,
I agree with most of your comments regarding the SEC, ESPN, and revenues.
But I still think that while The Big Ten is definitely looking at what EVERY conference may do, I don’t think their strategy is based on any fear of the SEC response.
The only real battle between the SEC and Big Ten is over UT. Everything else is indirect. The SEC, in many ways, is not the Big Ten’s competition.
In research, the competition is not the SEC.
In Academic reputation and performance (undergraduates), the competition is not the SEC.
As regards The Big Ten Network revenue (footprint growth and added inventory), the SEC is not really the competition.
With the exception of UT and maybe A&M, it does not appear that the SEC is the competition for “recruiting” a school to The Big Ten.
And even then, with UT and A&M, it’s more of a “me, too” recruiting pitch. The Big Ten is saying “come join us, we’d love to have you”. The SEC is saying “if there is a major change in conferences, and if you guys are thinking of leaving the Big XII, and if the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, then, yes, we’d love to have you”.
The SEC (apparently) is not looking at growing their footprint (aside from Texas). Their Plans B and C appear focused on fortifying the current footprint.
Finally, “cultural fit” has nothing to do with the competition.
So yes, the Big Ten needs to be aware of the SEC, but also the Pac 10, when it comes to recruiting UT and A&M. And maybe Miami or Ga Tech.
So, yes, I will revise my earlier statement. The Big Ten Presidents do need to care about the SEC. But not get overboard on “beating the SEC in football” if it detracts from 5 other aspects of expansion.
LikeLike
You think the SEC stands pat, if the Big Ten gets UT, A&M neb, missouri,and ND?
Not sure Silve could let the Big 10 move without a counter.
If the SEC goes to 16 they do hurt there revenue stream IMO. ESPN deal is 10 -15 years right? no way they re-do that deal. especially if they add GA Tech fla state miami clemson. why would they? those markets r sec markets that they have already paid for. Now add four more teams to share that SEC deal, and that hurts per team $.
In addition ESPN will not re-do the Big Ten deal either imo it is a new 10 year deal as well. but the growth of the BTN to new markets and a championship game, make expansion not only feasible but smart. furthering the $ divide between the conferences.
while the SEC doesn’t have any re-course except to share with the additional 4 teams. where does the additional money come from?
The SEC would be smart to stand pat, and the ACC is a no deal…..But I would bet a dollar Silve would jump at the low hanging fruit. OU, OSU, Tex Tech and Kansas, and deal with revenue later.
Delany could really control the landscape of the Big 10, while disbanding the big 12 and control the SEC counter move, if he can get ut and a&m to bite imo. and than bring a big 12 bloc to the big 10.
LikeLike
It all depends on the TV. If the SEC can cut a new TV deal, the SEC has room to move.
CBS just got the Tournament by partnering with TNT. If CBS and TNT get together a deal for the SEC, with the understanding that the SEC is going to pick up some new, strong brands, then the SEC might jump the B10 and move right away.
LikeLike
A lot of the money from the SEC’s new deal came from ESPN, who use their content for their networks, including ESPNU. Any negotiation would be with CBS and ESPN.
LikeLike
m (ag) —
CBS has a deal and ESPN has a deal. Is the ESPN deal dependent on the CBS deal?
If not, what is preventing CBS from renegotiating its own deal and bringing in a partner? Will added schools mean added games not covered by either contract?
Just like with the ACC deal, we don’t know the intricacies/contingencies of the contract. But it is possible that CBS owns a set of games and doesn’t need a sign-off from ESPN.
LikeLike
CBS gets pick #1 every week of the football except for the weekend of the U.S. Open Tennis finals. ESPN gets picks #2, #3, #4, and sometimes #5.
LikeLike
So, if the inventory of games increases (as it would with expansion), are those games up for grabs?
LikeLike
But the NCAA tourney was up for bid.
SEC and Big Ten just began new deals.
LikeLike
This is the second time you’ve said this, but it’s not true. The Big Ten’s current deal started more than four years ago and is up in 2015. Therefore expanding now to add teams in 2013 or so would have a major impact on the negotiating of the Big Ten’s network deal (i.e. ABC/ESPN).
LikeLike
B10 ABC contract took effect in August 2007, so there are just over 7 years remaining.
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/062106aad.html
LikeLike
The SEC said they are in talks with CBS. Deals can be renegotiated, provided both sides agree.
Here’s the real issue …
Can/will the SEC expand without a new TV deal? I doubt it. Adding two new schools means a revenue reduction without a new deal. If the SEC can cut a new deal with CBS (and a partner like TNT), then expansion is much easier.
The broadcast networks don’t have the $$ to keep up with the cable networks. The only way more cash comes into the SEC is by getting more money from ESPN (possible) and/or allowing CBS to add a cable partner.
If the SEC can cut a new deal, expansion is far easier. If they can cut a deal in the next couple of months, the SEC could make a move ahead of the B10.
LikeLike
Big Ten deal ends in 2017.
my mistake calling it new. But it is not almost over by any means.
LikeLike
“CBS has a deal and ESPN has a deal. Is the ESPN deal dependent on the CBS deal?
If not, what is preventing CBS from renegotiating its own deal and bringing in a partner? Will added schools mean added games not covered by either contract?”
Well, ESPN has rights to SEC games; as long as that contract is in place, the SEC needs to renegotiate it in order to give more games to CBS.
In any event, ESPN will be a better cable partner than TNT/TBS. The big SEC ESPN deal included a whole lot of sports, including baseball and softball, being televised on the big ESPN family of networks. TNT/TBS won’t make room for this sort of thing, and ESPN will ultimately have more money for this year round programming.
Now, if the SEC now wants to create its own network, it will have to cancel much of that ESPN contract and partner with a cable corporation. Otherwise, I think they need to negotiate with ESPN, which will value all those extra sports.
LikeLike
SEC deal is brand spanking new. ends in 2024. Can’t see ESPN changing terms so soon.
Why would they? because the SEC didn’t plan ahead?
It was the SEC choice to go away from a network to sign this deal.
they made their bed.
LikeLike
“SEC deal is brand spanking new. ends in 2024. Can’t see ESPN changing terms so soon.
Why would they? because the SEC didn’t plan ahead”
This is foolish, they would give more money to the SEC because the SEC would be producing more programming with several valuable schools: Florida State, Virginia Tech, etc. It will also likely cancel that brand new ACC contract, which frees up money.
Those extra schools are valuable. ESPN also has an interest in keeping the highest quality sports on its networks; with more good teams going to the Big 10, it needs to make sure it keeps more under its umbrella.
The question isn’t whether ESPN would renegotiate; the question is whether they will give enough money so that the per school take would stay the same or go up with 16 schools.
LikeLike
willarm1 – Before any conference expands, the conference will go to its TV partners and attempt to renegotiate, including the Big Ten. The Big Ten will try to get more money out of ABC/ESPN, in addition to the anticipated carriage for the BTN.
One of my rules for SEC expansion is that the SEC won’t expand unless CBS & ESPN pay for it. If TV isn’t interested, then SEC won’t be cutting up their existing pie into 17 slices.
Since the SEC is seen nationally with CBS/ESPN and the nationally syndicated ESPN-produced SEC Network (which is shown on broadcast or basic cable in at least 15 states outside the SEC footprint), the motivation for CBS & ESPN to renegotiate is higher ratings and more inventory of compelling games.
That’s why Florida State & Miami (with a national following and recent NCs) would be stronger candidates than GA Tech & Clemson.
Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, & VA Tech would all have appeal to the SEC partner networks.
As circumstances change, contracts are renegotiated. It happens every day.
LikeLike
What would be foolish would be to give more money to a league that adds va tech (small mkt) fla state? fla is already an sec market. miami same thing.
no way ESPN changes that deal for what? because the SEC teams are not making as much money per team as they were…..that is laughable.
why more money when Espn can’t even run a cost analysis on the current deal. To make sure it is profitable.
Silve made a decision and he has talked about it constantly, that he decided to go away from a network. Then he pounded his chest for this espn deal. Hey it is a great deal.
But maybe he didn’t have the forethought in regards to expansion.
Now I’m also saying in fairness I do not believe ESPN will re-do the Big Ten deal either. But Delany is holding the cards with the BTN and a championship game.
But four more teams isn’t going to change what was offered. because they all can’t be televised at 9 pm on thursday. or Sat night. how much is va tech v. vandy on espnu worth?
He made his bed.
LikeLike
15 year deals are not re-done after a year, with an addition of teams that already fit the conference footprint.
if they get ou osu kansas maybe tech than that maybe a different story.
But you only have so many slots that are big payoffs for the network. that is why they draft the games they want to show.
I respect your points but I do not think Delany is sitting down with espn before he expands to make sure everything works out. he has the ace in the hole, The BTN, the SEC does not.
LikeLike
This may come as a surprise to you, but if someone comes to a network and offers them more quality programming for money, they generally try to come to a deal. Now, they might not come to a mutually agreeable price, but they do at least negotiate.
If this didn’t happen, you would never see more than 1 Law and Order on the air, or more than 1 hour of American Idol per week.
“What would be foolish would be to give more money to a league that adds va tech (small mkt) fla state? fla is already an sec market. miami same thing”
Virginia Tech is not a small market. CBS and ESPN would be paying for the national appeal of a school like FSU as well as the local markets it would bring.
The SEC would give its network partners more quality games from all SEC sports; with the ACC radically changing its lineup, ESPN wouldn’t be airing as much of its sports anymore.
Yes, the networks will pay more for that. How much is the only question. If the SEC won’t make money on the deal they will stay at 12 schools and not expand.
LikeLike
I agree with Alan. SEC won’t expand to get less $. They need TV to fund it. And they only way TV funds it is with new markets. I’m not sure any markets support going from 12 to 14 or 16 for traditional networks (BTN is different).
But if additions justify expansion, they must be populous new ones like NC, VA, TX. So how much does CBS want VT and OU? They certainly wouldn’t pay 2/14ths more for Houston and TCU. And I don’t see VT leaving the ACC unless UVA does go to the B10.
LikeLike
Even with all those channels, more SEC could be a problem. Can they get ESPN 3 (360) added to more cable nets? Can they get more ESPNU carried? They may have all the inventory they can take for the main channel and the deuce. If more inventory means getting cable operators to add other ESPN channels, a new deal might be tough. Cable operators are fighting a tough war with the content providers over fees. I would not want to have a cable channel trying to get on basic right now, unless I had really compelling programming.
For TNT/TBS — what do they have going on Saturdays? Bunch of reruns. Plus, they might want a Thu/Fri/Sat game. I think there is room for some college football/bball there. Good complement for also having the tourney.
William —
Since ESPN and CBS have practically 100% coverage (and TNT/TBS), the issue isn’t about getting schools that have good local markets. The issue is getting schools with programs that draw viewers. VA Tech stinks for the B10 b/c the B10 is all about adding systems for BTN. Conversely, Rutgers is good for the B10 b/c it means adding systems (even if its program is weak). VA Tech might be coveted by the SEC b/c it gets viewers and has a competitive program that can generate great games.
Alan is right — it’s about good product, less about market.
LikeLike
To say the SEC will not expand unless the money is there means the acc is out IMO.
That is SEC country and you r just going to probably piss off your membership, and you are not increasing the leagues footprint.
If and it is a big if The Big ten pulls enough big 12 teams(neb tex a&m missouri, nd) to cause a run on big 12 teams and their eventual demise, than I believe The SEC would jump to pick up the pieces for competitions sake.
Because Silve wont have it.
this could bite them in the ass in terms of $$$$ especially if Texas is not part of the mix.
LikeLike
So if the SEC expands they will sign a deal with TNT?
those better be four damn important teams.
LikeLike
Here is my point.
The Big Ten is in a much better financial situation to expand to a 16 team conference than is the SEC.
And The SEC would be smart to stay at 12 no matter what happens, because adding four teams to that league could easily drop the per team intake of dollars.
LikeLike
I should have posted a caveat regarding TNT/TBS. ESPN could well have an exclusivity clause in its contract.
If that were the case, there is no way they let in TNT.
Now, if they had the 12 teams locked in as an exclusive cable provider — there’s a chance that the SEC can’t move at all.
If I’m ESPN and I have deals with all the major conferences, why participate in some deck-chair shuffling for the glory of the SEC. I got a pretty good thing going. Why pay more for FSU to move? I already have them in the ACC. How would that conversationwith the ACC go? Hey, we just dropped a bunch of cash on the SEC so they could raid you, how about a discount?
Why pay to have the Okies move? I got them too. Same dynamics as above.
So, it is up to CBS to stump up the cash. Why would CBS jack up its fees when it only has the marquee game? Is Oklahoma v. LSU worth that much more?
Maybe they want FSU v. Florida. Fine, but that means they have to drop an existing game. Are the marginal dollars there to pay for expansion?
If ESPN can block out TNT/TBS (and Fox Sports — almost forgot them), then why pay up to rock the boat?
If ESPN doesn’t have exclusivity, then CBS/TNT or FoxSports could put in a new deal for the new inventory. ESPN could always match it.
Bottom line — why would ESPN subsidize a raid on conferences with which it already has TV deals?
LikeLike
My bad;
TNT TBS is part of CBS.
so just another venue to televise overflow. because unlike the tourney you don’t want to compete against yourself in terms of primetime time slots.
LikeLike
One more issue —
If ESPN has exclusivity in the SEC, they certainly won’t renegotiate to let in Big 12 teams. The reason is they have a cheap deal with the B12 as it stands. Why would they willingly pay more for Oklahoma or Texas than they already do?
I am guessing ESPN won’t re-do its deal with the B10, for that matter — unless it involves an extension. Perhaps that makes adding systems and subs to the BTN that much more important.
LikeLike
Agreed. It would also be a dangerous move for the SEC to give up that great deal from espn to move to fox.
LikeLike
“Even with all those channels, more SEC could be a problem. Can they get ESPN 3 (360) added to more cable nets? Can they get more ESPNU carried?”
I was in Louisiana early last football season. I noticed that ESPNU was magically added to the hi-def lineup about a week before LSU played a game that was shown on ESPNU!!
So, yeah, I think they can get more ESPNU carried, if they pick popular schools.
LikeLike
My entire thought process on this is Delany could possibly control not only the Big 10 moves, but the demise of the Big 12 while forcing the SEC’s hand making the revenue divide even larger.
Of course Texas is the key, and Delany would have to bring a Big 12 bloc to the Big Ten. to force the SEC counter.
LikeLike
Pensfan – here’s why CBS/ESPN participate in “deck-chair shuffling”: Florida State v. Alabama/ Tenn/ Florida/ LSU/ Georgia gets more eyeballs to the TV screen than Florida State v. any possible ACC matchup.
For the SEC, its not about markets, its about compelling games on TV. Other than Alabama, and recently Florida, the SEC brand is more important than the individual schools. That’s why CBS doesn’t regionalize coverage of the SEC. I know all about mirror viewing in the Big Ten on ABC/ESPN, but if ABC thought it could beat CBS heads up with a Big Ten game, it wouldn’t be regionalized.
LikeLike
ESPN is already paying for that game. with SEC deal and ACC deal why would they pay again.
like he said.
Bottom line — why would ESPN subsidize a raid on conferences with which it already has TV deals?
LikeLike
Alan — we are in agreement about markets. For the SEC it is all about programming.
As for shuffling the deck chairs, now we are in interesting territory as we do not know the guts of the contracts. The ACC contract is recent, so we can reasonably assume that there are clauses regarding expansion/poaching. I think you m (ag) and I are in agreement that it’s all about the cash. So, what’s the penalty for departure for FSU? What kind of discount can ESPN get if a school leaves? What can the SEC pony up? FSU/Alabama would be a much better draw that FSU/UNC. But, what SEC game does FSU/Bama replace? Note that CBS gets first dibs on games. Does ESPN want to help CBS get better games?
What happens to its ACC slate? I don’t know how much more ESPN would be willing to abet turning a somewhat moribund conference moribunder.
Is it really worth it for ESPN to pony up more cash to gut the ACC in return for a few better SEC games?
Not to mention that the ACC would look like a bunch of dopes if they signed a deal with ESPN only to have the Worldwide Leader help the SEC poach its best schools. Do I smell lawsuit? Not a great way to treat your partners.
(Side note: ACC is still valuable as a Bball conference, so having a rocky relationship with your marquee BBall league would be bad)
ESPN likely values its relationship with the conferences and would be likely to avoid being complicit in wounding them.
LikeLike
Willarm1 — are you also in agreement that it’s all about the cash when it comes to negotiating/renegotiating?
LikeLike
I do however, I think ESPN is trying to save the cash as well.
ESPN and The SEC have a great thing going. I mean look at that deal. But I don’t think they are going to pony up a bunch of funds because the SEC expands because there likely expansion partners r in the bag so to speak.
I also agree ESPN isn’t going to re-do the Big Ten deal either. But I think Delany knows that. and is insulated.
As for compelling games vs market. I hope Delany doesn’t fall in the market trap and disguise it as an academic decision. I would take Pitt b4 Rutgers all day because ultimately it is about product.
You build it and they will come type stuff.
LikeLike
All things being equal AAU member etc.
LikeLike
Successful expansion from ESPN´s perspective does not = successful expansion from BTN perspective. ESPN already receives high premiums from cable companies across the country. The way they increase their bottom line is through advertising revenue. In that vein, ESPN would be interested in SEC expansion that draws higher ratings, not one that increases its footprint (it is already everywhere!).
IMO, that means SEC expansion will be centered around the numbers and draw that particular candidates provide. Who´s the stronger draw: Florida State or West Virginia? Miami or VTech? etc, etc.
LikeLike
Higher ratings for the SEC but lower for the ACC because those teams r gone. But ESPN has paid for both.
Will the ACC discount because those teams were taken?
Don’t see the contracts being significantly redone, at least not large enough to give 4 teams 17-20 million each. And that is what the SEC would need to keep the status quo. It doesn’t make sense.
As for Footprint, it does play a role in this SEC expansion model. If the Big Ten lands a Tex and A&M you bet it counts in terms of recruits and Silve will want his own foothold in that region for competitions sake.
which may force them to expand. increasing the revenue divide.
LikeLike
My bad
replied to the wrong area.
I need a drink
LikeLike
All this is why I think if the SEC were to expand its going to be from schools that have nothing to do with the ACC.
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the importance of footprint in increasing ratings.
No conference has been rumoured to be considering multiple teams in their own footprint but the SEC. Being on CBS doesn’t make them different. A Virginia Tech adds more value than an FSU. FSU certainly adds more value than Tulsa, but the footprint is important. The SEC has limited options.
LikeLike
Not likely anybody from the ACC would take the step down in academic stature to join the SEC for $. Maybe FSU but if I recall FSU was not interested in the SEC when the money was better 20 years ago. These schools want to brand up just like your company does. If you take up company with the dogs, you might get fleas, so ACC teams would only go to the B10. More likely they would go for B12 or BEast teams.
LikeLike
that means the SEC would have to decide.
A: stay at 12 and keep the cash, but lose some competitiveness and recruiting base.
2: expand and increase your recruiting base and competition level but lose some cash. Because with the addition of 4 teams you would have to make up between 17-20 million per team to keep the payouts balanced.
Where does that money come from? They just signed a huge ESPN deal, and even if ESPN re-opened the deal, there isn’t a chance they are going to pile 80 million more dollars on it. Hell ESPN and ABC already have a deal with the Big 12.
Why would they pay the SEC for taking Big 12 teams? and then pay the Big 12 deal. seems like bad business.
LikeLike
The other aspect that ESPN needs to look at, is that they’ve got this locked in for 15 years.
If after one or two years, the SEC thinks they aren’t getting enough money to keep up with their perceived competition, how is this going to look in year 5, let alone years 12, 13, 14, and 15? ESPN might have a 10-year bargain on their hands for these rights.
Why mess with that?
LikeLike
Frank,
I figured Delany´s more cautious 12-18 month timetable was a way to hedge his bets if the Texas/ND scenario fell through.
Does this new 5 team scenario mean the original plan fell through and, more to the point, that we really are talking about an 18 month timetable now?
If this 5 team expansion is really the direction the Big 10´s headed, what´s left to be ironed out?
LikeLike
my initial reaction to these schools names being out there:
Translation: “Hey look over there! Is that Elvis?”
LikeLike
Well I’d be excited about this.
Academically, it’s a home run. In football it’s not the strongest scenario, but it will be a very deep conference. In basketball and baseball it’s very strong.
I do wonder about Vanderbilt, though I’m not opposed to their inclusion. I wonder if Tennessee would bother to schedule them as a non-conference game?
Anyway, look at the population
2000 census numbers:
Texas: 20.8 million
Virginia: 7.1 million
Maryland: 5.3 million
D.C.: .6 milion
total = 33.8 million people, 12% of the US population in 2000.
Tennessee had 5.7 million people, though I don’t know how much Vandy adds.
2030 census projection:
Texas: 33.3 million
Virginia: 9.8 million
Maryland: 7.0 million
D.C. : .4 million
total = 50.5 million people, 13.9% of the US population in 2030.
Again, Tennessee will be at 7.4 million people.
So the 4 non-Vanderbilt schools each bring about 3% of the US population. In theory, a conference with 16 such schools would have 48% of the US population! Pretty strong numbers for the Big 10.
LikeLike
While I’ve opened up this document, I figure I’ll go ahead and list the entire Big 10 population in 2030 if these go through.
(rank in US)State: population in 2030:
2.Texas: 33.3 million
5.Illinois: 13.4 million
6.Pennsylvania: 12.8 million
9.Ohio: 11.6 million
11.Michigan: 10.7 million
12.Virginia: 9.8 million
(15.Tennessee: 7.4 million)
16.Maryland: 7.0 million
18.Indiana: 6.8 million
20.Minnesota 6.3 million
21.Wisconsin: 6.2 million
34.Iowa: 3.0 million
–D.C.: .4 million
total=121.3 million people without Tennessee, 128.7 million people with Tennessee.
33.4% of the US population without Tennessee, 35.4% of the US population with Tennessee.
It’s very impressive that, with the exception of Iowa, every school is from the top 21 states in population.
Taking the 121.3 million number, each of the 16 schools brings in an average of 7.6 million people. So the 2 Texas schools and Virginia would be bringing in more than this new average. Maryland+DC would be right at the new average.
States missed by this expansion:
4.New York: 19.5 million
7.North Carolina: 12.2 million
8.Georgia: 12.0 million
13.New Jersey: 9.8 million
22.Colorado: 5.8 million
30.Connecticut: 3.7 million
38.Nebraska: 1.7 million
LikeLike
Please note that, in 2030, Michigan (a “pariah”) is still ahead of Virginia (a darling of the demographics crowd).
LikeLike
Hmmm, from a demographic perspective, swap out small private school Vandy with small private school Syracuse, and it is a populace home run.
*Note I contend that 17 million NYC Market is an unobtainable market, but the 10 Million people in Upstate New York can be persuaded to include Syracuse on their basic cable package. 10 mil is slightly larger than 7.5 of Tennessee, but I would also contend that Vandy would not deliver the entire state.
LikeLike
I do wonder about Vanderbilt, though I’m not opposed to their inclusion. I wonder if Tennessee would bother to schedule them as a non-conference game?
I can guarantee it. A perceived easy win and a chance for the SEC to pull their usual gag of scheduling a lower-ranked B10+ team and then bragging about their record vs. the conference.
LikeLike
Most SEC schools, like most Big 10 schools and most Big 12 schools, schedule 1 good non-conference game and then tries to get home games. For a lot of schools the good non-conference game is a rivalry game: Florida/FSU, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Arkansas/Texas A&M. A school like LSU, without a rival, goes around the country playing a school like Arizona, Virginia Tech, or North Carolina each year.
In the last 4 years, Tennessee has played Cal twice and UCLA twice. If Vanderbilt only agreed to a home and home, I could see Tennessee passing in order to continue to play a better ‘name’ school for it’s home-and-away opponent.
LikeLike
What do people think “plan A” actually is? My guess is Tex, TAM, ND and then either (1) Neb and Rut or (2) Mary and Virg. Not sure if ND and Tex would prefer one of these options or two other schools entirely.
LikeLike
Maryland + Virginia helps shed the ‘midwestern’ and ‘northern’ labels from the Big 10. They’re academically stronger and have more people.
Nebraska would be a bit less travel, though.
LikeLike
I have no interest in shedding the “midwestern” and “northern” labels……culture matters.
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 is interested in establishing it’s culture as ‘elite academics’ and ‘elite athletics’.
I think this culture is one that would attract the schools in the big markets listed in this expansion.
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 is interested in establishing it’s culture as ‘elite academics’ and ‘elite athletics’.
Indeed, which is why I still think 20 or 24 is on the table. If TX proposed a Western Alliance, why wouldn’t they also propose an Eastern Alliance?
Skim most of the academic best of the B12, ACC, and BEast. Keep it AAU focused in partnership with the B10+ and you’d share the riches of the BTN, boost its content, and offer the best chance to lure ND. B10+ can get most of the financial benefits of ND while staying all AAU.
First conf: Original Big Ten plus PSU and Rut
Second conf: TX, aTm, Vandy, GT, Duke, NC, Mia, ND, VA, MD, Syr, CT (or Pitt, or maybe even BC)
Do that and you’d probably see the SEC simply replace Vandy and then form an alliance, without revenue sharing, with a 12 team leftover conference. The P10 goes to 12 and then combines with a rebuilt B12. Perhaps some shuffling between the new B12 and the SEC stepchild conference.
LikeLike
I disagree and don’t think that a 20 or 24 conference is coming any time soon. Way too much way too fast.
I do think that after the reshuffling, you will see some drastic changes to the BCS, the definition of the FBS and FCS, and the NCAA tournament.
Right now, especially with the tightened economy, the first step for The Big Ten is expanding the conference pie through the BTN.
The second step will be getting more from the NCAA. And like it or not, the tickets sold to the Bowl Games and the eyeballs watching the bowls and the NCAA tournament are more for the big boys.
The Big Ten – and probably the SEC – will push for the allowance of a 3rd team from a conference in the BCS bowls. Additionally, they will want a bigger payout to team # 2 and team #3.
And they won’t have to bluff that they will pull out of the BCS, or remove their #2 and #3 teams from the BCS. Assuming a 14 or 16 team Big Ten and SEC which may include Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, ND, Miami, and Florida State.. A pre-ordained Big Ten #2 vs SEC #2 would see ratings and ticket sales equivalent to the #3 BCS game; and the BCS would have fewer bowls or less money to spread around.
And on top of that, they may want to remove some of the schools at the bottom of the FBS… tighten it up from 120 to 100 or 85 or 64…
Similarly, the power conferences will want more revenue from the NCAA tournament. It’s less likely to pull out of the tournament, but there are increased ratings for the power teams from the power conferences. And they will want more for their share of the pie, or more payouts to the teams for advancing than what is currently set aside to go to the smaller conferences.
I don’t think it will happen, but if the Big Ten, ACC, Pac 10, SEC, and Big East pulled out of the NCAA and started their own division’s national tournament, I’m sure the schools left behind would see a dramatic cut to their revenue, so they’d have to listen and negotiate.
LikeLike
Anyone see this?
‘Nothing’s off the table’ as Texas, Notre Dame keep eye on expansion
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-05-25-texas-notre-dame-expansion_N.htm
LikeLike
I find Swarbrick’s comment that, “DeLoss and I have a similar perspective” to be quite interesting, in light of the rumor from the NW board.
LikeLike
1) What exactly were the rumblings that have caused Missouri’s stock to fall?
2) @jcfreder: I would gess that your choice 1 is the Big Ten’s Plan “A”. But who knows at this point? If you read this blog long enough, you can convince yourself that the teams added WILL be USC, Florida and Vandy.
3) If the only teams added were Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, I would consider expansion a solid success. None of the other 3 conferences would be mortally wounded and everyone could live to fight another day.
LikeLike
Seems like any combination of five schools could be a possible list, so why not just substitute Vandy and MD for UNC and GA Tech. That would be Southern strategy. Basically, you would be surrounding the SEC. Both are excellent academic schools and both have fairly good athletic brands and both are in growth states. If you remove MD and VA from the ACC, why would UNC and GT want to stay?
In these economic times with public support for public universities shrinking every year, can a state government really prevent a school from moving conferences? UVA receives far less support from Virginia than it did when the legislature forced it to take VT in the ACC. Does that give UVA or the state more leverage?
LikeLike
Penn St Danny
If you believe that the B10 is going for some combination of academic and sports powerhouses I think most agree that MO does not rise to the top in either category.
LikeLike
UMD academically can play with anybody on the list. Top is a very relative term when one is talking about the top 50 or so in the world.
LikeLike
Awww, hell. Hit the submit button as I realized you were talking about MO not MD.
I agree completely, MO is nowhere near the top for either academics or athletics amongst the candidate schools. This is not hatred for MO, it’s a good school in the larger scheme of things. Rather, MO’s position in this list really underlines the strength of the options for the expansion.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s an academic powerhouse. Like the Ivy League but spread out. Not much of an improvement for football other than Texas.
But this scenario seems to ignore an extremely important point: travel costs. The increased travel costs will easily be in the millions of dollars. Texas and A&M are complete outliers with huge fan travel distances for most of their games in every sport. Will the students even be able to attend those games? What happens to that conference if the BTN doesn’t continue to be a raging success? This just doesn’t pass the sniff test for me.
And one other thing I find amusing – much of this discussion revolves around appeasing Texas. Does no one else see this as a problem for both the SWC and B12? If the B10 bends over backwards just to get UT into the fold, I think a repeat of the B12 will be likely. Especially considering that the Texas schools will be so far removed geographically from the rest of the conference.
LikeLike
Red
“not much improvement for football other than Texas”
Put TX in with the other B10 schools, throw in the 4 names Frank posted on, and people might bemoan missing out on a NE or someone like that but the end result is still smashing IMO.
LikeLike
“And one other thing I find amusing – much of this discussion revolves around appeasing Texas…If the B10 bends over backwards just to get UT into the fold, I think a repeat of the B12 will be likely.”
You took the words right outta my mouth.
LikeLike
Is it a coincidence that the last two conferences Texas has been in have failed? (or at this point it appears that the second is failing) Does this scare any Big 10 fan here when talking in terms of the Big 10 making special rules for Texas?
LikeLike
Good lord…
LikeLike
🙂 Just seeing if you were still lurking Hopkins….relax, i’m not that ignorant. I have a question for you though; I’ve read ALOT about Texas and A&M not necessarily being tied together, but I work with a Texas Alum that swears that its actually legislated that the two HAVE to remain in the same conference….I called him out on it, but to your knowledge is there any state legislation that ties the two that has been missed on this blog?
LikeLike
Bastard!
I work with a Texas Alum that swears that its actually legislated that the two HAVE to remain in the same conference
I would assume that, if this were the case, it would have been mentioned in some ofthe 15,000 articles which have been written on the subject. I have never heard of any such provision, and I think it is safe to say that your Aggie coworker isn’t correct.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – That legislation is a popular Internet myth just like the supposed “contiguous state” rule for the Big Ten. Now, certain politicians might want to link Texas and Texas A&M together, but it isn’t written into law.
LikeLike
de-toe
herbie explains in just a few words what is wrong with some huskers.
LikeLike
See, that’s what I thought…..he isn’t an Aggie though he’s a UT Alum and that is why it confused me coming from a Longhorn…….thanks though; just wanted some backing for my argument.
LikeLike
Yeah, just tell him that Hopkins Horn said he was wrong. That should suffice. 🙂
LikeLike
No law. Texas A&M did want to join the SEC when the Big 12 was formed, but the Tech and Baylor alums who were in power then told them no. The legislature is back to its normal UT and A&M dominance. UT didn’t object to A&M going to the SEC. That arm twisting back in 94 may be what started the rumour.
LikeLike
Stop blaming Texas for the Big 12 failing.
The problem is, when the SWC and the Big 8 conference were both failing, legislators pushed Texas from one failing conference into a merger with another failing conference.
Despite all the message board stuff, noone would leave the Big 12 if it was doing as well financially as the Big 10 or SEC. Texas is not the reason the Big 12 is not doing as well financially as the Big 10 or SEC.
LikeLike
Uh, we gave Penn State some favorable terms for their first decade in the Big Ten.
I fail to see how appeasing Texas to bring them in equates to creating a Texas centric conference.
Delaney will still run the Big Ten and Chicago will still be the “main” city.
Texas will become 1 of 16 schools. There won’t be any Texas favoritism after it accepts an invite.
Thus, it is in Texas’ best interest to negotiate everything it can now because when it joins it won’t have the votes to veto anything (like it might in the Pac-10).
LikeLike
BC & USF aren’t complaining about their new travel, even Hawaii is in a conference. Yes travel would be an issue & maybe that is what is taking so long to analyze among other factors. I don’t think there are appeasing Tx, they didn’t do it with ND or PSU. Even though UT is the belle of the dance, the golden rule applies – he who has the gold rules.
LikeLike
Quite a few schools complain about the travel costs of going to Hawaii. And the B10 has tried/is trying to appease ND to get them in the conference.
LikeLike
forgot to add
LikeLike
Good read I thought on the effect of the southern demographic shift on recruiting. Clear rationale why the Big 10 wants to move southward, not so clear why schools would want to move northward…at least from an athletics perspective:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=5221661
LikeLike
Perhaps of note is that fact that all 4 Southern schools in this rumor, TX, aTm, Vandy, and UVA, consider themselves ‘Southern but not Southern’ schools. Same for GT.
If this is the combo and 16 is the intended max, I can see ND saying no instead of replacing Vandy. If the SEC and P10 don’t go beyond 12, then ND can probably stay indy. If those look likely to expand and perhaps create a new BCS format, there is always the ACC. It isn’t a certainty that the SEC could lure teams away from the academically superior ACC, so you might see an A16 with additions of Syr, Rut, CT, Pitt, Cin, and ND. A more natural academic fit for ND than the B16, with more privates mixed in. Several of the current BEast schools so travel isn’t that bad. Games in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Florida help keep the ‘national schedule.’
And I’m almost certain the new ACC agreement includes clauses for renegotiation if the conference expanded and/or added ND. With ND, more inventory, and the high population Northeast schools, the ACC could lower the $ gap with the SEC.
Even if the SEC nabs a couple of ACC schools, there is still TCU, SMU, and Baylor as potential academically acceptable replacements that would get the ACC into the Texas market. As long as they keep one of FSU or Mia, that’s a pretty attractive schedule for ND, hitting all the prime Southern and Eastern recruiting grounds nearly every year.
LikeLike
Two thinks that caught my attention from the USA Today article:
1. “It’s not something we have to think about. It’s something we are thinking about,” says Texas’ DeLoss Dodds, and
“If we have our way, we’re never going to get caught in a situation where we’re not part of something that’s really viable nationally. If that’s the way the world goes, then we’ll go in that world.”
2. At Notre Dame, AD Jack Swarbrick says, “You’ve got to think about it and evaluate it, and make sure you don’t wind up with a different division of college football all of a sudden. DeLoss and I have a similar perspective.”
To me that only means one think; ND and Texas are talking to each other about expansion and maybe about joining the same conference. Now you tell me which one could that be? SEC, B10, or maybe PAC10.
LikeLike
I think everything Delany told to the press should be considered seriously. By not touching any BE member, he and the Big Ten seem to be pretty determined to help ND to continue its destiny at the BE.
Maybe ND is seeking for help from Texas to get a ticket to join the Big Ten?
LikeLike
Definitely not SEC.
LikeLike
Here’s the Dodds quote from that same article which caught my eye:
“It’s a possibility, but it’s not something we’re thinking about seriously. You could do it in football. It hurts basketball badly unless you find a conference. It’s got lots of flaws.”
LikeLike
Dodds never passes up an opportunity to make money. He’s the best in the business at it. If they were comfortable they would make more money in the long run, UT would not hesitate to join the B10 as long as A&M (or OU-no chance there) would come with them. They aren’t giving up the OU and A&M rivalries and couldn’t have both as ooc games.
I think we would have heard a lot more talk if they didn’t believe they are better off in the Big 12. One thing to note is that Texas has 5 revenue sports, fb, bb, baseball, women’s bb, women’s volleyball. Baseball would be huge step down. Women’s bb would also be less competitive.
LikeLike
Uh, Dodds would probably want to go to the SEC to be fairly blunt.
Look at Hopkins Horn’s post on the subject from last week over at Burnt Orange Nation.
The SEC fits their sports nearly perfectly and would allow them to keep their local rights for an LSN.
However, TPTB at Texas are most likely interested in seeing whether the Big Ten offers a better package of academics (read CIC efficiencies) that can outweigh the fact that the SEC has a better sports package.
Powers and the rest of the Texas administrators may not see themselves as willing to be another Florida and may prefer the model of a Penn State.
LikeLike
TPTB make the decisions. TPTB at UT would rather cut off their arms than join the SEC. UT fans aren’t as negative toward the SEC, but they don’t make the decision. The AD is influential, but still doesn’t make the decisions. UT has had a lot of P10 and B10 administrators. Can you imagine any B10 school joining the SEC under any scenario?
IMO the B12 probably and the P10 definitely would be viable alternatives no matter what happens with the B10. I don’t have inside info, but from what I’ve seen and heard over the years, I suspect the B10 is preferred over the P10. Academically, geographically and financially it makes more sense. From a rivalry standpoint, what I’ve seen on the boards (and I agree) is that the P10 would be better.
If Texas chooses to leave the B12, they would choose the B10 (there’s no guarantee the B10 Presidents would be willing to go so far). If forced to leave by finances or other issues and the B10 is not a choice they go P10.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s pretty much how I see it all shaping out as well.
LikeLike
For UT, women’s basketball would still be in a competitive league. The Big Ten is pretty solid, draws crowds comparable to the Big 12, and if Maryland is included in this 16-team conference, well, Gail G can tell you all about the Terps. April 4, 2006 in Boston…Kristi Toliver and “the shot”…”Overtime is our time”…
LikeLike
Obviously baseball would be a step down, but including UVA and Vandy with Texas and A&M gives the Big Ten a solid group of four to build around. The rest of the conference would definitely have the opportunity to improve its baseball with the ability to push increased competition and viewership of the BTN.
Women’s hoops is essentially a wash.
Everything else would be a step up. I don’t care what the talking heads have been spouting the last two years. Historically, the Big Ten is a better football conference. Adding Texas only solidifies that. The Big Ten with UT is a better football conference than the B12 with UT, and it’s not that close.
Men’s bball is also a wash, at worst, and with UMD and Vandy included, it probably becomes a pretty solid step up.
Women’s vball? Well that’s not even close. You’d be competing with the three time national champs, who may also break the record for longest winning streak in the history of all NCAA sports next year. You know, the team that just beat Texas for the title? The conference had four top ten teams this year.
LikeLike
I’ll differ on your assessments of conference strengths, but we won’t settle that here-if you look at wbb and wvolleyball tourneys you’ll see B12 much better in wbb (6 top 4 seeds vs. 1) and comparable in wvolleyball. And football comparisons are endless debates. I will agree that B10 was stronger in the 90s. Don’t agree about currently. So it depends on who joins the B10.
LikeLike
I enjoy how all these mega-expansion deals hinge on academics, and then 2 posts later how the top however many teams are going to split from the NCAA and essentially admit they’re the NFL-D League and want all the money.
LikeLike
It’s about self-interest.
The CIC is looking to improve research money and efficiencies with the CIC. And they see that being a part of the AAU helps. The AAU isn’t letting just anyone into the club. Likewise, the CIC isn’t letting just anyone into the club, nor are they sharing it’s research money with Kent State or DePaul or Stanford, unless there is a relevant reason to share the research work.
The Big Ten Athletic Conference is looking to improve its athletic revenue. Being a part of the NCAA helps. But more schools are adding Div 1 football and basketball, and national revenues are getting spread thinner. Again, it’s in the self-interest of The Big Ten schools – and other power programs – to keep the money that is generated by their Brand name, their performance, and their fans.
The Big Ten doesn’t share its ticket or jersey sales with Oakland University or DePaul or Boise State. Why should they want to share the television revenue at a disproportionate rate with with other schools? While I agree that The Big Ten would be wise not to break off alone, at what point is expansion of Div 1 too much? Would The Big Ten be better off with only 20 Div 1 Basketball conferences? 18? 12? Or what about football? Would FBS be better off with only 6 or 7 or 8 conferences?
As an alum, I want to see MY school get better. I want to see MY school compete academically and in research globally. I want my degree to continue to gain prestige. I want to see more jobs in my state because of more athletic programs and more research jobs. I want to see my school improve to compete better nationally. And if we get more research funding and tv revenue and NCAA revenue, we’re better off doing that.
LikeLike
A) I agree Pitt would be a logical deduction based on miminal market gain and pop shift, but swapping them for Vandy is lame (football) and UVA will never part ways with their tobacco road brothers…NEVER
B) The conference should (imo) instead be targeting GT or Maryland to replace Pitt as a candidate
C) Why is Missouri all of a sudden a non-starter under any scenario??? I would much rather we take Nebraska if it’s a choice between the two, but why wouldn’t we take Mizzu if the only other option is Pitt or Vandy??? (I realize their is a bit of an academic chasm between them and the BT…is that great?)
LikeLike
I find it funny how everyone assumes that Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami all would love to be in the SEC. Granted, a lot of their fans would, but they’re not university presidents.
Looking back at FSU’s decision to choose ACC membership over the SEC in the early 90’s (which, by the way, led the SEC to settle on So. Carolina), one of the main reasons was to gain association with schools like UNC, UVa, Duke, and Ga. Tech. IMO, ACC membership has helped advance FSU’s academic reputation; in any case, AAU membership is now a much more realistic possibility than it was 20 years ago. Clemson, Miami, and most obviously GT have also made huge strides in research and academic rankings. Certainly ACC membership hasn’t hurt those causes. Additionally, VT credits its rise in US News rankings largely to ACC membership. Would they really do an about-face and join the sports-are-everything SEC.
The SEC has just two AAU members, UF and Florida, so at the very least the faculties at ACC schools wouldn’t be too supportive of a move.
The only conference I could see an ACC school leaving for is the Big Ten. Even with that, hoards of alumni would throw a fit, especially if the school that leaves is an original ACC member. After all, the core of MD, VA, UNC, NCSU, Wake, Duke, and Clemson have not been in separate leagues since the Southern Conference was founded in 1921, except for 1953-54, the ACC’s first year, when UVA was still in the SoCon.
From an athletic standpoint, the path to the nat’l title is much more manageable in the ACC, anyway; just look at FSU in the 1990’s.
LikeLike
Mike-n-Indy -The difference is that the ACC schools that are being mentioned for SEC expansion generally don’t have the longstanding history with the ACC, and they are football schools. Clemson is a charter member of the ACC, but it is a football school. The basketball schools (Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake, UVA & Maryland) all have longstanding relationships with each other and have 50,000 (or less) seat stadiums. The states of Maryland, Virginia & North Carolina are not college football crazy states either. The states of Florida, South Carolina and Georgia ARE college football crazy states.
I have a hard time thinking that any of the ACC basketball schools will be the first to bolt. If any teams leave the stable ACC, it will probably be Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or VA Tech, and they all probably would want to go to the SEC, if the SEC expands. I do like the the idea of Miami to the Big Ten, with the Shalala connection. But, while that deal works for football, I’m not sure they fit from an institutional basis.
I know this is an old theory, but I thought BC to the Big Ten, as a Catholic school companion for Notre Dame made a lot of sense.
LikeLike
UNC is slated to expand from 60,000 to 68,000 seats. Maryland has 54,000. NC State 57,000 (with OUTSTANDING facilities), UVA 61,500. Duke’s stadium is, indeed, tiny by major college football standards.
I also disagree with the notion that NC isn’t a college football-crazed state. It just looks different…
While there’s no mega-stadium school in NC, I think it’s partly due to the fact there are four BCS schools dividing the states’ fanbases, plus ECU. NC State & UNC consistently sell out their 57,000+ seat stadiums. ECU does as well and is slated to expand to about 50,000 seats due to demand. WFU sells out its 31,500 seat stadium. And then there’s Appalachian State, which averages around 28,000 per home game, and that’s with a far less appealing home schedule.
Other than UGA, which sells in the 80,000 range, and GT, around 55K, the state of Georgia doesn’t have those kinds of numbers. More people go to college football games in NC than in that state, and it wouldn’t surprise me if NC has more people going to football games than the states of Ohio & Michigan as well. The MAC schools do not sell out, whereas NC’s D-1AA schools do.
LikeLike
@Michael
I did an exercise a few weeks ago where I divided each state’s population by the sum of the average home attendance for every FBS program in-state. Since fans can attend games from out-of-state, it’s a flawed approach. But I thought the results were interesting nonetheless, as well as relevant to your post.
20.9 Nebraska (UNL)
21.0 Mississippi (OM, MSU, USM)
22.1 Alabama (Bama, Aub, UAB, Troy)
22.2 Utah (BYU, Utah, USU)
22.9 West Virginia (WVU, Marsh)
22.9 Oklahoma (OU, OSU, Tulsa)
25.8 Iowa (Iowa, ISU)
26.4 Louisiana (LSU, LT, ULL/M, Tul)
27.9 Wyoming (Wyo)
29.0 Kansas (Kan, KSU)
30.2 South Carolina (Clem, USC)
34.1 Idaho (BSU, Idaho)
34.9 Arkansas (Ark, ArkSt)
34.9 Indiana (ND, Purd, IU, BSU)
35.7 Hawaii (Haw)
37.1 Kentucky (UK, Ville, WKU)
37.9 Oregon (Ore, OSU)
40.7 Tennessee (UT, Vandy, MTSU)
43.6 Michigan (UM, MSU, C/W/EMU)
44.1 North Carolina (UNC, NCSt, ECU, Wake, Duke)
45.9 Colorado (CU, AFA, CSU)
46.3 New Mexico (UNM, NMSU)
49.7 Ohio (OSU, Cinci, Ohio, Akr, Tol, Kent, BGSU, MU)
56.4 Florida (UF, FSU, USF, UCF, Miami, FAU, FIU)
65.2 Arizona (Zona, ASU)
65.6 Nevada (UNLV, Nev)
68.1 Georgia (UGA, GT)
69.0 Virginia (VT, UVA)
69.4 Texas (UT, Tamu, Tech, TCU, Rice, UNT, SMU, UH, UTEP, Bay)
70.6 Wisconsin (UW)
70.9 Pennsylvania (PSU, Pitt, Temp)
73.8 Washington (UW, WSU)
74.8 Maryland (Mary, Navy)
92.0 Connecticut (UConn)
93.4 Missouri (Mizz)
103.7 Minnesota (Minn)
114.2 California (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan, FSU, SDSU, SJSU)
130.9 Illinois (Ill, NW, NIU)
177.3 New Jersey (Rut)
184.6 Massachusetts (BC)
235.4 New York (Cuse, Army, Buff)
LikeLike
Great stuff. Best data of the week. Now back to routine comments of THIS week, the most ignorant on average in many weeks that I’ve read here in Frank’s blog.
LikeLike
You are also correct on UNC. They are the sleeping giant in college football. They get huge ratings for a school with there history and record. With an upgrade in facilitates and at least 2 first rounders this year and if they can keep Butch Davis for his South Florida recruiting they can become a monster over this decade. Especially with money not being an issue with there huge athletic endowment.
LikeLike
I agree with you Michael. UF has vetoed FSU admittance to the SEC several times in the past and currently there is bad blood because UF is trying for a money grab in the state legislator money that FSU needs to dramatically improve their new med school and restructure the engineering department to gain AAU membership. The new president also is not attached to the football program to the extent that the former was (who gave us a lost decade in both football and academics)
Miami on the other hand competes for students in the mid-Atlantic and north east not the south and the ACC is a better showcase to reach these students. There is of course the issue that Miami has medium and long term issues in its football program. The facilities are some of the worst in the ACC. They can no longer recruit in there own backyard (only 1 player in the top 50 of south Florida in the last class and not much more in the previous year). And there is constant tension between the academic side and the AD with the academic side winning out.
I have a hard time believing GT will want back in to the SEC. They had issues in the past on how the SEC would basically allow anything to go and it has only got worse especially with the over-signing of players that only Vandy and UG do not partake in.
LikeLike
Interesting scenario, for sure, but as a Texas A&M grad, I’m not sure we’d make that move.
The money would be great, and the academics would definitely appeal to the faculty, but our AD as recently as Monday told the San Antonio A&M Club that he wouldn’t want any part of the Pac-10 because of travel problems, citing the women’s basketball team’s experience coming back from an NCAA tournament game in Seattle. I can’t see how travel in a 16 team Big 10 would be any better. For those who think adding a Nebraska or Kansas would make the move more palatable from a travel standpoint, not really. Those schools are on the periphery for A&M, and we typically send even our non-revenue teams up there by plane (usually, we have either one or two air trips to Northern Division schools per minor sport per year–southern division schools are all bus trips).
If the Big 10 were able to pick off Texas and Vanderbilt, I think that A&M would at least seriously consider going to the SEC before they would take a Big 10 invite. Joining a 12 team SEC, without Texas, OU, or Tech, would be just about a perfect scenario for A&M, next to keeping the Big XII in tact but getting a better TV deal. LSU and Arkansas would be bus trips, the Mississippi schools might as well (or at least Ole Miss), and the money would be competitive with the Big 10.
Bottom line: If Texas leaves the Big XII, I don’t think that A&M has any choice but to go somewhere. The Big 10 wouldn’t be a bad destination, but I’m not sure it would be our preferred destination. But, on the other hand, the Big XII wasn’t our choice last time around, either, so we might not get what we want (an experience that a number of schools are going to have in this game of musical chairs).
LikeLike
I’m an OU guy. I’ve said, I think OU leaves for the SEC the 2nd the phone rings and asks. However, I get the feeling that OU wants to stay in the Big 12…the key is keeping either Texas or Nebraska.
So my question is…if the Big 12 ONLY lost UT…would A&M stay? As for OU…I think the Sooners stay.
LikeLike
So my question is…if the Big 12 ONLY lost UT…would A&M stay? As for OU…I think the Sooners stay.
Instinctively, I say yes. I would assume that Texas leaving the Big XII by itself means its headed to the Big 10, Pac 10 or is going independent (not to the SEC). If such, I’m not positive that the SEC would be willing to expand without Texas on the table.
LikeLike
yes…if Only UT left, it would be one of those 3 options.
I however, still think the SEC comes calling on A&M and possibly OU as a pair even with out UT. Texas is a huge market to get a toe hold into, and A&M, and OU actually would deliver a good chunk of Texas between the two. UT isn’t the ONLY desirable school that is good in football, and good in TV ratings.
What I’m saying is, as attractive as the SEC is….I’m not sure OU leaves the Big 12 for the SEC..if only UT leaves. (or if it’s UT and Colorado). OU is emotionally tied to Nebraska, and if Nebraska stays…I think OU does as well.
LikeLike
That’s a good question. Based on some comments that have come out of the TAMU AD, I’ve gotten the impression that they kind of want to be out from under UT’s thumb, with the SEC being their preference in the event of a conference move. No knowledge to indicate that, just my impression. Wasn’t that where they were heading when UT was looking at the PAC10 back in 94? I think the TAMU AD would probably see a lot of benefits of being able to tell Texas kids “we’re part of SEC football” if UT wasn’t in the league.
LikeLike
As I mentioned above, A&M was going to the SEC instead of joining the B12 even after UT had decided on the B12. Legislative armtwisting stopped it. There is a good article from the San Antonio paper a few years back on the politics of it.
So I think if the SEC comes up with the $ and UT goes to the B10 w/o them, A&M and OU gladly move.
LikeLike
I would take those AD comments with the perspective that the higher ups at A&M would want to go with Texas if Texas ends up in the Big Ten.
I don’t really see A&M as wanting to not be with Texas if it means the CIC if that’s what Texas is considering.
Also, Texas probably wants A&M in the same conference because it gets to keep an away game in conference in Texas every other year.
LikeLike
I don’t know that one can easily gloss over the fact that the first thing out of Byrne’s mouth when talking about conference realignment was travel demands and how those demands affect the welfare of the student athlete.
It’s fun to pretend we start with a blank sheet of paper and can move schools around into this or that conference with no real regard for the logistics of what’s being imagined. Byrne’s complaint about the NCAA tournament game for the women’s hoops team in Seattle is a regular fact of conference life with A&M in either the Pac 10 or the Big Ten. And he’s fairly plainly saying it’s not going to happen. Been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again, but I take his comments to mean there are two options for A&M, SEC or staying the course with the Big 12. And if that’s true, by extension one can reasonably suppose Texas will come to the same conclusion, if they haven’t already.
LikeLike
There are different ways to read the aTm AD’s take on the P10 travel. I agree that it suggests he’s leaning toward the SEC, or at least away from the P10. However that can also be a negotiating position that could be mitigated if the P10 really wants the Texas teams. Establish a P16 with most aTm games in an eastern division of the AZ pair, CO, maybe Utah at the furthest and some closer teams like TT, OU, KS, NE, etc. Limit west coast travel, or at least Pac NW to the weekends instead of weeknights, or early start times during the week for visiting Central time zone teams. I think there is something to the various rumors that TX and aTm are trying to negotiate with the P10 for a state of Texas quad.
And I wouldn’t assume that his statements rule out the B16. PSU is 1250 miles from College Station, the rest are 1130 or less. So pretty much every school is within about a 2 hour flight. (Same for the S. Cal schools and everything east.) The Pac NW is an extra hour or more, but the real killer is the time zone difference. Everything in the B16 would be eastern or central. Combine that and teams with weeknight games in the B16 would return home 3-7 hours earlier as compared to west coast starts.
The SEC is closer, but not that much so. Teams returning from B16 events on average will arrive with 30 minutes of when the would from the SEC on average, and within an hour difference for the extremes. Less than an hours difference is manageable, 4+ hours, not so much.
LikeLike
I would agree that the travel would be less daunting in a repackaged Big 12/Western Alliance East, and somewhat less so in the Big Ten, although from what I understand hiring sherpas to get into State College can get expensive. I just don’t know that I can easily discount these concerns from an Athletic Director, for whom a large part of the job entails getting satisfactory results in academic progress, graduation rates, etc. Excessive travel poses a real threat of cutting into those goals. The distances in the SEC for A&M aren’t any different from what they travel now in the Big 12, the other two conferences in question, no matter how you slice it, equal more time on the road.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone from A&M thinks they’re under UT’s thumb.
Up until the 1960’s A&M was an all male school where all students were required to participate in the military Corps of Cadets on campus. For this part of its football history, the school had some very good years, and some very poor years.
Let’s compare A&M to UT in the years since 1975. UT fans might complain that I’m choosing the beginning of a good era for A&M, and they’d be right. However, given how much the campus changed from 1960, I think it’s a good starting point.
Winning Percentage: UT 71.4%, 10th in the country. A&M 64.5%, 20th in the country.
Head to Head record: 18-17. A&M has a 1 game lead, but also has had 1 more home game over these 35 years.
A&M was downright mediocre in the 2000’s, just as UT was in the 1990’s. Still, the 2 schools have been very close the last 35 years.
We compete just fine in the same conference as UT. Maybe some administrators will choose to go to the SEC for other reasons, but there is no problem competing directly in the same conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think that UT is going anywhere by itself, unless A&M is satisfied that it doesn’t need to go along. In other words, I don’t think you’re going to see a situation where UT gets a Big 10 invite and A&M doesn’t because that’s when the politicians would get involved.
Like I said, if a scenario were to transpire where Vanderbilt left the SEC for the Big 10, and invitations were extended to UT and A&M, I could see A&M looking into the possibility of taking Vandy’s place rather than going to the Big 10 just because the travel is considerably easier (especially if the SEC stays at 12), and there are competitive reasons to believe that A&M might be better off recruiting as SEC member than as a Big 10 member.
Could A&M simply decide to stay in the Big XII and UT go to the Big 10 on its own? I think that would be unlikely. It might be possible if every other Big XII team stayed in the league and some sort of TV alliance could be worked out with the Pac-10, but I just don’t know if that would work. A&M would certainly consider it, but the math would have to be right. The only way I could see that possibility working out was if the Big 10 decided just to go to 12 (with UT), and the SEC decided to stand pat.
LikeLike
TWK, best “what if” scenario that I have seen. Totally logical.
LikeLike
I agree as well. If Texas moves to the B10, A&M will explore the SEC option. If there is a mutual interest in A&M joining the SEC, it will be strongly considered.
IF Texas joins the B10, the SEC’s next best option to get a foothold in the state (and its 25 million population) would clearly be A&M. I don’t think anyone believes the SEC would walk away from the Texas market, when an option as attractive as Texas A&M is still on the table.
LikeLike
aTm´s decision will be made before this all becomes official. This is not going to be a case where Vandy and Texas make the jump and then aTm is left on the sideline to decide between being the 16th member of the Big 10 or the 12th member of the SEC.
Once it comes time for an official vote there will be no suspense. The applying schools will have already been accepted and they will have already confirmed. Like Delany said, no one will be embarrassed.
LikeLike
Of course Michael. The timing would of any A&M / SEC conversations would happen well before anything official happened. I was assuming that fact was a given and didn’t need to be discussed.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Pingback: Better Off Red — Blog — Who Needs to Worry? Mizzou Does.
Pingback: Frank the Tank: Dirty South for the Big Ten?
Pingback: AAU membership required? - HawkeyeNation Forum
The First Domino
And the Big 10 announces… Vanderbilt!
Big 12 Country: What? What we gonna do with all this new research now?
ACC offices: It’s started. Get Pitt and Syracuse on the line.
Rutgers: huh?
SEC: Hahahaha. You call that expansion? Get those guys from Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, Clemson and Florida St. on the phone. Oh… and that ESPN guy too. We’re gonna show them how this expansion thing works! And get that smart fella in here.. what? He left? Good riddance. Vandy grads always rubbed me the wrong way.
ESPN: Heads explode.
Pac 10 text: WTF?
Big 10 text: Op Roses starts now
Pac 10 text: Ha. ok. see you in Jan. need laker tix?
Texas: (conference call) UT politely declines SEC offer. A&M concurs.
SEC: Ha. They’re scared! Ok. Let’s get on with the vote. Okie, Clemson and FSU? (count hands) 10-2. You’re in boys! And where is that ESPN guy?
Florida/Georgia: /doublefacepalm
GaTech: sighs relief.
Big 10: Sorry about that little head fake at UVa and MD. We good now?
ACC: Yep. Sounds good. Double down on the ACC/B10 challenge with the new holiday tournaments. Add the big college football opening weekend extravaganza. That new baseball schedule will work too. With all this shared inventory for live events we both should be good.
Texas: Proudly announces the Longhorn Sport Network.
SEC: Begins airing the SECFN. In a revolutionary venture to capture the reality show football market, programming will include rotating 1-hr fan-produced segments from each school. Ratings have been a success as fans across SEC land have submitted scouting reports since programming went live from team practices, locker rooms and the driveways of hot recruiting prospects. A special hot-line has been implemented to handle the flood of perceived violations.
ESPN: Files suit.
And the years pass…
Big 10: All good here. Research funding is on a steady rise. Football is great. Hoops is great. And it sure is nice we all have baseball again. Right Bucky?
ACC: Yeah. Thanks for the heads up on the wood bats market research. And we never thought football Saturdays could be so fun. And don’t worry about that new CYO-AAU feeder system for Big East hoops. We hear Worldwide Wes has been reassigned to China.
Pac 10: (yawn) hi guys. just got up. what’s happening?
Texas: The LSN keeps pulling strong numbers with the advent of its All-Texas-All-the-Time marketing approach. Just type in TX-24-7-365 to access the feed on your iPhone to follow all of the ongoing action from JerryWorld. Standard subscription rates apply. In other news, The Great Wall of Texas project has hit a small snag as groups have filed another suit about “so-called” profiling. Officials have
agreed to suspend the 40-yard dash test that was being administered to all young males attempting to leave the state.
SEC: The legal mess apparently has been cleared with the expiration of the ESPN contract, and Fox, Nascar and the SEC will now proceed with their new F-N-SEC network collaboration. Threats to secede from the NCAA continue.
Big 6: In a joint press conference, researchers from the Big 6 Research Consortium announce simultaneous revolutionary breakthroughs in the areas of advanced battery technologies, carbon-capture systems, bio-waste fuel generation, wind power advancements, smart electrical grid control systems, photovoltaic technologies, and fuel cell design. Great Plains states brace for a new land rush.
NBC/Notre Dame: Announce new independent tv deal.
LikeLike
C’mon people, let’s get real here.
IMHO, FrankTheTank is now the new Teddy Greenstein; Daleny and the B10/11 are using reporters and bloggers to float schools to see the reaction. (Congrats! Frank on being deemed worthy of receiving leaks — and I mean that.)
In that vein, here is my reaction: BOOOOOO!!! HISS! BLECCKK!! YUK, YUCKY AND UCKY!
In a less speech-impaired fashion: the B10/11 is a MIDWEST and northern conference. that is what we have been for a very very very long time. Screw demographics; everyone start having babies.
Adding southern schools is NOT going to cut it. And don’t give me any cr*p about Texas “not being southern.” I love Texas; would be fun to play Texas, but from the standpoint of C-bus, Texas and Maryland and Virginia and Tennessee are southern.
And, I am sorry, but the B10/11 Presidents are not going to be voting in a vacuum. They vote based on lots and lots of input and this is NOT only about adding academic firepower to the league. Imagine the earful Pres. Gee gets if Vandy is added. It’ll be worse than the grief he gets for being anti-playoff.
Here, run the thought experiments: newspaper headline says these five added: what’s the reaction of the general B10/11 fan? something like: “huh, what? who?” That is: bewilderment and confusion and mass emails of protest to various powers that be.
tOSU is scheduled to play Maryland: what’s the reaction of the general tOSU fan? something like: “huh, what? who?” That is: bewilderment and confusion and blogger excoriation of the 20__ schedule.
Purdue plays Virginia: what’s the reaction? something like: Yawn!!!
Put it another way: if the B10 adds these schools, they will need to hire a PR firm to help “explain it.” That equals GIANT FAIL.
So, in conclusion: Mr. Delany, I point my machine gun at your Trial Balloon and i’m going to empty the clip.
LikeLike
“tOSU is scheduled to play Maryland: what’s the reaction of the general tOSU fan? something like: “huh, what? who?” That is: bewilderment and confusion and blogger excoriation of the 20__ schedule.”
What’s the reaction of the general tOSU fan to looking at the schedule and seeing Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, and especially Akron, Youngstown State, and Eastern Michigan?
Give me a break. Purdue playing Virginia is no yawn compared to the weenie schedule they have had in recent years with games vs. IU, Northern Colorado, and Indiana State (the worst football program in all of D-1AA, let alone D-1A).
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau, couldn’t agree more.
People seem to losing sight of the fact that the BTN is driving this expansion. Academics are important, but nobody’s tuning in the watch the old GE College Bowl TV quiz show. The expansion will need to offer new football and sports offerings that are interesting and watchable….from schools that are at least academically viable. Most of the schools discussed lately are a HUGE stretch from this point of view, and some are ridiculous.
As I said earlier, maybe a “southern academic” school is in the mix, but I don’t see the BT going all the way in any direction, west, south, or east.
LikeLike
Uh what? How can you say that the expansion scenario in the post isn’t one of the best possible Big Ten Network expansion scenarios?
Texas + Maryland + Virginia + Tennessee (okay that one is debatable) is prime time real estate from the perspective of the Big Ten Network…
LikeLike
I’m alright with everything but Vanderbilt. Nothing against them, but the BigTen already has a Vanderbilt by the name of Northwestern. Replace Vandy for ND or Nebraska and I’d sign off on it. From the BTN standpoint I don’t see what Vandy gets you.
As I said in another post on this thread, my preferred setup at the moment is Texas+TA&M+Nebraska+pick 2 from: ND/UVA/Maryland/maybe Rutgers.
LikeLike
I get that but if Texas says we want the 5th school to be Notre Dame and Notre Dame says no, and then Texas/MD/VA say that they’d prefer a closer team like Vandy (to all of them), then what is the Big Ten really going to say, no? if they’re all at the table.
Count me skeptical that all of them are at the table of course, but it’s a scenario worth considering if they all see that as a conference they’d want to join.
LikeLike
I would love a Big 10 “College Bowl” show on BTN. Lots of people watch “Jeopardy.” Make it a bit more intellectually challenging, cut across disciplines from physics to math to music to history, and you’ve got a great showcase for the academic side of the conference.
LikeLike
Hey, tOSU, Maryland’s men’s basketball coach used to work in Columbus. Guy named Williams.* Or does your world revolve around football only? Gee, I thought that kind of thinking was limited to Austin.
*The Terp women’s coach also has Big Ten experience (a season at Minnesota), and she, like Williams, has also won an NCAA title.
LikeLike
Yeah, BuckeyeBeau speaks for every single Buckeye fan. Way to paint with a broad brush there.
LikeLike
“Screw demographics; everyone start having babies.”
Second that.
LikeLike
The Midwest doesn’t have a slow growth rate because of low birth rate or high death rate. Without looking at raw data, I think there’s no shortage of babies being born here in Indiana or in other states. The slow growth rate is also not due to a low immigration rate. Immigration from outside the US, especially to cities like Chicago and Detroit, and a birth rate that well outweighs the death rate are actually the only factors keeping most Midwestern states from having a net loss.
The Midwest’s slow growth rate is due to the fact that fewer people FROM WITHIN THE US are moving into the Midwest than out of it. Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and the Carolinas have far fewer people leaving their states than coming in. Those states, plus California, also have a very high rate of immigration as well.
I do think this is a question worth asking, though: Why is slow population growth a bad thing? It gives local governments more opportunity to keep up with demands for new infrastructure, rather than having to fund brand-new freeways that immediately get clogged up or schools that grow well over capacity. Places with slow growth, such as Chicago, have in place right now many advantages that places like Phoenix, Dallas, & Atlanta do not have yet, including commuter rail and a plethora of world-class museums. Compared with Sun Belt cities like Charlotte, Phoenix, Raleigh, & Tampa, many Midwestern cities also have a much higher median income.
LikeLike
Agree that immigration is needed in northern cities. They have excess housing stock and infrastructure because of out-migration to suburbs and the Sun Belt. Of course immigration (and internal migration) will flow to where jobs are being created, and Big 10/CIC schools have a major role to play in spurring innovation, supporting entrepreneurs and providing employees to going concerns.
LikeLike
The growth rate of the fastest growing states has a lot to do with immigration. Ohio’s population is only 3.7% immigrants; Texas is over 4 times that percentage. Many of these immigrants have US born children, which helps grow these states population even more.
Foreign Born population by percent of total population-2008
http://www.migrationinformation.org/DataHub/acscensus.cfm
3.New Jersey 19.8%
5.Florida 18.9%
7.Texas 16.0%
8.Massachusetts 14.4%
10.Illinois 13.8%
11.D.C. 13.2%
12.Connecticut 13.0%
13.Maryland 12.4%
16.Virginia 10.2%
17.Colorado 10.1%
20.Georgia 9.4%
23.North Carolina 7.0%
24.Minnesota 6.5%
28.Michigan 5.8%
29.Nebraska 5.5%
30.Pennsylvania 5.3%
33.Wisconsin 4.4%
35.Indiana 4.0%
36.Tennessee 4.0%
39.Iowa 3.7%
40.Ohio 3.7%
41.Missouri 3.6%
LikeLike
Percent of children under 18 residing with at least 1 immigrant parent in 2008:
Texas 32.8%
New Jersey 32.3%
Florida 30.2%
Illinois 25.0%
US AVERAGE 23.2%
Colorado 21.9%
Maryland 21.6%
Connecticut 21.4%
Virginia 18.2%
Georgia 17.7%
Minnesota 13.9%
Nebraska 11.7%
Michigan 10.4%
Pennsylvania 9.8%
Wisconsin 9.1%
Tennessee 9.1%
Iowa 8.1%
Indiana 8.0%
Missouri 6.9%
Ohio 6.3%
http://www.migrationinformation.org/DataHub/acscensus.cfm#
LikeLike
The take-home lesson from all this is that very few kids growing up in the states that will see population booms have any connections to Big 10 country. They don’t have parents who will talk wistfully about Michigan’s football program or Northwestern’s academics. They are mostly the kids of people from the region combined with kids of immigrants.
Now, the Big 10 area will be large enough that it will do OK if it stays the same size. However, if it wants to be the best in academics or athletics it will need to recruit some students and athletes from elsewhere in the country.
The 5 schools suggested do a good job of addressing that. The academic reputation of the conference is strongly boosted by adding schools that are respected in the South (a lot more Southerners have an idea of Vanderbilt and Virginia’s academic credentials than Northwestern’s). In addition, by having adding schools at the boundary between the North and South (Virginia & Maryland with PSU), the boundary between the South and the West (Texas), and 1 school more centrally located in the South, they keep relevant to a much larger area of the country.
LikeLike
Three kids, ages 7, 5 & 3. We’re doing our part.
LikeLike
Sounds like you’re tardy on the fourth…
LikeLike
Holy crap!
One of Frank’s posts leaves out Rutgers and Missouri, and all of a sudden they’re dead to you guys.
I’m still having a difficult time seeing this go beyond 14, because once it hits 16, the door is nailed shut behind a wall of bricks. 20? Really? Why not just go the distance and change the name “AAU” to “Big Ten?”
This is as entertaining as those guys on ESPN.
LikeLike
Well all of this is speculation based on what it would take to bring in Texas.
Seriously, whether the Big Ten expands to 12, 14, or 16 is almost entirely dependent on whether Texas or Notre Dame comes. It really is that simple.
If Texas says “we’ll come if it’s the right 16,” then who in the Big Ten is going to say no?
It’s not like Texas would say “you have to let us bring Oklahoma” to which the Big Ten would flat out say no.
So clearly, the speculation is all focused on what it would take to have the strongest possible expansion. Whether any of these teams (especially these 5 which seem like such a low probability outcome) wants to come is debatable but you never really know…
I still think it’s likely to be Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers because I don’t see ACC or SEC teams leaving and I don’t see Texas/A&M leaving until after Nebraska/Missouri (and Colorado) leave.
LikeLike
The success of the expansion is based around the Big Ten´s ability to hit a couple home runs and bookend those with doubles. In that sense, if inviting a couple ¨doubles¨ helps draw in one of the ¨home runs¨ (like Texas), I don´t see this as bending over backwards for a candidate. The Big 10´s not lowering their standards for any of the candidates – we are not talking about adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Baylor.
If anything, the names Texas or the Big 10 is throwing out now in rumors are much more ambitious than those raised by most fans and media.
LikeLike
Ya know, I could see Vandy being part of the Texas side of the deal. Earlier comments by Delany sounded like he was almost resigned to ND not coming to the B16. The ACC may end up being the better fit for them, and the USA Today article quoted ND as saying pretty much everything is still in play. The NW rumor thread from a few weeks ago had UT wanting to play ND every year. Say ND has told the conference and Texas that they are out, but TX and ND want to start an annual, or at least frequent, rivalry similar to USC-ND. With OU and ND now OOC, TX might want a weaker opponent to fill out the 16th spot. If Vandy is in the mix then they probably expressed interest to the conference, and perhaps TX has stated a preference for them over the stronger (and presumably more desirable) GT.
Just speculating.
LikeLike
Well you’re on the right track. Everyone going “zomg what Vandy?!?!? lol SEC will luvs this” are on the wrong track.
Vandy is only coming if the other 4 are on the table and they want the 5th to be ND but ND says no, and they still want a team that is closer to Texas and Maryland/VA.
This is still all about Texas and Notre Dame and seeing if there’s a scenario that would make them comfortable in the Big Ten.
Let’s be honest, while Texas may have considered being #12 in the Big Ten in the early 90s, there’s no way Texas wants to be #12 in the Big Ten in 2010.
Texas most likely would want to be a part of a solid expansion scenario that also bring the conference more towards them if they are indeed in the mix (which of course none of us knows)…
LikeLike
Maybe Vanderbilt isn’t there to appease Texas, but to appease Virginia.
If Vandy leaves the SEC, this would enable Virginia Tech to take its place, thus satisfying Tech people and making it easier for UVa to join the similarly affluent (athletically speaking) Big Ten.
Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Delany and Slive have discussed this in private.
LikeLike
Also, perhaps Maryland officials have told Delany that Virginia had to be part of a Big Ten move for UMd, that it wanted at least one ACC partner (its closest) to come along. You could argue that after Notre Dame, Texas and Nebraska (possibly A&M and Rutgers, too), Maryland would be the best potential athletic/academic/financial fit for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I can see Vanderbilt being added to appease some of the Big 10 presidents who might be concerned that going to 16 teams could negatively impact the academic side of the conference in favor of athletics.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but Vandy just doesn’t pass any smell test. People can try to justify them all they want. But the only rational reaction is “WTF?”
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
Directors Cup Standings as of April 29th… FALL & WINTER
6 Nebraska
8 Virginia
14 Texas A&M
22 Iowa State
23 Texas
31 Notre Dame
42 Missouri
49 U Conn
53 Georgia Tech
58 Syracuse
67 Colorado
77 Miami FL
78 Rutgers
100 Montana
100 Vanderbilt
100 U – Wis Green Bay
Seriously, Vanderbilt? I think they can be much more relevant with their choices.
LikeLike
Whoops
21 Maryland
LikeLike
http://www.nacda.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/D1april29releasestands
LikeLike
while I’m not a fan of Vanderbilt, those are not final standings. Vanderbilt has a history of finishing higher than some on that list.
Vanderbilt — 67 (’09), 59, 33, 64, 71, 28, 54, 80, 68, 100+ (’00)
Rutgers — 92 (’09), 100+, 54, 76, 66, 63, 80, 71, 96, 75 (’00)
Syracuse — 63 (’09), 87, 100+, 100+, 100+, 98, 76, 65, 92, 61 (’00)
LikeLike
Re house of cards falls apart (latest rumor)
http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/201005267882/yow-on-marylandbig-ten-rumors-were-not-going-anywhere.php
“One of the more popular rumors had Maryland joining the Big Ten.
Don’t bet on it, said Maryland athletic director Debbie Yow. She addressed the topic during an interview on David Glenn’s afternoon radio show.
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s a waste of time,” Yow said of the speculation. “We’re not going anywhere.”
Yow acknowledged that, as AD, she doesn’t have the final say in the matter.
“I certainly could be overruled, but I don’t think that I will (be),” Yow said. “I never have been in the 16 years that I’ve been here.”
“It isn’t all about the money,” she continued. “It’s really about more than that. We love the ACC. We’re part of it and we’re going to say a part of it, as far as I know.”
LikeLike
So if Maryland is out, then what are chances UVA is going anywhere.
If Maryland and UVA are out then what are chances that Vanderbilt is a target?
Next rumor?
LikeLike
Similar to the Texas AD’s stance for months. Now we are pretty certain TX has been in talks with the B10+, P10, and discussions with the SEC. And only recently did he change his tune. There’s not near as much smoke from MD’s fire, but ya never know…
LikeLike
Re Maryland out (Playoffs Now!)
Yow’s comments couldn’t have been more to the point and she’s repeating what she previously said.
All she needs to do is say no comment or we don’t discuss rumors or we’re happy in the ACC.
She said Maryland isn’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
“Plausible Deniability”
She can speak all she wants, and still be truthful about it. But it’s not her call.
If Maryland stays in the ACC, no matter how close a move to The Big Ten gets, she can claim “I told you we love the ACC and it would never happen!”
But, if Maryland does move, she can say “I was not involved in the discussions. This was above my paygrade. We love the ACC, but I fully support our President and we are excited about the opportunities afforded by The Big Ten membership and we just couldn’t pass it up.”
LikeLike
Maryland is looking for a new president?
That’s clearly a reason why Maryland would not be in the running — at least in the short-term. I doubt an outgoing (or interim) president could make such a monumental decision as bolting the ACC. It would also be difficult for a newly minted president (unless there is a promotion from within).
Maryland’s fluid leadership situation is a real handicap.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that Yow is from North Carolina, part of a famed athletic family with ties to the ACC. She understandably feels strongly about the conference, but others at the university might not feel that way.
LikeLike
http://www.accsports.com/blogs/jim-young/201005267882/yow-on-marylandbig-ten-rumors-were-not-going-anywhere.php
Maryland AD says there is no chance that Maryland goes anywhere. Obviously the AD doesn’t make the decision, but it is hard to say how much influence she would have.
LikeLike
Re Maryland out (M)
“Hard to say how much influence (Yow) she would have.”
Are you implying as an AD at Maryland for 16 years, she is being kept out of the loop while Frank is informing the universe that her school is actually in play.
LikeLike
Good cop/bad cop denial game. “Well yes, I was truthful back then, but the later offer changed the admin and persuaded them. Golly gee, I had no idea they were discussing this over golf and coffees.”
That isn’t to say that I believe that MD and VA will say yes. But I believe someone at the top is having at least initial discussions. That’s just basic due diligence for a potential once in a generation type of offer.
LikeLike
BTW, I just glanced at a map and Vandy is closer to IU than MO or NE are to a current B10+ school. VA and Rut are only 10-20 miles closer to PSU. So Vandy isn’t at all a geographic reach.
But say MD and VA don’t work out. Would TX, aTm, GT, Vandy, and Rut work?
TX, aTm, GT, Vandy, and NE?
TX, aTm, GT, Vandy, and Mia?
TX, aTm, ND, Vandy, and GT? Atlanta is within driving distance for many FL recruits. Same for those in the Carolinas, TN, AL, and MS.
TX, aTm, ND, GT, and Rut? Semi-national strategy might lure ND.
TX, aTm, ND, GT, Mia? This one I really, really, like.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
I like your last scenario the best, as well.
From ND´s perspective, the other four schools would all add a ¨national¨ feel and UT, GT and Miami could all be rivals of one sort or another.
I think my main problem with the other scenarios is Rutgers and Vanderbilt. I´m OK with either of those schools as the fifth school that complements some four school combination of TX, aTm, Nebraska, ND, Virginia and Maryland, but when you try to turn either Rutgers or Vanderbilt into one of four marquee additions it comes out a bit flat.
And when it comes to Miami and GTech, they seem like a bit of a package deal. Even though Atlanta to Miami isn´t an easy drive, it would take away a bit of the isolation of either of those schools by itself.
LikeLike
Re “someone at the top is having initial discussions” (Playoffs Now!)
Nothing wrong with discussions. However Yow is saying to a reporter this question is a waste of time and UMD isn’t going anywhere.
On the other side there is a secret unidentified insider who is saying Maryland is in play as part of a complex package that includes Vanderbilt as a complement to Texas.
Somehow, I would consider Yow as a credible insider who probably doesn’t want her reputation ruined by speaking about a subject if she feels she is out of the loop.
LikeLike
I still wouldn’t count out Maryland — conditions could change if the SEC wooed a few ACC schools.
Yow probably feels she has to placate some of the fanbase, which is overly obsessed with men’s basketball in general and Duke in particular.
The university will soon choose a new president, and he or she will make the final decision, not Yow.
LikeLike
It’s really easy for an AD to say “we’re not going anywhere” and then in 8 months to come back and say “the higher ups told me we’re out.”
The AD doesn’t make that call even if he/she is in the loop about inquiries.
Granted, she’s probably more in the loop than your average AD, but it’s not like her statement that “we’re not going anywhere” actually means anything binding because it’s not her call to make.
LikeLike
Or, less exciting, she’s passing on that the call has already been made by the higher ups.
There is some contrast there with other statements, such as Nebraska’s official “we’re in the Big 12 unless and until the Big Ten says otherwise”. Yow has painted herself into a pretty tight corner if Maryland is actually in play. Why would she bring up never being overruled if she knew the truth was other than what she is saying? To have the words thrown back at her in a few months? Doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Re Debbie Yow speaks for Maryland but is really out of the loop or (Zeek)
So as a university spokesperson she’s making flat out untrue statements and is perhaps deliberately not asking her President what is the University’s position, so Maryland in harmony with UVA can “secretly” discuss expansion options with the Big 10.
To fool who?
Meanwhile Frank has blown her cover and revealed to the universe that she is a liar and she keeps the lie going?
As an attorney I’d be curious what your view of her position might be and how you would advise her as a potential client.
LikeLike
@c
Just for comparison, here is an article describing some of the issues with adding Penn State:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136871/1/index.htm
The more relevant quote is from Bo Schembechler: “Not one athletic director was consulted on this matter.” I agree that this time has been more public and less likely to not inform the ADs, the point is that if the presidents can act without telling Bo of Woody and Bo, they can act without telling any athletic figures at all.
LikeLike
Re Penn State admission in 1990 vs today (M)
Everyone understands the Big 10 is conducting a study of various options and considering many schools and packages and part of this process includes trial balloons of various kinds.
And confidential informal discussions are being held as an essential part of the process. Does a school of possible interest to the Big 10 have reciprocal interest?
However, 2010 with the Internet is not 1990.
An experienced AD like Yow, who is familiar with the chaos of the recent ACC expansion, is not likely to issue blanket denials unless she has good reason to issue them.
Maybe Maryland doesn’t want trial balloons putting the status of their school into question.
Maybe Yow is speaking forcefully because she actually has a relationship with the UMD President and is playing the role of university spokesperson about a matter that has long ago been discussed and considered and rejected.
If there is any doubt, all she has to do is say UMD is a happy member of the ACC and she doesn’t discuss rumors or refer questions to the Big 10 or such a question is above her pay grade or refer the question to the UMD President or tell the interviewer she needs to check and will reply later.
She does not seem to be voicing her opinion here. She seems to be acting as the university spokesperson.
LikeLike
Sounds pretty definitive to me. And if Maryland is out, so is Virginia imo. As for Vandy, I just don’t see it, for the reasons indicated in other posts above.
Texas and A&M are possibilities, but are longshots, imo. A&M is only a possibility as a UT tag-along and UT to the B10 seems more and more unlikely to me the more I read about this stuff. Hopkins Horn’s buddy over at Burnt Orange Nation does a nice job explaining why here: http://www.thedailygopher.com/2010/5/21/1468888/big-ten-expansion-the-case-for.
Seems to me that Rutgers is a near lock, if expansion happens. And Nebraska is right behind them. As for the 14th spot, who knows. Notre Dame or Missouri seem most likely, followed by the grouping of Cuse, Pitt, Kansas & UConn. Of these schools, my personal preference would be to take Neb, RU and ND, and then stop. If no ND, then Neb, RU & Pitt.
LikeLike
Eh, Peter Bean is just another guy with an opinion. And it always irks me to see a poor use of statistics. He states that 9 million people live within a 3-hour drive of the Austin-Round Rock metro. Um, great, but it is far more impressive that 17 million live within a 4-hour drive!
Kind of par for that course. He and the author make some good points, but for TX this expansion is likely driven as much by academic factors as $. They can make boatloads in the SEC, too, but there are only a few options to join an academically superior conference. Doesn’t take long to figure out who is on the AAU list. A good decision can probably be reached within a year, it doesn’t require the 3-5 years he’s suggesting.
LikeLike
On the other side there is a secret unidentified insider who is saying Maryland is in play as part of a complex package that includes Vanderbilt as a complement to Texas.
Maybe, but that isn’t what this blog post states. Rather it mentions that rumors have these 5 ‘in heavy discussion’ but that they aren’t necessarily the only schools in such discussions nor is that the specific or primary combination of schools.
LikeLike
BTW, since it looks increasingly likely that MO’s governor and some close to the program may have made asses out of themselves, she’d be a fool to give any hints MD might leave the ACC until a deal is basically done. Sure, an “I’m not going to get into hypotheticals” or a “No comment” might be better, or perhaps not given this climate.
LikeLike
One more thing: Could Vandy compensate for some of its weaknesses by something like offering a much higher buy-in, hence why they might be in consideration?
LikeLike
Re today’s post (Playoffs Now!)
Today’s post mentions 5 schools in “heavy discussion”.
So if UMD is not in play as her AD just said in unmistakable terms, what are the chances UVA is going to the Big 10 without a partner?
And if UMD and UVA are out, then what is the likelihood Vanderbilt is a target school?
So what’s left of the post?
LikeLike
To clarify, I wasn’t referring to heavy discussions actually occurring between the Big Ten and these schools. What I meant is that these schools were identified and discussed as targets by the Big Ten at last week’s meetings.
I don’t find any AD’s comments to be dispositive. While Maryland’s AD issued a strong denial, it is doubtful that anyone would preemptively reject Big Ten membership without at least seeing the final offer. If the Big Ten picks off other ACC schools or gets ND or Texas, then the calculation changes drastically for Maryland or any other school. Believe me, no one, not even Notre Dame, would just turn its back on a substantial financial gain without looking at it heavily. That doesn’t mean that Maryland ultimately ends up in the Big Ten, but I think we make assumptions that schools will “never” do this or that in a knee-jerk reaction when in reality, they’re going to take the time to do their due diligence.
LikeLike
Re Yow’s “knee jerk reaction” (Frank)
It is understood the Big 10 is considering it’s options. And the 5 schools you cited are certainly interesting.
So please explain why an experienced AD like Yow with 16 years experience and months into the process and repeated questions on this very point would go out of her way to repeat what she has already said:
that speclation about UMD joining the BIg 10 is a “waste of time” and UMD isn’t going anywhere.
Reading the interview does it sound like Yow is out of the loop or shooting off her mouth without knowledge or approval of her President?
Maybe UMD wants to remove any speculation or any doubts.
If so, what does that imply for the likelihood that UVA is going anywhere. Or that Vanderbilt remains a school worth discussion?
LikeLike
@c – My understanding is that Maryland is in the midst of a search for a new president, so it’s unclear as to what directives Yow might have received or if they’d be the same directives as what the eventual new president would provide.
Texas and/or ND committing itself to the Big Ten changes a whole lot of things – TV revenue projections that I’ve seen for the Big Ten with Texas and ND are in the $40 million per year range for every school. All I’m saying is that schools can’t make a decision on what the Big Ten is today, but rather what the Big Ten is going to look like once expansion is over and whether schools want to be a part of that ultimate vision.
I agree that Maryland and Virginia are tied at the hip for the purposes of this discussion, so if one doesn’t come, then the other wouldn’t, either. I’ll reiterate that I don’t understand adding Vandy outside of pure academics or Texas possibly wanting that school for some reason. I’m just repeating what I’ve heard on that front.
LikeLike
FWIW, if you believe what the people on the ACC boards said during their expansion in 2003, what Yow says can be taken with a grain of salt. However, it is clear that MD is happy in the ACC and isn’t planning on going anywhere. Maybe she was just tired of hearing the questions.
I know of no Texas ties to Vandy. That is NOT coming from Texas. Vandy definitely makes this look like a brainstorming session. They fill a geographic gap, have good research, differentiate the B10 and SEC further, poke a stick in the eye of the SEC, but really make no sense. I can’t think of a BCS school that adds less value athlethically. Not sure I wouldn’t rate every CUSA school over Vandy as well.
LikeLike
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Vanderbilt and Florida the only 2 AAU schools in the SEC? If that is the case, could it be that Vanderbilt to the Big Ten is being discussed to make Florida consider a time when they are the only remaining AAU school in the conference?..maybe at that point they would look to make a move to upgrade their conference affiliation.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure I just heard that LeBron got an official invite to join the Big 10.
LikeLike
Tampering!
LikeLike
I’ve considered some pretty far-out-there scenarios (at least, they were considered far out way back a few months ago) that included annexing the heart of the ACC. Never thought Vandy was ever a possibility, though. However, say the Big10 is successful in their southern push and persuade Texas and the core ACC schools (as well as Vandy) to join to form a research consortia powerhouse. What would the Big20 look like? Here’s one idea:
West
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
North
IU
PU
PSU
MSU
Michigan
East
PSU
Maryland
Virginia
UNC
Duke
South
Texas
TAMU
Vandy
GTech
Miami/FSU/Rice(?)/Tulane(?) (FSU & Miami aren’t AAU now, but FSU does the research and probably soon will be while Miami likely will be soon as well)
Each pod plays a 9-game schedule consisting of the other schools in their pod & alternate between the pods to their left and right (so West alternates between North & South but never plays East, etc.
This way, all the old Big10 schools still play each other at least half the time (PSU never plays schools east of Indiana, but I don’t think anyone would mind since PSU & those schools get to play Texas, Miami, and recruit down south). In baseball, same thing. In basketball, schools play the teams in their pod twice and the schools in the pods to their left and right once for an 18-game schedule.
Original Big10 teams are happy because they get to play all the old Big10 schools at least half the time, yet still get to play in the south (and recruit there) regularly. Texas is happy because they play teams from Florida, Georgia, & Tennessee every year (so they can recruit there), and most of the time, they’ll be facing other top teams in baseball as well. The core ACC schools are happy because they still get to play each other twice a year in basketball (NCSU & WF are left out, but they can be non-conf games; UNC and NCST can even play home-and-away each year non-conf if they want to). Everybody’s happy on the research/academic front. Everybody wins.
LikeLike
I take it you mean OSU in the North, not PSU.
LikeLike
Whoops, you’re right, tOSU with Michigan & the rest.
LikeLike
I like this scenario a lot (with Miami as the 20th team), and it may make even more sense than the 16 school scenario this blog post is about.
If we do go to 16 teams with the five rumored schools, is there any good reason why this 20 team scenario shouldn´t happen? It does a better job of balancing out the new additions, reaching new demographics and increasing the overall academic and athletic portfolio. Revenue would seemingly skyrocket and you really aren´t sacrificing much.
I´m not sure I like the idea of never playing one of four pods in football – but scheduling concerns are only concerns in so far as you limit your imagination. If the Big Ten, from a scheduling standpoint, can work with pods of four, it can also work with pods of five.
I could definitely buy into this 20 team league and it would certainly shake things up.
LikeLike
I think 16 schools is probably the maximum number of schools you can add to both fill up the network and still have nearly every football game on air. This isn’t true if you’re adding schools from the West coast who can have games that are late night on the East coast.
With 16 teams you have 7-10 home games per week that your conference has the rights to.
1 Thursday night game*
4-5 Saturday games to ABC/ESPN including 1 primetime
3 Saturday games on Big 10 Network
*yes, I think they will have VOLUNTARY weekday night games if they reach 16 teams. Noone would be forced.
With this schedule, you would miss a game when there are 10 home games in a week; you might miss a game when there are 9 games. Juggling teams’ schedules so there aren’t too many weeks with more than 8 games could be done by having some early conference games and mixing non-conference games and byes throughout the year.
If you go to 20 teams there won’t be space to get every team on the air most weeks. Adding a second channel wouldn’t be as profitable as the first, so you’d be making less per school. You could have more night games, but then you’re crowding out all the other sports you want to showcase on the Big 10 network, and schools wouldn’t be eager to play on those nights.
I don’t see 20 schools unless several valuable schools say they’ll only come if some games are returned to them. With 20 schools every school could probably get 1 or 2 football games to sell per year, as well as some other sporting events. It would diminish overall conference payouts from what they are at 16 schools, but the big schools could make up the difference by selling the rights to those extra games. The smaller schools would be making more money than they would if the big schools hadn’t joined.
LikeLike
The BTN already has weeks in the non-conference schedule with more than 3 games shown. There are overflow channels for times when multiple teams have games scheduled in the same noon timeslot. This isn’t really an issue.
LikeLike
But financially, it seems like you’re not making nearly as much money as when you’re adding games that can be seen everywhere. You’ll make more money by adding these schools, but it seems you’ll likely make less per school.
Also, you will definitely have less exposure per school this way. One advantage of the network is that your school can be seen not just in football but in all sports around the country. The more of your school’s sports that get bumped from live coverage, the less well off you’ll be. You’ll still be better off than without a network, though.
Maybe they’ve done calculations and I’m wrong, but I think around 16 schools might be the best for TV purposes, unless you’re adding schools that play on Pacific Time.
LikeLike
Doesn’t work that way. Being able to deliver, say, a 4.0 Nielsen rating during a particular time slot is more than twice as valuable as being able to deliver a 2.0 rating. Likewise, a 10.0 rating is far more than 5 times more valuable than a 2.0 rating, so it makes sense to put multiple games in the same time slot on overflow channels (essentially replicate the ABC regional coverage strategy, except the BTN doesn’t have to choose by geography & anyone who wants to watch their game can do so regardless of where they’re located).
LikeLike
Except you’re talking about switching between the 9th and 10th best games in your conference, or the 10th and 11th. It’s only going to be an incremental change in advertising, and you’re going to split your money between more teams.
LikeLike
The new schools would bring extra BTN cable subscribers as well. Presumably enough to offset the split in revenue. In any case, there’s no need to worry about running out of TV space. If that was a real issue, ABC/ESPN would just acquire rights to 8 games a week (instead of the 40 or so they have rights to).
LikeLike
Under your system, Texas and Miami would never play Michigan and Ohio State. Seems like a waste of good potential matchups.
LikeLike
It’d make the championship game more interesting, since the teams would not have met before. Plus, the divisions would generally always be balanced. In any case, each year, you’d still have Texas-Miami, OSU-Michigan, and PSU vs OSU&Michigan or Texas&Miami.
LikeLike
One strange thing I do see here is what happens immediately to UNC and Duke in lieu of Maryland and UVa leaving for the Big 10. The Big 10 would obviously want UNC and Duke, perhaps more so than Maryland and UVa, and, if UVa, Maryland and Texas are part of the new Big 10, how would UNC and Duke not want in, as well?
The reason I stayed away from UVa, Maryland, UNC and Duke prior to this rumor was because they seemed like a package deal. Each of those schools is strong enough to stand on its own, but any strategy that includes one would likely include all. It´s not that they couldn´t be broken up, but, from the Big 10´s perspective, there would be no reason to break them up. Each one would significantly add to the conference´s academic and athletic portfolio, while increasing the footprint in high growth areas.
But if they are a package deal, where do they fit in terms of a five team expansion that centers around Texas? With or without the ACC four-team package, Texas is still the main target, and I don´t see them making the jump without aTm. If that´s the case – and all of these schools are actually on the table – the next question would be whether Delany and co. would consider a 7 team expansion.
I know one of the premises to this rumor was that no conference would be destroyed, but if Duke and UNC are willing, how could Delany say no?
LikeLike
Indeed, which is why I positted a Big20 (see above). Logistically, it’d work out as well or better than a Big16 (all original Big10 teams would have 4 permanent rivalries with current Big10 teams instead of 3, yet still play all the old Big10 teams at least half the time (besides PSU) and still get to play against and recruit southern areas regularly.
Texas & the new southern schools would also mostly play other southern schools, who are all baseball powers, etc.
LikeLike
As much as I hate Duke basketball, I don’t think the Big Ten Presidents could deny the prestige, research, and markets added by getting Duke-UNC-UVa-UMd. If this was possible, I think it would happen immediately without regard to UT, and The Big Ten would go to 15 schools just to lock this down.
At that point, if UT wants to join, and wants to bring a couple of schools with them (A&M or Nebraska or Vandy,etc.), I think The Big Ten would got to 18 or 20 to get Texas.
LikeLike
Maryland+Virginia+UNC+Duke
+NCSU or GTech?
Maybe. It actually wouldn’t be much of a gain athletically or TV-wise, since those 5 schools would just bring enough viewers to pay for themselves.
LikeLike
Richard – only the first four.
Let me state up front that I don’t see this happening. Duke and UNC were the ones that did not want to expand the ACC in the first place.
But if either Duke or UNC individually wanted into The Big Ten, or if Duke+UNC wanted in, I think it happens automatically. Yes, Duke football is worthless, but the Academics, Research, Name Brand Reputation, Basketball, and non-revenue sports all are World Class. The added market and UNC football isn’t bad, either.
UVa and UMd have been discussed enough already; I’m sure a Duke+UNC+Maryland+UVa 4-school package is a slam dunk to get to 15.
I don’t think The Big Ten would want NCSt or Wake or Ga Tech to get to 16, though, although UNC might insist.
If Texas or ND sees the Big Ten add 4 from the ACC, and want to be #16, I think that would be it.
If Texas and ND both want in, I think the Big Ten would go to 17, and then it becomes interesting looking at #18, or #18, 19, and 20.
Now, at this point, I think the Big Ten would be OK looking at NC State or Ga Tech for example, tagging along, but could really go in any direction.
LikeLike
http://www.mrsec.com/story/secs-tv-issues-not-as-cut-and-dried-as-some-believe
“Expansion Not Tied To Renegotiating TV Deals, SEC Network Remains A Hypothetical Possibility”
LikeLike
The blogger (just another guy with an opinion) states that a “full-scale” renegotiation is not necessary. He seems to think that expansion means that whatever new inventory is simply up for grabs.
As Alan noted, CBS gets first pick, then ESPN gets a bunch of picks each week. Seems like that would apply to whatever teams are in the conference, not just the 12 current teams.
Would Okla/LSU be exempt since it’s “new inventory”? Not likely. Not to mention he doesn’t get into that ESPN would lose inventory from other conferences and that would have to be worked out.
In short, this guy is a doofus.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention — he also states that any new inventory could be sold to another cable provider/outlet.
In other words SEC expansion needs a new TV deal.
I reiterate — this guy is a doofus.
LikeLike
Pensfan
I think your thoughts on this subject are dead on, and filled with good insight.
If The SEC expands to 16 they will have to figure a way to increase revenue, and a lot of it. (possibly 80 million a year) which is more than the entire deal the ACC got before this one (67 million?) for two more games a week.
Silve will have work to do, especially if Delany can pull TX. and A&M. If The Big Ten heads East, The SEC will not have to worry. But if a southwest expansion is in the cards he will have a tough decision to make. or some serious horse trading.
But it should be noted that ESPN is not the SEC network. They are tied to all these conferences and with some serious money, and have already paid for many of these games. As you have pointed out above.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I think the very fact that Vandy is in any kind of serious discussion is an indication of how serious the talks with Texas are going. Without Texas, there is not much reason to speak of Vandy. With Texas, there are many reasons.
And I think Texas is the one driving the talks to 16 teams. Again, there is more in it for Texas with 16 than just adding Texas, A&M, and Vandy to the B10. IF Texas comes in, they want definitive splash and marketshare.
Of course this is all just rumors and speculation, but that appears to be the level of the talks behind the scenes. Nothing will be official until they are ready to move, and so everything is plausably deniable. Texas could stay and say, “We were never going anywhere.”
Riiight.
LikeLike
Vandy makes sense for one primary reason: getting ND. That would make three private universities in the conference. Add Texas to the mix, and I could definitely see ND joining. It would have the added benefit of being something truly different than the existing Big Ten, which would make it somewhat more palatable to many alumni.
LikeLike
Nothing I have seen anywhere makes me think that Vandy would have any impact on a Notre Dame decision. Where are the facts? Where is any realistic scenario?
LikeLike
I agree.
Why wouldn’t Notre Dame demand Boston College instead?
Vandy makes no sense in a Notre Dame expansion.
LikeLike
Notre Dame respects Boston College academically, but I don’t see why they would want to throw BC a bone on the field.
LikeLike
Historically, ND has avoided playing other Catholic schools because they didn’t want to split the Catholic fan base. I have no idea why they would demand Boston College in their conference, especially since BC has been the better football team over the last 15ish years. Bandwagon fans tend to follow better teams especially with head-to-head competition.
LikeLike
@M:
You know, when you said BC had been the better team over the last 15 years, I thought you were nuts. Then I looked it up.
I went since 1997, since both got new coaches that year and it made things easier, but 13 years is close enough:
BC: .642, 8-3 Bowls (0-0 BCS)
ND: .572, 1-7 Bowls (0-3 BCS)
As for bowls, I think on average you can make the argument that ND has faced stiffer competition, but the flip of that is that ND’s only bowl win came against Hawaii in 2008. I’d still clearly prefer ND over BC in any scenario, but food for thought.
LikeLike
NDx2 is right. It’s an additional private university, but it’s outside the midwest. If it was sectarian it would be even better, but I didn’t realize how few sectarian schools exist in Div I football before I came here. Maybe it also helps Texas as an additional southern school on the way to the current B10 footprint. It would probably also be from the B10 POV a shot across the SEC’s bow. Of course from the SEC POV, it’s hauling off their dead football weight…
ND would never demand BC. ND already has a pretty good toehold in Beantown. And don’t underestimate the CSC-Jesuit rivalry. IrishTexan and M are right that ND has historically never thrown BC a bone on the field. And there’s no reason to think that’ll change now.
LikeLike
It’s amusing how Notre Dame fans can complain about Michigan trying to kill their program by not playing them at one moment and then act surprised that there aren’t very many Catholic schools still playing football out the other. By any measure, Notre Dame hated the fact that other Catholic schools had football teams and successfully boycotted them until they went away. Before 1975, Notre Dame had 3 games total against another Catholic school: Marquette in 1921 and St Louis in 1922 and 1923. They never played Fordham, never played Georgetown, never play Duquesne, never played Villanova, St. Mary’s or Santa Clara. While these schools do not sound impressive today, many of them were relative powers in the first half of last century. Just as Michigan did not want to split the Catholic fanbase in Michigan, Notre Dame did not want to split the Catholic fanbases in the various cities. To act innocent and surprised that these schools no longer play on a major level is ignorant of the history of ND.
LikeLike
If true, more good reasons not to add ND and Vandy.
LikeLike
@ M
Nice find. Here it is again.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136871/1/index.htm
Looking at all the last-minute uncertainty and trouble for ONE school that is an obvious fit on so many levels, does everybody here honestly think that FIVE schools will simultaneously breeze through the same process?
Do you think that people who administrate Big Ten Universities concern themselves with what “bait” schools they need to invite in order to lure Texas or ND?
Also, how do make sure that UT does not back out and instead just end up getting B10 stuck married to the “bait” or completely back out and end up looking like a complete jackass?
Each school invited will stand on its own merit. For bundling, call your cable company.
LikeLike
Personally, I find this to be the most important statement: “Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, West Virginia and Maryland have all been mentioned by the presidents as candidates.”
That was back when the presidents were in total control of the process (from start to finish including due diligence, which was done belatedly). Interesting how some things change but some things don’t.
LikeLike
Nice article, from a Penn State viewpoint, “wow.” One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that Penn State sought admission to the Big Ten. If Penn State was “courted” in any way, that article sure seems to indicate otherwise.
It’s bizarre. This whole expansion thing has morphed from getting a single good school to facilitate a conference championship game to an exercise where a CCG no longer matters and we are considering academics the prime component of expansion – even while one of the expansion drivers is the conference-owned sports network.
As I read all this I’m thinking this is either disinformation or the process has morphed into a “horse designed by committee” thing. If it’s the former I think it’s working, if it’s the latter, expansion isn’t going to happen, because you’ve got too many people pulling on the same rope.
It’s also possible that this could be the Big Ten’s attempt to keep Fox from interfering (“You want expansion, you’ll GET expansion!” How about putting the UVa-Vandy Chess Tourney on the BTN?”).
If expansion gets done…and the further along the bigger that “if” seems to become…I believe expansion will occur with schools that have expressed a desire to leave their conferences and/or join the Big Ten. If “courting” or concessions are required, I cannot see the job getting done.
LikeLike
That article only furthers my deepening impressions on this whole expansion process…
Last time the conference expanded there were several groups that felt left out of the process and as such they thought the worst case scenarios would come to happen because they “weren’t in the loop” to bring those possibilities up.
This time Delany gets the go ahead to look at expansion and this time around, he’s going to take his time (12-18 months as he said in the first place) and do his due diligence (by looking at schools from across regional/academic/athletic backgrounds).
Personally, I think that’s reason why we are hearing so many different reports. He’s off doing his investigation with plenty of “lower level” folks getting contatced about interest and the Big10 AD’s/Presidents are probably pretty much out of the loop. In another 6 months he’ll sit them all down, show the possible scenarios, outcomes, and liklihoods and they’ll have a murder board then before issuing a single invite. That way they’ll be no “you’re invited…but you’re not…well maybe…ok you’re in”.
Once the smoke clears on that meeting about whether the expansion candidates are “good enough” for the Big10 then you’ll finally start to see some leaks that mean something.
LikeLike
This is similar to how I plan my fantasy football draft. I wish I had Jim Delaney’s job.
I think that 84Lion’s comment about a “horse designed by committee” comment has some truth to it, but I think that the committee will present options based on research requested by the Presidents. And if only 8/11 votes are needed, they don’t need to appease everyone on every topic.
It may be a deep negotiation to get the best 5 teams, but I don’t see a situation where a school or two is dead set against expansion, like we saw with UNC and Duke. If that were the case, then I think the politics and games would really come into play.
But when the choices are “we can increase tv revenue by 160% and add two football powers and three academic powers” or “we can increase tv revenue by 140% and add one football power and four academic powers”, it’s not like there is a “bad” choice.
LikeLike
From that 1990 article:
One wrinkle being explored by Jones’s subcommittee to ease travel burdens is the addition of a 12th school, so that the conference could go to divisional play. Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, West Virginia and Maryland have all been mentioned by the presidents as candidates…
So if VB was being considered way back in 1990, the B10+’s interest now appears to be legit rather than a gimmick. Note that 1990 was also before Gee went to VB.
Paterno points out that the roads to State College are being expanded and the airport is being enlarged.
20 years later and there is still a sizable gap of just 2 lanes for anyone coming from Philly, Allentown, and Harrisburg.
“And they’re talking about high-speed trains you’ll be able to take to Harrisburg [an hour-and-45-minute drive from State College] that go 300 miles an hour,” he says. The earliest projected completion date for those magnetic levitation trains, now being researched at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, is well beyond the turn of the century, but Paterno says, “All I’m asking is for people to be a little more farsighted. A time will come when we’ll be closer together than we realize.”
Bahahaha. Not in anyone’s lifetime to State College. Once a recruiting salesman, always a recruiting salesman!
LikeLike
I wonder if WV was included in the 1990 exploration as ring kissing of the state’s Congressional figures, who were much more powerful back then.
LikeLike
jetpacks seem like a cheaper and more flexible transportation option than a 300 mph train screaming through State College.
LikeLike
FYI…State College has 4 lane divided highway from Harrisburg to State College(65 MPH Speed Limit) with only one small stretch right outside the town (which is currently being bypassed). From Harrisburg its Turnpike to Phile or divided highway to York, Baltimore, Annapolis, DC, etc.
To the north, I-80 ties directly to State College now (and goes straight out through the mid-west or to NYC eastward) and to the southwest there is 4 lane divided highway almost the entire way to Pittsburgh International Airport (last time I drove it, there were a couple miles up in the mountains where construction was being finalized).
Don’t get me wrong, its taken for @#$%$$# ever, but State College is finally getting very easy to get to.
LikeLike
“Looking at all the last-minute uncertainty and trouble for ONE school that is an obvious fit on so many levels, does everybody here honestly think that FIVE schools will simultaneously breeze through the same process?”
Maybe now we know why the process is expected to take 12-18 months 😛
LikeLike
Maybe Delany was being cryptic in his southern strategy. Try this on for size.
Texas
Texas A&m
Rutgers
Maryland
U of Toronto
Of course Toronto being southern Canada and pumping 30 million Canadians onto the BTN. The rumors of not playing a championship game are because they want to give U of Toronto 10 years to get up to Div 1 speed. If your going to add an academic heavyweight U of Toronto might get some juice.
LikeLike
Of course, why didn’t I see it earlier… “Southern strategy” means “invade Canada”.
LikeLike
I can hear Jim Delany echo Jack Kent Cooke now. “I invited the University of Toronto to join the Big Ten because I heard there were half a million Americans living in the Toronto area. We kicked them out of the conference when we discovered they moved there because they hate college sports!”
LikeLike
Interesting article; I guess the academics matters more than we think as the Big Ten seeks out similar research schools. I see the Big Ten adding the following 5: Nebraska is a lock in my opinion; Rutgers meets the need for NYC market; Maryland makes a lot of sense as DC is growing in popoulation; Texas and Texas A&M and of course would be a package deal. Would Texas jump? Texas is a hugh market and makes tons of cash…ND would be similar to Texas. I think this is where it gets more interesting. If Texas will not come and ND will not come; then who next Pitt? Syracuse? vanderbilt? UVA?…
My guess is Texas and Texas A&M come on board…
If Vanderbilt goes then the SEC will add 5: GT,CLEMSON,FSU, (Texas and Texas A&M if available), VT, Miami, or WVU?
If SEC takes 4 schools from ACC and Maryland leaves for Big Ten then look for the ACC and whatever is left out of the BE to join forces. UConn is an ACC lock (hoops & part NYC market share); Pitt and WVU would add tradition and a great rivalry and give BC rivals again. Syracuse is tradition and great hoops plus has connection with BC and Miami (if still around). Would louisville be the 5th AC school?
Expansion is fun but could you imagine being a university president…important who you know!!
LikeLike
Texas to the SEC? Almost an impossible likelihood.
Georgia Tech and Florida State to the SEC? Very unlikely.
Why would the SEC look to expand, anyway? They’re locked into a TV contract for the next 14 years. You think they are going to add five more teams to divide the revenue pie even further?
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure they could easily get ESPN and CBS to renegotiate with them if Texas is on the table.
In fact I can guarantee that much…
LikeLike
That is a big “if”. Probably about 0% chance of Texas in the SEC.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just mean that CBS/ESPN would renegotiate for the right teams.
LikeLike
CBS for Texas, ok.
But why would ESPN trade a cheap Texas (B12 deal) for an expensive Texas (new SEC deal)?
LikeLike
Texas could always go indy (at least in theory) or could go to a Pac-12 after Fox or NBC throws some money that way. Better an expensive Texas than no Texas at all.
LikeLike
“But why would ESPN trade a cheap Texas for an expensive Texas?”
When did ESPN get a vote?
LikeLike
HH —
So what? My point was that the SEC cannot expand without a new set of TV deals. Texas threatens to go independent? That’s about as hollow a threat as there is. Texas to the PAC-10? Believe it when I see it.
Nostradamus —
You need some work on seeing into the future. For SEC expansion to make sense, any added school needs to be additive — needs to be a net addition to the bottom line. That means ESPN and CBS contracts have to be renegotiated for more cash. ESPN already has Texas in the B12 — so why would ESPN pay more for a product it already has?
The B10 is different since it owns its own network. All other conferences are highly dependent on their TV partners. None of the other conferences are going to expand unless they can be sure that their TV partners will increase their payments.
In short, ESPN and CBS have something better than votes, they have vetoes.
LikeLike
No matter who the SEC adds, CBS would have little incentive to increase its payout.
Let’s face it: the SEC is very popular, and any game of the week is, right now, virtually guaranteed high ratings. For example, on any given October Saturday, CBS already has the luxury of choosing between a Georgia-Florida game (where both likely are ranked) and an LSU-Auburn game. CBS pays top dollar for that. But with great choices already, why would CBS feel a need to pay even more just because Texas and Oklahoma gives them more choices?
LikeLike
If I had to make a list of dream candidates, it’d go:
Texas
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Texas A&M
Maryland
Pitt
Syracuse
Virginia
If one passes, move down. Nebraska could be the end, or one of three. Only five will come if Texas and/or ND come along.
I really don’t see Vandy adding anything, and everyone here is insisting that Texas is orchestrating everything. I really don’t see the Big Ten being pushed around by anyone, much less a POTENTIAL member (that they turned down once before and when they courted Notre Dame, didn’t offer many special concessions). Texas A&M is certainly acceptable in the Big Ten, but we’re not obligated to take it, only find it a good home (preferably the Pac-10 or left in the Big XII (or whatever number it ends up).
People talk about athletics, but someone says academics. Now the entire argument slides to the other side, like a mop bucket on the deck of a ship. Any prospective member is going to bring a good balance of both, because the Big Ten is a good balance of both. We don’t need another Northwestern, they eat up more than their fair share of the pie (I’m not complaining, I’m just saying 11+1 = 13).
LikeLike
My order would be:
ND
TX
Neb
Rutgers
Maryland
Misery
Pitt
Virginia
A&M
Kansas
Syracuse
Miami
GT
Vandy
but Maryland, Virginia, Miami aren’t coming
and ND, TX, TX A&M
and Miami, GT, and Vandy are both unlikely and not wanted
leaving Neb, Rutgers, Misery, Pitt, Kansas, Syracuse
LikeLike
should have read “ND, TX, A&M are unlikely”
LikeLike
It may interest some of you in the connections camp that Gordon Gee is also a past president of WVU. Not that it matters for the Big 10, but WVU still has many friends and connections working on its behalf and is not likely to be left out of the expansion game despite the uninformed opinions of some who ignore its attributes.
LikeLike
West Virginia might not be left out of the expansion game, but they won’t be considered for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Gee was also the past president of Colorado (and Brown, for that matter), but that doesn’t mean he is going to have any pull with getting those two invited.
LikeLike
Having slept on the idea, I’m good with this combo.
Including glorious Vanderbilt may be a headscratcher that will create lots of press chatter, but it (and the inclusion of MD and VA) will amplify the message that academics were a big reason why TX and aTm switched conferences. An all AAU conference. They could make big $ in the SEC, but chose the B16 (assuming these 5 end up being the actual expansion. A P16 is still in play for one or both Texas schools.)
Plus Nashville is a heck of a fun trip. Opryland, country stars, and partying on the Cumberland. Once again, Vince Young led the way. Yee haw to Hee Haw!
With the 1990 story on how Vandy was on the expansion short list back then, this seems like it could be a legitimate preference list of the top 5 candidates beyond wavering ND. I would have swapped GT for Vandy, and wonder if they are 6th. Mia would also seem a great choice, except its lack of AAU may be a huge handicap to the presidents.
One would guess that Vandy could be knocked out by ND, but since ND already plays every other year in MD with Navy, is access to Texas enough for ND? My guess is that the Irish won’t come aboard unless MD and VA decline. Would ND join if Mia was included? Mia and GT instead of Vandy? Or Mia plus Rut? GT and Rut if Mia isn’t academically acceptable?
Would TX be interested without aTm (if aTm preferred the SEC or P-Whatever) if ND replaces them?
My gut says those making the decision in Aggieland will chose the B16, as will TX, MD, and VA. ND won’t jump and thus GT or Vandy will indeed be the 16th.
LikeLike
Disagree 100%….Md and Va won’t come, period. We don’t want Vandy. TX, A&M, and ND are very unlikely. This is total blue-sky bs stuff.
LikeLike
All the schools mentioned previously are within the realm of discussion.
Except Rutgers.
Pls someone tell me how adding a financially-mismanaged school with zero Midwest characteristics, some of the worst sports teams in college history, in a state that proudly flaunts itself as home to corrupt politicians, the sopranos and jersey shore, and no proven fanbase or ability to cultivate one of any sort will add to the Big 10’s image.
Just wondering.
LikeLike
Gladly. 35,000 students, 60,000 or so on the 3 campuses, which are all fairly close to each other. The public u for a state with 9M people. One of the oldest Us in the NE. Closest D1 football school to NYC. BT will receive plenty of pub when UM, OSU, PSU play there. Highly regarded school academically, with lots of research $. Football has been pretty successful the last 10 years or so, to the extent that the football stadium got a $100 non-taxpayer funded renovation. Attendance has been pretty solid. Stadium can be expanded by 10,000 seats or so fairly easily. Fans and admin. want to be in the BT.
You made some good points, but you’re ignoring a lot.
LikeLike
@Just Say No to NJ
Don’t sugar coat it, tell me what you really think.
Rutgers has better research/academics than half of the Big Ten, gives access to the #1, #4 DMAs in the country, founded in 1766, played first college football game, lots of students, 10,000 new alumni each year, etc. Looks a lot like many Big Ten schools.
I wouldn’t say the state “proudly flaunts itself as home to corrupt politicians”, etc. more so than you might say Illinois is proud of its recent run of governors. So far as I know, that hasn’t hurt the Big Ten’s image.
Venom aside, nice contribution to the discussion.
LikeLike
To be fair, when Rutgers was looking for a new slogan a couple of years ago (winner== “Jersey Roots, Global Reach”) I suggested:
“Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
You got a problem with that?”
They said they would get back to me.
LikeLike
+1 don’t see the value in Rutgers.
LikeLike
A bit of “fan on the street” Maryland perspective:
http://www.testudotimes.com/2010/5/26/1488885/its-poll-time-if-the-big-ten
A Maryland blog has a poll for go-or-stay. Right now its 58-41 in favor of staying.
LikeLike
The idea that MD or Va would come to the BT was nonsense from the start. The BT isn’t going to try to wrest another school from a conference when 60% of the fanbase is against the move. There are enough difficulties with this expansion the way it is.
LikeLike
40% in favor of expansion, at this point, is actually an amazing number. Considering how new and how out-of-left-field this rumor seems to most people, it is little wonder that the average fan would dismiss it at first blush. Remember that this poll is just a first gut-reaction. I would love to see how these same Maryland fans voted after spending a week reading this blog and weighing the pros and cons.
If the gut reaction of 2/5 of Maryland fans is to change conferences, that is INCREDIBLY telling. The ACC is not nearly as stable as many of us think, and I´d imagine that vote would be heavily biased to move after a little thought.
Does the average Maryland fan understand the benefits of CIC membership? Does he understand that a move to the Big 10 could mean 3x or 4x higher profits right out of the gate? Does he understand the increased exposure it would mean for his university and the increased value it would mean for his diploma?
LikeLike
Well, judging from the comments, most aren’t taking the CIC into consideration. Keep in mind that this is a “fan” poll, not an alumni poll. Anyone registered with that blog could vote (including fans/alumni from other acc schools) regardless of academic affiliation or stake in the university of Maryland.
Also keep in mind that it wouldn’t be 3x higher profits, just 3x higher TV revenue. Still millions of dollars they shouldn’t ignore, but not tripling their whole athletic budget.
LikeLike
Actually, anyone stumbling across that blog can vote, no registration necessary, so not a lot can be read from it.
LikeLike
@Kyle – I’ll give the general public a little bit of a benefit of the doubt with respect to knowing about the CIC. The basketball-focused comments, though, are way off base. In terms of sports, expansion is 99% about football and one would think anyone that followed the ACC’s expansion in 2003 would understand that. This is coming from a huge basketball fan that attended a hoops school. Plus, I personally get agitated at the way that Big Ten basketball is somehow perceived to be only a step above the MAC. In reality, it’s consistently at the top in terms of NCAA Tournament basketball credits (which is a pretty good proxy of displaying how well the league performs overall) and, believe it or not, has had the best basketball attendance of any conference for several decades in a row. The Big Ten is a football league overall, but it definitely doesn’t ignore basketball like the SEC (outside of Kentucky and maybe Arkansas).
LikeLike
Frank – I’m not disputing that the Big Ten is a better basketball conference than the SEC, but saying that the SEC “ignores” basketball is a little strong.
Since the SEC expanded to 12 teams, 5 different SEC schools have made 12 appearances in the Final Four, and 3 different SEC schools have won a combined 5 national championships.
During that same time, the Big Ten sent 7 different schools to 14 Final Fours, winning 1 national championship.
LikeLike
@Frank…easy on the hammering of ACC folks who do not understand great or good football. Of course, everyone with any semblance of a football brain knows UVA, Vandy and Maryland suck, but I digress. All non-Big Ten folks think Big Ten also doesn’t understand this topic, including me, as I read these many posts this week about how the Big Ten is elite football today (it’s not, and hasn’t been since the 60’s or 70’s) and that this shitty 5 team expansion (you do not say it but many are commenting on these 5 teams) would be great. It would be shit, in football, which is basically all that matters. Add Texas and 4 loser teams, and you have a substantial dilution of an already too diluted conference if the goal is relevant national weekly games, big bowl wins, and MNC’s.
Big Ten can (should) do this very simply. ND, NE, or TX, are on the table as big adds. Add one, with 0 to maybe 2 more. Add 2 in a 3-5 add, or add 3 in a 5 add. Any less of a power addition WILL be CORRECTLY seen by the rest of the cfb world as a weak expansion.
BTW, because Texas has very different motives (read, selfish, short-term, and disingenuous) from ND or NE, I would not be surprised if they try to get the exact expansion you mentioned in this week’s blog. But for UT, all mediocre to terrible football additions, so UT can rule the conference SW. If Big Ten does the exact addition of 5 you mention this week, I (and millions more) will laugh and watch as ALL major conferences including the simply reformatted B12 (TCU, Louisville, BYU, Utah, S Fla, Boise, etc) easily outpace the new Big16 in football power.
aTm….should UT want Big Ten, aTm will try like heck to go SEC. aTm wants away from UT (as does everyone), and the recruiting advantage would swing hard to aTm should these conference changes occur.
Now some homer talk…as I have said before, for NON-football reasons, I want NE in the Big Ten. But today, I don’t like it much for football and going forward, it is not clear to me that the Big Ten understands what it needs to do to be a better and lasting football power. It is not one today. 1.5 MNC’s in 35 years, which would have been reduced to 1 if they had joined the BCS soon enough, is about all one needs to know about that question.
Final comment …maybe the Big Ten needs to split the CIC and the athletics. The talk this week is entirely too ignorant re football wins, prestige and marketability, TODAY AND GOING FORWARD, while attempting to splice together academics, tradition (which is good for 0 past 40-50 years, but seems few commenters here know that), demographics (meaning what, football fans, students, donors, poor immigrents, tired old soon to be dead people, …???). General demographics mean nothing. Big Ten wants BTN viewers, donors, and new students…end of demo story.
LikeLike
@HoosierHusker
You bitterness towards Texas just went off the chart.
LikeLike
Re football vs academics (HoosierHusker)
First interesting and well stated post which again illustrates how difficult this expansion may be when trying to achieve “home run” goals combining a CIC research level school with a great football tradition and large markets.
Even considering the 2 “home run” schools: ND is not a CIC research level school and may not even be in play while Texas in the southwest, is far from the traditional midwest geography of the conference.
Despite all the advantages the Big 10 offers, Delany is struggling with balancing the sometimes competing goals of a great product fans want to watch, where even traditionally strong teams can have years of setback, with longer term population footprint and demographics that will grow the Big 10 market, with academic excellence that Presidents of the conference want to associate themselves with.
The end result will be interesting; while most of what is going on may be invisible and confidential, Delany in some ways may be dealing with mission impossible that no one will be happy with, including many traditional Big 10 fans who may want more of the same: other midwestern state schools.
LikeLike
@loki:
I’m particularly amused that this sentence:
“because Texas has very different motives (read, selfish, short-term, and disingenuous) from ND or NE
and this sentence:
“But for UT, all mediocre to terrible football additions, so UT can rule the conference SW.”
and this sentence:
“aTm wants away from UT (as does everyone)”
were followed by this:
“Now some homer talk”
LikeLike
@HH (HoosierHusker) and @HH (Hopkins Horn), your arrogant football schools have more in common than you will admit to each other.
LikeLike
@Loki,
NU chancellor Harvey Perlman agrees, “There’s an undue concern about Texas,” Perlman said in an interview Monday. “Our programs probably are the two programs in the Big 12 that are the most alike. Our interests are probably the most aligned in terms of moving forward.”
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/05/25/4bfc95411375c
LikeLike
@Nostradamus
With OU in the middle it should be “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus:
(1) How unforgivably selfish for Nebraska to consider its own network.
(2) I’m not sure that Chancellor Perlman is aware that UT’s interests might be just a wee bit slightly more intertwined with the interests of a certain school about a hundred miles to our east than they would be with Nebraska’s.
LikeLike
@loki:
In that particular case, shouldn’t it be “The enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, and we’re smarter than all of you anyway”?
Come on, I went to a nerd school too for undergrad. Represent!
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
Geez, I channel Sun Tzu on a CFB expansion board and get called out on my nerd-dom? Tough crowd.
LikeLike
Clarification Re post above re football vs academics
In saying that I thought Hoosier Husker made an “interesting and well stated post”, I was ONLY referring to his general point that there may be tension between the goals of including football teams fans want to watch and academic schools that the Presidents may want to associate with.
LikeLike
Actually what I’ve read is that NU and UT are almost always on the same side on all the financial votes. A&M for some reason occassional sides with the have-nots (TT, Baylor, KSU, OSU, ISU).
I will mention one of my many other disagreements with Hoosier Husker-adding ND, NU and UT. It would look good having 6 of the top 9 teams of all time in a 16 team league but would be a disaster. There’s such a thing as too strong a league. I think the BE has been a disaster. Yes, its the strongest bb league, but it could be the 2 strongest leagues. St.John’s & DePaul were national powers, Providence & Seton Hall made final 4 trips, and USF and Rutgers were rising programs. All are now abysmal cellar dwellars. UL and UC were regulars in the top 15 instead of regulars in the top 40. There are advantages for a league to have a Kansas and a Nebraska, a Kentucky and an Alabama, a Duke and a Clemson, an IU and a Penn St.
Going to 16 w/o any of ND, NU or UT would be bad, but adding all 3 could be a disaster, particularly for the middle schools like Illinois, who win the conference one year and finish just ahead of IU the next. The Pac 10 is regularly underrated because there is too much balance, as was the SEC West until LSU and Alabama separated themselves.
LikeLike
I thought the percentage at the Maryland site would be far more lopsided in favor of staying in the ACC, given the fanbase’s obsession with basketball (both men’s and women’s) in general and playing Duke/UNC in particular. If they, plus Virginia, joined Maryland in a Big Ten expansion, I believe the vote would be at least 2-to-1 in favor.
LikeLike
Here’s another thread among Terrapin fans regarding the Big Ten:
http://www.insidemdsports.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33661
Again, I was surprised to see so much support for the move. Many of the comments decried the part of the fan base overly obsessed with the Duke basketball games, believing a move to the Big Ten would eradicate this element.
LikeLike
Honestly, I’m really surprised that the margin is that close– and that’s probably without many of those voters having a firm grasp on what the pluses of joining the Big Ten would be. I’d have expected it to be in at least the 75-80% against range if Maryland fans were as married to the ACC as many would suggest.
LikeLike
Agreed. Our early assumptions about Maryland’s contentment with the ACC may actually mirror our early assumptions about Nebraska and the Big12, which proved to be false.
Maybe nothing will come from it. But I’m not sure I’m willing to abandon Maryland because of what the AD says. Texas, A&M, and ND have all said similar things in the last few months and we’re not writing them off either. Not entirely discounting her statements, just not saying her statements are a definitive death knell.
LikeLike
I think people are waaay overstating Debbie Yow’s position in all of this. Once Maryland has a new president, Yow may not have a job for much longer. The Maryland athletic department is not exactly financially stable at the moment, and Debbie Yow can rub some people the wrong way. There’s a reason that Friedgen is still the football coach, and it’s not because they’re rolling in money in College Park. A lot of people aren’t too happy about their “coach-in-waiting” situation either.
As was pointed out above, it’s not going to be easy for a new president to come right in and move UMD to a new conference, but it’s not because Debbie Yow says they’re happy. At the same time, depending on who the new president is, this person may be extremely enticed by the benefits the Big Ten and CIC would provide their new university; particularly so when the university is experiencing some budget issues ($77.4 million in budget reductions in ’09 and ’10, $19.1 million being permanent).
LikeLike
As I mentioned way up in the initial blog comments, the Chancellor of the University System of Maryland, Brit Kirwan, came to that position from Ohio State, where he was the president of the university. Granted, he came to OSU from Maryland in the first place, and before that taught at Maryland, but he is in a unique position with his experience at both universities. If he is gung-ho about getting Maryland into the Big Ten– and I have no clue whether this is the case– I imagine he’d have a great deal of input into who the next Maryland-College Park president is, and could get in someone who reflects his views on the subject if he’s so inclined.
I’m not big on “connections” playing a huge role in the mechanics of expansion, but Kirwan’s position, along with the apparently open president position at Maryland-College Park, puts him in a position to stack the cards one way or another (assuming the Chancellor plays a big role in the selection of presidents, which I’d have to imagine is the case). I suspect Big Ten vs. ACC is down the list of issues to consider for the selection of the new president, but it has to be a consideration if the Big Ten has already made overtures to the higher-up at Maryland.
LikeLike
Pez —
Unless the new president has a mandate from the trustees to move to the B10, that new president will have to take the time to get up to speed and evaluate the positives and negatives of a move. Also, said president will have to bring along the trustees. Pretty tall order for a newcomer (unless it’s a promotion from within). This isn’t a Fortune 500 company with a pliant group of insider board members. This is a major universities with many power centers and trustees who are not beholden to the president for their appointments.
A new president doesn’t preclude Maryland changing conferences. But it is an impediment.
LikeLike
@Hodge:
Agreed on Kirwan. Random factoid: Kirwan was president during when John Cooper was fired and Jim Tressel hired. He was also the OSU president that succeeded Gordon Gee (the first time). I think Kirwan’s connection here could be important.
LikeLike
Was Kirwan at Ohio State when Gary Williams was there? I don’t think he’s said anything about the Big Ten and Maryland, but since he’s been active in fundraising for College Park and has a few years’ experience with Big Ten culture, I sense that while Williams might not be 100% in favor of the move where his fiefdom was concerned, he wouldn’t be dragged kicking and screaming into the conference, as his good friend Jim Boeheim would.
LikeLike
@Vincent: No, Gary Williams was at OSU about a decade before Kirwan. Ohio State has changed so much since 1989 I doubt Williams would even recognize it at this point. But, I agree that I don’t think Williams would threaten to retire before going to the BigTen, ala Boeheim.
LikeLike
Man… nobody hates this proposal quite like the fans of Missouri, Rutgers, and Nebraska, eh?
LikeLike
Let me be clear on this: despite all of this Southern talk, if I were to bet today, I still believe that both Nebraska and Rutgers will ultimately end up in the Big Ten. I’m more shakey on Missouri, though.
LikeLike
Missouri is about as lukewarm as you can get for me anyway. It doesn’t make me scratch my head (read: Vanderbilt), but I’m not exactly chewing at the bit to add them either.
LikeLike
Let me be clear on this: despite all of this Southern talk, if I were to bet today, I still believe that both Nebraska and Rutgers will ultimately end up in the Big Ten.
At 16?
I can see how MD and VA might be exploratory approaches. But VB is such a perceived outlier that I suspect approaching them means they’ve already let the conference know that they have significant interest.
My gut sense is that the conference is TX and aTm’s first choice, if the details can be worked out. Perhaps a P16 could win out with more local travel, say a pod with TT and OU and another with AZ, ASU, CO, and KS or Utah plus limiting travel to the coast. But the time zone factors, money difference, and all AAU allure will be hard to overcome.
TX, aTm, VB, NE, Rut add? Makes sense on paper, but if NE came in would TX (and aTm) view that as too many alpha dogs? Yeah, TX wants ND, but the money and buzz the Irish would bring is significantly higher than for impressive NE (IMHO still higher than what TX could bring.)
LikeLike
Frank,
How do you see this rumor then? As a back-up plan? Unrealistic (on which end)? Or that this is just the first stage of expansion – and Rutgers, NU and two other schools might bring us up to 20?
LikeLike
@Michael – I’m still very skeptical that any school moves from the SEC and ACC. Texas, though, will be the ultimate goal until every possibility is exhausted with them. Anything out there that makes it look like the college football landscape is unstable helps the Big Ten out in terms of leverage. 20 schools is interesting in theory, but I think we’re a generation or two from that ever happening. I think the current Big Ten members are going to want to maintain a lot of control (hence my comment about not taking too many schools from a single league) and adding 7 or 9 schools obviously gives a lot of that up.
LikeLike
No historical example of a conference above 12 teams surviving is anywhere to be found (BE probably about to reprove that). Obviously, things have changed and this situation could very well prove to work out, but that being said, no way does anyone try to go beyond 16. No anytime soon.
LikeLike
There was no historical example of a conference surviving above 10 before PSU joined and no example of 12 before the SEC added South Carolina and Arkansas. Everything is true until it isn’t.
LikeLike
They are looking for cohesiveness and the more schools, the more difficult that gets. If you forget history, you are doomed to repeat it. I’m old enough to remember IU actually playing in the Rose Bowl. I also remember the Missouri Valley being touted as the first superconference and the trend of the future when it went to 12 back in the early 70s. For a couple of years it may have been the best basketball conference. It stretched from New Mexico St. to Cincinnati and Houston to Drake. It included Louisville, Memphis, Bradley, Tulsa, Creigton, Wichita St. and a couple of other schools, probably St. Louis and N. Texas. Hard to keep track of who was in it, because the 1st superconference fell apart so fast. It didn’t last the decade before it changed almost completely. And the WAC 16 lasted all of 3 years.
16 may work, but it is a challenge.
LikeLike
Bingo. The current Presidents aren’t going to allow a splinter group to form that can block decisions. Picking from multiple conferences and from multiple regions keeps the balance of power centralized and in the hands of the original member institutions.
So while I like a Barking Carnival scenario (UT, aTm, NU, MU & KU) or a JoePa wetdream scenario (Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, etc.), taking 3-5 teams from a single league can lead to fractures in the Big 10 down the road. The only time you take three teams from a league is when it is UT, aTm and NU.
This kind of goes along with what Delany was saying about studying past expansions– he doesn’t want a Big 8+4 or the ACC+ 3 football schools. He wants similar member institutions that will blend into the Big 10 fabric.
LikeLike
I don’t think NU is helping their case with all this whining about losing 11-1 votes. Reminding the Presidents of the B10 about their single vote for partial qualifiers is not a good strategy. Reminding them they can’t seem to get along with their current partners is not good either.
NU just is not a good fit w/ the B10. They don’t have a dozen directional and hyphenated schools to take most of the students while they concentrate on the very top. They take almost everyone. That’s their role in a small state with only 4 public universities. A few years back when the B10 was going through this exercise w/o ND and primarily looking at Rutgers, Mizzou and Kansas, Nebraska fans were pretty certain the B10 would not consider them.
The ADs would accept NU, but I just don’t think the Presidents will. I think they will find 3 other schools or stop at 12 if ND and UT don’t “apply.”
LikeLike
Public 4-year colleges/universities in Nebraska with enrollments (total / undergrad) :
University of Nebraska – Lincoln (21,675/17,073)
University of Nebraska – Omaha (14,093/11,329)
University of Nebraska – Kearney (6,445/5,381)
Chadron State College (~2600)
Wayne State College (~3000)
Peru State College (~2000)
And I was under the impression that the concept of the partial qualifier didn’t much exist, given how the NCAA’s has a “balance” between core GPA and test scores now. Big 10 schools seem to focus on passing a number of credit hours and GPA to maintain eligibility.
And I suspect Nebraska’s a better fit – culturally and athletically – than you believe.
LikeLike
You’re right that partial qualifiers don’t exist anymore. That’s not a current issue. Its the former attitude toward using them extensively that is not something that would endear Nebraska to a conference that prides itself on academics.
I forgot the last two schools, but the point is the same. NU has nearly as many students as the rest combined and 4 are in isolated areas, 1 is a commuter school. NU’s role is to serve the whole state.
NU officials have publically worried about how B10 rules might impact their recruiting. That raises the question of their athletic compatibility. Competitively they are a home run in fb and overall.
As for culturally, we may have to wait 7 to 13 months to find out.
Nebraska is a school that brings out the complexity of the expansion issue.
Athletically-A+
Market-D
Pizazz to help national ratings-A
$ impact of Pizazz-unknown
Academics-B or C
Academic compatability-research B, Selectivity D
Demographics-D
Recruiting area-D
How does the B10 weight the various factors? How much is the B10 willing to accept the “Ds” because of other schools who score well in market but not athletically? If Nebraska doesn’t generate $22 million in revenue does the B10 bring them in for their athletic strength as a #14 or #16(assuming the new schools combined average more than $22 million)?
LikeLike
As a longtime (20 yr) RU season ticket holder, this is not even close to the nightmare scenario for RU. The nightmare is to not be in a viable BCS conference when the smoke clears. That would happen a) if other Big East teams are taken by the Big Ten instead of RU or b)The Big Ten only takes ND or Nebraska to get to 12 and the five conferences change the rules to the detriment of conferences with less than 12 members (because there aren’t really 4 teams the Big East can add right now to get to 12.
The dream scenario is a Big Ten invitation. The original post here, where the ACC has lost Maryland and Virginia, with a further SEC raid of FSU and GTech/Clemson probably to come, means some merger of the ACC remnants with the Big East would probably happen. That landing spot would be a better place than RU has been or is now.
LikeLike
Hey, speak for yourself. As a Husker football diehard, if Big Ten were to do something this stupid, footballicly speakinging, I would shake my head for a second, then say well ok, good, fooball turf is still wide open so lets move on and dominate it, which NE would/will do, regardless of conference changes, but this would make the goal simpler.
LikeLike
so lets move on and dominate it, which NE would/will do, regardless of conference changes
Because the 2000s were such a dominant era for the Huskers.
One of my key points when talking with other Texas supporters is that one cannot assume the current era of athletic excellence will always continue, and one should keep this in mind when choosing a conference affiliation which is best for the school, in good times and lean.
But if supporters of a school that has done nothing for a decade want to delude themselves into thinking that they’ll automatically be dominant no matter where they wind up, be my guest.
LikeLike
This won’t help B12 stability:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/05/27/kansas-ticket-scandal-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/
LikeLike
The smoke regarding an impending move for Nebraska is growing.
LikeLike
That was supposed to be a reply to Frank’s post, my bad.
LikeLike
Can you expound on the color or texture of the smoke? Anything in particular or just the scuttlebutt we’ve been hearing?
LikeLike
Pingback: Possible Big Ten Expansion - Page 17 - ScarletBuckeye - Ohio State Sports
I am not a university president but I did stay at a Holiday Express last night. So if I was going to be in a room with a bunch of university presidents, and we were going to compare the size of our cigars, how would I know Big 10 quality?
Academic Ranking of World Universities
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp
My guess, from a research and academic reputation standpoint, is you look at ARWU. Forget USN&WR if you want to see the Big 10 landscape.
How I graded things out:
A+ Top 20 in the world
A World ranking 21-100 (top 55 in US)
B+ World ranking 101-151 (tied 56 in US)
B World ranking 152-200 (tied 71 in US)
C+ World ranking 201-302 (tied 91 in US)
C World ranking 303-401 (tied 113 in US)
C- World ranking 402-501 (tied 139 in US)
D Not ranked
I gave out A+ if your seal appears at the top of the AWRU web page. So sue me. GO BADGERS!
Anyhow, these divisions might be a bit arbitrary but they paint a pretty good picture of how tidy and tight the Big 10 group is now.
Big 10: A+, A+, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, B+
Yes. That adds up to 12 with U of Chicago deservedly shown in the top spot.
Other BCS schools:
ACC: A, A, A, A, B+, B+, B+, B+, B, C, C, C-
Big12: A, A, A, B+, B, C+, C+, C, C, C, C, D
Big East: A, A, B, B, C+, C, C-, D
Pac 10: A+, A+, A+, A+, A, A, A, B+, C+, C+
SEC: A, A, B+, B, C+, C+, C+, C, C-, D, D, D
Ind: C+
Excluding the Pac 10, who would fit nicely in the Big 10 group by this standard?
The A list: Duke (31), Colorado (34), Maryland (37), Texas (38), North Carolina (39), Vanderbilt (42), Pitt (51), Rutgers (55), Florida (58), Texas A&M (89), Virginia (92)
Maybe Frank’s sources are on to something here.
LikeLike
An interesting perspective.
ARWU may not be a perfect assessment tool, but I kind of like that its done offshore (so less biased) and I like that it tries to use objective criteria. Further, I think its view (of both undergrad and grad schools) would be a lot closer to that of BT presidents.
If you rule out Florida and probably Duke and UNC (each of which would be a great addition, but unlikely), and if you want the Pac10 to remain strong with an ability to take their closest team (Colorado), you’re pretty much dealing with the names on this thread–Texas, TAMU, Vanderbilt, Maryland and Virginia. Plus Rutgers, discussed earlier.
LikeLike
The ARWU rankings for only the US:
WI – 15
MI – 18
IL – 19
MN – 20
NW – 22
MD – 28
TX – 29
Van- 31
PSU- 32
Pit- 37
Rut- 38
OSU- 41
PU – 42
MSU- 48
aTm- 50
VA – 51
IU – 52
GT, Mia, IA – 56 to 70 level
CT, FSU, NE, Cincy, VTech – 71-90 level
ND is down at the 91-112 level, along with schools like USF, UCF, UHou, MO, S.Car, and LSU.
So yeah, expansion looks to be heavily focused on academic reputation. Hence the rumors of some members balking about MO and NE’s academics may be legit. If Texas does join, NE will likely be competing on the bubble with Rut, GT, and Mia.
Rut beats those 3 on academics, so let’s glance at the internal ranking components for GT, Mia, and NE. You can get the detailed explanation on the ARWU site:
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp
http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2009.jsp
IA – 00 – 00 – 33 – 22 – 48 – 21 (baseline)
GT – 15 – 00 – 25 – 23 – 45 – 28
Mia- 00 – 00 – 24 – 19 – 41 – 24
NE – 20 – 00 – 16 – 15 – 34 – 18
One frustrating aspect of the ARWU is that they don’t list the total score for the schools ranked below 100. But you can calculate it.
Total scores work out to:
WI = 46.7
MI = 43.8
IL = 42.4
MN = 40.4
NW = 38.7
Duke=37.1
MD = 34.1
TX = 34.0
NC = 33.4
VB = 33.0
PSU = 32.5
Pit= 31.7
Rut= 30.4
FL = 29.8
OSU= 29.1
PU = 28.5
MSU= 25.5
aTm= 25.2
VA = 24.6
Calculated:
IU = 24.4
GT = 22.9
IA = 22.7
GA = 19.6
NCSt=19.5
Mia= 19.2
VTec=19.0
TN = 19.0
FSU = 18.2
ISU= 17.4
NE = 16.8
Cin= 16.8
CT = 16.2
LSU= 15.9
KY = 15.2
UHou=15.1 (!)
KS = 15.0
ND = 14.9
MO = 14.8
SCar=14.5
USF= 13.6
UCF= 12.7
WkF= 12.1
Syr= 11.9
Now let’s look at the US News rankings:
Duke-10
NW – 12
VB – 17
ND – 20
VA – 24
MI – 27
NC – 28
WkF- 28
GT – 35
WI – 39
PSU- 47
TX – 47
FL – 47
Mia- 50
OSU- 53
MD – 53
Pit- 56
Syr- 58
GA – 58
Clem-61
PU – 61
MN – 61
aTm- 61
Rut- 66
CT – 66
IU – 71
MSU- 71
IA – 71
VTec-71
Aub- 88
ISU- 88
NCSt-88
AL – 96
KS – 96
NE – 96
FSU- 102
MO – 102
TN – 106
SCar-110
LSU- 128
AR – 128
KY – 128
Since their seems to be heavy emphasis on the academic side, if I were NE I’d be very worried about Mia, and perhaps GT. Yes, NE has AAU and spends 40% more on research than Mia, but otherwise Mia is well ahead of NE, which seems to be near the likely cutoff line. NE has a great and large fanbase, but Mia is also a big TV draw and has the massive potential FL footprint. GT doesn’t have as much TV pull and fan support isn’t great, but it is in a lucrative state and is a step up in academic ratings, within the B10+ range and close to VA and aTm. If TX joins, I could well see one or more of Rut, GT, and Mia place ahead of NE on the conference’s preference list. So even if MD and VA don’t work out, the B10+ may still not get down to NE before the 5 invite slots are full.
Syr ain’t so hot, either.
LikeLike
More context: FL has more than 10 times the population of NE, so in theory the BTN could make more money by bumping to basic in FL at just 10 cents as opposed to $1 in NE. Gives the negotiators a lot of pricing wiggle room to still reap a windfall.
LikeLike
Isn’t USF a huge public U in the Miami area? I haven’t checked it out but I would suspect Miami’s best days are behind them, in terms of athletics….
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – USF is in the Tampa area, despite the name. I’m skeptical that Miami is going to go away in the long-term – its recruiting location is arguably the best in the country outside of Texas.
LikeLike
I never understood how South Florida could be directly west of Central Florida. The explanation according to Wikipedia
>>
Although located in west-central Florida, at the time of establishment USF was the southernmost public university in the State of Florida, a geographic situation that lent USF its sometimes confusing name.
<<
LikeLike
@Faithful5k
Probably one of the most revealing posts in this update. Good job.
LikeLike
@Frank – I have been in (a hot and muggy) Chicago the past week leaving napkins with three to 15 teams written on them along with various 4G iPhone prototypes and real estate quotes for Lebron.
Can you expand on what you are hearing about Missouri? Why has their stock fallen so much?
LikeLike
Not Frank, but what does Missouri add?
Academics- Excellent journalism program, but overall like Nebraska it is near the bottom of the Big 10’s expansion targets. If it becomes a situation of taking one of the “lower” rated schools, Nebraska probably wins out.
Athletics- Since the formation of the Big 12, Missouri has the fewest conference championships out of an member institution.
Demographics- This is obviously one of the major reasons Missouri was in the expansion conversations. That being said, the St. Louis market has already been penetrated by Illinois. Adding Missouri likely locks up the Missouri side of St. Louis for the BTN though. Kansas City is another story. The fan order in KC is 1) Chiefs 2) Royals 3) KU Basketball 4) Missouri Football. There has been some debate whether adding Missouri would get the Big Ten Network on basic cable in KC.
Fan Support- They averaged 64,000 in a 71,000 seat football stadium last year. The only times Faurot Field is consistently sold out are when Texas or Nebraska visit. For a campus located almost halfway between two major metropolitan areas (KC and StL) that isn’t overly impressive.
Geography- A good fit.
LikeLike
I think MO gets frozen out, but have to defend a 64K average as pretty good.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – Agreed. 64,000 average is very good for any school beyond the Michigan/OSU/PSU massive stadium tier.
LikeLike
4 year average attendance of teams mentioned (compiled from NCAA website):
Texas 93,033
UNL 85,126
ND 80,802
A&M 79,296
SEC avg75,353
B10 avg70,050
MO 61,714
B12 avg60,725
P10 avg56,379
UNC 55,178
UVA 54,839
ACC avg52,337
MN 50,940 #9 in B10
GT 49,993
CO 49,734
KS 48,799
MD 48,266
IA St 47,133
Pitt 44,855
Mi FL 44,837
Rutger 44,067
BE avg 42,044
BC 39,397
UConn 38,676
Syr 36,197
IU 35,921 #10
Vandy 35,741
NW 26,341 #11
Duke 23,671
LikeLike
Nice. Hard data. Hmm. Now let’s here about the price of tickets including donations, and lets go back 20, 30, 40 years (no says hopkinswhorne, let’s not (because his? team will not look so good).
OK, so now that I poked lawyerliarhorn (is there any other combination? no), back to the data. Vandy, yea, sign em up go little 16!
LikeLike
@HHusker:
I’m a “liar” now? Get a life.
LikeLike
@Mike – I can only speculate on the reasons. I’ve been told that there are certain schools that are simply dead-set against Missouri. A different source indicated that Missouri wouldn’t provide enough of an increase to BTN revenues to pay for itself (and those BTN basic cable households are really the #1, if not only reason, why Missouri is in the financial discussion).
If I were running the Big Ten, I would also think of it this way (and I believe other commenters have noted this in the past): the LAST thing that the Big Ten would want to do is to cause a break-up of the Big XII and NOT get Texas, especially if Texas were to head to the SEC (as unlikely as that might be). That would be a failure of epic proportions. So, either completely break-up the Big XII in order to guarantee to get Texas, or only take 1 team from that conference to ensure that the Big XII survives and at least Texas doesn’t head to the SEC. Taking 2 Big XII schools without a guarantee of getting Texas is a risky maneuver, especially if the Pac-10 grabs Colorado. Most of us on this blog would argue in favor of Nebraska over Missouri if we could only choose one of them.
LikeLike
“A different source indicated that Missouri wouldn’t provide enough of an increase to BTN revenues to pay for itself (and those BTN basic cable households are really the #1, if not only reason, why Missouri is in the financial discussion).”
But didn’t the study by the Chicago firm that included Missouri, if memory serves, recommend expansion by the Big Ten as OK as far as economics are concerned?
LikeLike
@84Lion – Delany has said that the study didn’t indicate any or all of those schools would make money. It just showed that the Big Ten could make money with the right team(s). That was actually my interpretation when I first read the story about it, as well. I think it got morphed on the Internet that all of those listed schools would be money-makers, but that’s not the case.
LikeLike
Let’s try to focus on the real, OK? Texas to the SEC is 1%. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. So it is absurd for you to mention it.
Big Ten can do about anything and it will not break up the Big 12. But, for sure, when the Big Ten moves to 14 and beyond, which it will, for sure it will take some B12 teams. So what? Tough beans. B12 will be left to move as it sees fit. Fwiw, my estimate is that the Big Ten takes 1 B12 team, so if that is a worry, stop worrying about it.
LikeLike
PSUguy is right. Delany is the “staff-guy” to the B10 Presidents. He’s responsible for gathering facts about Universities, markets, TV contracts and partners, football/basketball, demographic trends, cultural fits and all things Expansive. The Presidents will weigh the factors and decide who to invite.
How will each President weigh the factors? Will the Presidents politic for certain schools? Is there a consensus on some schools? If 8 Presidential votes constitutes an offer to join, the B10 could have any number of invitations.
I suspect Delany will know more about the factors and the weightings after the June B10 President’s meeting.
LikeLike
No, he’s way more than that. He’s the expert analyst and long time head of the athletic consortium money machine; a machine that has become incredibly strong recently with much more untapped potential. He is a mega-trusted adviser and a proven successful leader.
LikeLike
You are right HoosierHusker. Delany is a mega-trusted adviser and proven successful leader. Perhaps Vanderbilt is on the list of 20 schools to evaluate because Gordon Gee suggested it to Delany. I suspect the demographic changes in the upper midwest is another challenge handed to Delany by some Presidents. (I doubt Northwestern feels threatened by local demographics.)
I am pondering the issues faced by each of these twelve executives as they represent their institutions. (I include Delany and his BTN as a quasi-voting member.) There may not be consensus on any approach (an “if-then” sequence of schools) or even agreement on a single school for expansion.
LikeLike
We all saw how much of a fiasco the Penn State addition was in terms of the presidents making a decision and doing due diligence without having a point person on expansion.
That’s why Delany is being given control of that part of the process. Any recommendation of a group of schools is likely to be the one that the Big Ten presidents will end up considering.
LikeLike
How to set up a TX-aTm-Vandy-VA-MD expansion? (“From Yee haw to Hee Haw to friends for Joe Pa!”)
A. Divisions using pods – 3 annual games in pod, 2 per year from each of the other pods. Several natural groupings suggest IU-PU and/or NW-IL would likely have to play every other year. Say only IU-PU loses:
MN, WI, IA, PU
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
PSU, MD, VA, VB
TX, aTm, NW, IL
Or perhaps swap IU and PU with NW and IL
What TX probably wants:
MN, WI, IA, IL
MSU, MI, OSU, IU
PSU, MD, VA, PU
TX, aTm, VB, NW
aTm might prefer to swap PU for NW (or maybe doesn’t give a whit)
B. 3 protected annual rivals, play 6 of the remaining 12, no divisions, no conference championship games. One reason for it is that it protects the most rivalries:
School – annual rivalries
MN – IA, WI, MI
WI – MN, IA, MSU (Edmund Fitzgerald Trophy? I know, Lake Superior isn’t Lake Michigan, poetic license)
IA – MN, WI, MD (yeah, odd, but it is the only really forced one. Something has to replace the Lame Grant Trophy.)
MSU – MI, IU, WI
MI – MSU, OSU, MN
OSU – MI, PSU, IL
IL – NW, IU, OSU
NW – IL, PU, TX (at TX’s request, Chicago road trips)
PU – IU, NW, aTm (CAD Trophy?)
IU – PU, IL, MSU
PSU – OSU, MD, VA
MD – VA, PSU, IA
VA – MD, PSU, VB
VB – VA, aTm, TX
aTm – TX, PU, VB
TX – aTm, VB, NW (2 good destinations for fun and fundraising, plus the Thanksgiving Ags)
C. 2 simple divisions. 7 games in division, 2 of 8 or 3 of 8 per year vs. the other division. No protected cross-division games. Most likely split:
East – MD, VA, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IU
West – MN, IA, WI, NW, IL, VB, TX, aTm
Since I want a conference champ game and hate pods, I like this, but it’ll be a hard sell to the current conference schools. Doubt that TX would insist on it. Unlikely.
LikeLike
Is expansion containing MD and UVA a good thing for Penn State? From what I seen, PSU’s recent resurgence has been aided a lot by their recruiting in both states (esp MD) and you would think those schools being added to the Big ten might give MD and UVA a better chance to keep those kids home.
LikeLike
How many weeks and months do people need to play divisions and pod games? Have we not seen, by now, that reasonable thinking can produce very workable solutions?
Anyway, maybe not. What I usually never see is something that is very much needed. Big Ten now, and probably post expansion, does not have enough heft to produce good game weekly, unless. Unless, they purposely schedule what appear to be ALL the top 25 games they can, spread intentionally week by week for TV.
Now, back to all your (useless) talk about US News academic ratings.
LikeLike
HH,
I’ve been thinking along the same lines.
For reference, here is the 2010 Big Ten Composite Schedule:
http://cfn.scout.com/2/946463.html
Ignoring September’s non-conference games for now, once October and the conference schedule starts, there are nine weeks for 44 conference games. Broken down as 8 weeks w/ 5 conference games per week, with BTN presumably getting choices #4 and #5 each week, and 1 week with 4 conference games, and BTN gets choice #4.
I’m assuming that ABC/ESPN gets the top three games each week, but if there is something else to this arrangement, please educate me.
If you added Team #12, you’re adding four conference games to reach 48. So now you have 6 weeks w/ 5 games, and 3 weeks w/ 6 games, and BTN has choices #4, #5, and #6 each week.
With 14 teams, you now have 56 games, presumably over nine weeks. This would perhaps mean 7 weeks w/ 6 games, and 2 weeks w/ 7 games (BTN shows games #4, $5, #6, and #7).
With 16 teams, you now have 64 games, again presumably over nine weeks. 8 weeks w/ 7 games and 1 week w/ 8 games (BTN shows games #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8).
When you get to 14 or 16 teams, At this point, there has got to be some market saturation with the noon kickoff games.
So I think the BTN would look to move a game to Thursday night or Saturday at 3:30 or 8:00.
I do have a question about how the non conference games area chosen/assigned with ESPN/ABC. Do they still get the top three picks in September?
It would be nice if The Big Ten moved some conference games to September, but I’m not sure how that sorts out with ESPN, and that’s part of a too long thread to discuss right now.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/12745/beebe-our-schedule-not-anyone-elses
Post on Big 12 meetings coming up next week. I expect this will be the launching pad for the next phase of expansion, where some of the players are clearly identified one way or the other.
Expansion is not the only point of tension in the Big 12, so expect these meetings to be interesting on several level.
I’m still thinking Rutgers, Nebraska and Missouri have already been asked to apply. The continued conversations the Big 10 is having with other schools are only to add additional teams and/or create contingency scenarios should any of these 3 say no.
Clearly they are hoping Texas will join, probably have been told no by ND already, and are checking the temp on everyone else. At least that’s what I make of all the information that has been out there.
LikeLike
I think that’s Beebe walking back his hard stand because he doesn’t know where a lot of these universities are on expansion.
Until he knows where Texas is, he can’t take a hard stand and demand that everyone either be on or off the Big 12 plane at a certain point.
LikeLike
I think you are exactly correct, and it is the underlying reason why there is discontent in the conference. If Texas were committed 100% to the conference, Beebe (who is basically a spokesperson for Texas I believe) would take a hard line approach. But if Texas is playing Big 10 off of Pac-10 off of SEC off of Independence off of Big 12 in search of their best deal, Beebe needs to follow their lead by stepping back. And the other 11 schools know it.
It’s one thing to look out for your own best interests, but do it too openly and piss off your partners, things tend to get ugly. This statement refers to several Big 12 schools, thus I think the meetings will bring interesting information.
LikeLike
Beebe (who is basically a spokesperson for Texas I believe)
Nope.
LikeLike
More on thus topic, I’ve been reading all the articles and Q&A sessions with coaches and administrators in the Big 12 the past few months and what strikes me as most interesting is that everyone seems to have a similar answer when asked about expansion. They all generally say they are happy with the Big 12, would love to stay, but think they would be desirable to other conferences if they needed to move.
You don’t hear those typed of comments from teams in the other BCS leagues, save perhaps Big East schools.
Maybe they are all actually happy and will figure that out next week, but I think there is good reason everyone always jumps to the possibility of switching conferences. Something is just not right with the status quo.
LikeLike
I think Bebe’s doing crazy shit because he’s an idiot with no plan, as is common with idiots soon to lose his job, or have a loss of stature and a pay-cut.
LikeLike
So Zeek, you think Mr. Brains and Integrity Beebe will get UT, NE, MO, aTm, et al, to bare their souls? Send me a pack of what you smoke I need some. Telling the bare truth is actually the Nebraska way, but it is NOT the American way today (nor the lawyer way which is what is driving the comments on this board) by any measure, and Harvey and TO know that full well and will NOT be 100% forthcoming with idiot Beebe nor will Texas nor anyone else in play for a conference move. Beebe is a failure with no good plan and no school with options will give him full respect and disclosure now. Actually, I expect by now that NE has had substantive talks re a new B12, SEC, and P## move, unless they are certain of a B10 invite.
LikeLike
“idiot Beebe”
I used to take you seriously. But stuff like this made me re-think my position.
LikeLike
Too each his own. Read his bio and watch some clips and consider the success of his office as B12 head. If you think he seems worthy of his pay grade, OK with me. If you wanna share reasons, all the better. Me…I see him as the guy who has(d) OU, UT, and NU, with now a BAD TV deal and ALL 3 of his ace teams considering (strongly, IMO) other options. I call spades spades. Do you think there are good reasons to consider him a competent, hugely paid leader? I’m always willing to reconsider in the face of good strong evidence.
LikeLike
Oops, I think we agree Zeek. If so, fine, if not, now you know what I think fwiw. I paid too much attention to your first para and not enough to your second.
LikeLike
B12 TV pact does better with their small population base than anyone else (although Beebe didn’t put it together).
Its also older than the SEC deal. B12 will do fine when they renew. ACC did surprisingly well considering the economy. B10 took a gamble with their BTN and it paid off.
LikeLike
All I was saying (which I thought was fairly noncontroversial), was that the Big 12 will not be stable until Texas makes a firm commitment to its future.
Without Texas, I don’t see how any of the big brand teams can justify staying.
Thus, Beebe cannot give an ultimatum until he knows what kind of Big 12 he has in the future. That is almost entirely dependent on Texas.
A Big 12 deprived of Nebraska/Missouri/Colorado can still survive as a conference built around Texas’ markets. There’s far more uncertainty without Texas because then there’s big questionmarks of what markets the Big 12 actually has going forward and whether the bigger market teams are going and where and same is true of the big brand teams.
LikeLike
It appears that if the Big Ten is looking at Maryland and Virginia, they’re really considering trading the NYC Potential for DC, so as to not compromising their academic prestige. But let’s not forget what expansion is all about: money. If it’s not going to add money, the current Big Ten members will just stay where they’re at now.
I can see the added value from Virginia and Maryland, but Vandy makes no sense. If either Maryland or Va would be willing to leave the ACC, then Miami(FL) makes more sense than Vandy. Even Rutgers makes more sense, because it would open the BTN to NYC metro and the state of New Jersey. Rutgers has HUGE market potential, isn’t going to dilute the Big Ten academically, and would probably thrive in the CIC because it’s the only flagship university in New Jersey and could very well get more research funding for state grants, and possibly federal grants while increasing its own academic prestige.
That’s the biggest problem with adding Nebraska, Mizzou, Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Syracuse. They’re all bottom tier Big Ten schools academically, and the Big Ten goes from being viewed as great research schools (Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Penn State) with several other very good ones (Ohio State, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa) to very good research schools with some great ones thrown in there.
Replacing Missouri, Syracuse and Notre Dame with Texas, Texas A&M, Maryland and/or Virginia solve this problem, while still drastically expanding the BTN’s market. They should be able to get the BTN on basic cable in metro DC, throughout Texas, and possibly chunks of New Jersey and New York. If Rutgers is no longer desirable because of decreased value without their counterparts to draw out NYC (ND, Syracuse), then adding a school like Miami(FL), Virginia or even Va Tech seems like solid options. Imagine what Miami(FL), Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, and Nebraska would draw in TV ratings in football?
Once Fox and the BTN buys the Pac 10’s TV contract in two years, the Big Ten would cover every part of the country, unless you don’t think they have a true influence in the Northeast with only Penn State. (I don’t care if this is a conspiracy-theory, it makes too much sense for the BTN and Fox to buy the entire Pac 10 TV deal, which is extremely affordable-$78M/yr currently to get the BTN on the West Coast).
Who cares about New York at this point? How do you not put the BTN in at least half of Florida, with all the Midwest and Western transplants in the state? All of a sudden, the BTN will almost HAVE TO BECOME a national TV network just for the last week of the season for rivalry week. Who does ABC and the ESPNs not play when Michigan-Ohio State, Miami-Penn State, Nebraska-Wisconsin, and Texas-Texas A&M are all playing on the same day and the Big Ten conveniently schedules multiple games at the same times? Obviously ESPN has a say in the scheduled game-times, but how will that apply to newly added teams? Games like Illinois-Northwestern-a decent TV draw in and of itself would at the minimum get relegated to the BTN, as would Michigan State-Iowa, or Indiana-Purdue, or Maryland-Minnesota (an outlier, I know) etc.
If UVA AND Maryland are musts, then I think Miami(FL) would get the invite over Nebraska for academic reasons, market potential, and a great football brand in their own right. But out of respect to the ACC, Nebraska adds close to what Miami would, and might get the invite anyways. Both would be stellar additions for the Big Ten, and Miami had a rivalry with Penn State throughout the 90’s and early 2000s if I’m not mistaken, although, Nebraska does seem like a more natural fit and could conceivably develop decent rivalries with Wisconsin and Iowa while maintaining decent rivalries with the Texas schools.
LikeLike
Art,
Very lucid post. And it underscores the importance of not settling for schools. From an academic standpoint, the five new expansion teams will determine whether the Big 10 and CIC is taken seriously as THE national research conference or just a good research coalition. From the standpoint of the BTN, it´s important to have a deeper conference so you´ve got games to broadcast that draw well but are passed up by ABC and ESPN.
LikeLike
I agree that there is definitely value in expanding the CIC, but they have to be selective who they’re expanding to, because it’s used very nicely as a bargaining piece when considering adding new members. Adding elite schools that don’t play D-I sports seems like a no-brainer. If any of the Ivy League would join, bring ’em along. Schools like Carnegie-Mellon and Johns Hopkins should be welcomed aboard as well. But making an offer to Texas, Rutgers, etc. doesn’t make as much sense.
I can really appreciate and respect the Big Ten for wanting to not just maintain, but actually improve their academic brand by adding other elite schools to participate in the CIC. In the end, I just don’t think inviting schools like Vandy to join the Big Ten is going to make sense from a financial perspective, and they SHOULDN’T be allowed to split the “TV pie” with the current members.
While the academics should definitely be there, the money ALSO has to be there.
LikeLike
Also, it should be noted that IF the Big Ten can either get the Texases to join or can buy out the next Pac 10 TV contract, that would pretty much squash the “Western Alliance” TV network, and would force the other’s hand (either force the Texas schools into the Big Ten, or force the Pac 10 to accept a TV contract from Fox and the BTN).
LikeLike
OK dumping Vandy is fine for your propositions. But, how does this B10 add get markets like Fla for BTN, and more importantly, with an average football team power rating that is not so great, how do you get weekly games with wide or national exposure and ratings?
LikeLike
@HoosierHusker
The key would be to get one major player on the BTN every week. That means that Ohio State, Miami(FL), Michigan, Penn State, or Texas is playing on the BTN network every week. With Miami hopefully bringing enough interest to place the BTN on South Florida television sets, along with the large Big Ten alumni base already situated there. The million-dollar question is “does Texas, Miami(FL), Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, and maybe Nebraska bring enough national recognition to put the BTN on every cable station’s basic package in the country?”
LikeLike
The Big 10 presidents would be absolutely insane to take Miami over Nebraska. Let us hope they are not that stupid.
If MD and VA are “musts”, then the BT is screwed, ’cause they’re not coming.
LikeLike
Maryland and Virginia come back into play if the SEC pursues a few schools on the ACC’s southern tier, or even looks into luring N.C. State (which could get a new identity after being in UNC and Duke’s shadow the past two decades).
The ACC isn’t the stable happy family it once was when it comprised only seven or eight members. Change is on the horizon.
LikeLike
Yeah but most of us think the Big Ten goes to 14 or 16 and then puts a moratorium on expansion (unless it’s Notre Dame that comes calling)…
LikeLike
The ACC is still really stable. For any member to leave, there’d have to be huge changes already happening. No ACC schools is ever going to be the first domino to fall.
Furthermore, I don’t think the SEC is grabbing the ACC southern tier.
1, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and GT just don’t add enought value, given their geographic locales. ABC might renegotiate w/ those 4 on board, but not to the tune of an additional $17M per school. Pretty much the only way the SEC expands is w/ 1 of the big 2 in Texas.
2, I think FSU and Clemson would eventually depart for the SEC if asked. Culturally, they make enough sense. Miami and GT probably would not leave the ACC unless the whole conference was circling the drain. Miami under Shalala has made too big of a commitment to both academics and running a clean program to go to the SEC. (I know the SEC has been relatively tame recently, but still.) GT has already been there, didn’t work out so well.
And one last thing about all this, I can see no scenario under which UVa separates from UNC. UVa has athletic rivalries w/ UMd, but being in a separate conference wouldn’t be a potenial deal breaker. UNC and UVa are too tied together culturally, academically, socially, w/ the oldest FB rivalry in the South, not to be lightly dismissed by alumni of either school. By the same token, UNC goes no where w/o Duke. So, any taking of these schools would almost have to be a package deal (and Texas would likely have to be on board as an enticement). VaTech and NCSt. (and maybe A&M) are unlikely to cause any probs as they all are valuable enough to take care of themselves. The SEC takes them long before Clemson.
If (as absolutely unlikely as it might be) would the B10 be willing to take on these schools, w/, say ND, A&M, Vandy, or whoever else, when collectively, these schools are powerful enough to demand real changes from the B10?
These schools would not be like Rutgers, Neb., Mizzou, just happy to be invited. No one would demand a sweetheart financial deal, as the $ would be great enough already, but these schools will not join a Midwestern conference. They might merge w/ a formerly Midwestern based conference.
The changes asked for would likely include some/all/maybe even more of the following:
1- Input into divisional alignment.
2- Demand name change to fully represent the beginning of a new(ish) conference.
3- Move conference HQ to reflect growth to the south.
4- Championship games to be evenly distributed.
5- Real effort (big $$$$ commitment) from all former B10 schools to improve baseball, LAX, soccer, et al. so as southern schools don’t feel they’re hurting these sports.
6- UW stops playing terrible mid-90s white hip hop during home FB games. (Oh, we can dream!)
Seriously, while no one here is in control of this stuff, in your humble opinions, would the B10 agree to this to get these schools? You can’t get a rainmkaer w/o getting wet.
LikeLike
I could see some reasonable demands being met, sure. Commitments to baseball, LAX, and soccer are reasonable and probably even advantageous for the BigTen schools to pursue. Everyone but Wisconsin (and ESPN for some dumb reason) wants the Jump Around thing to just go away. 😛
Some other stuff I don’t think is negotiable however. Demanding a change of HQ location is almost most definitely off the board. BigTen spent a lot of money renovating a historic building in Chicago for the BTN, and either way no one in the current BigTen states are going to agree to that just because they’re adding 2-4 more southern schools. Moreover, how would that even work if they added Texas/TA&M/UVA/UMD? Moving it closer to either side probably hurts the other more than it helps.
As for the name change, they’d be basically asking them to rebrand themselves. It might happen anyway, but I’m unsure anyone would be receptive to a prospective school “demanding” it.
I think you’re correct that concessions will need to be made from both sides of the party. I could see Nebraska being expected to increase their academic rankings, for example. I think adding any southern school means the BigTen will need to increase their baseball, lax, etc. profiles. But no one is going to totally prostrate themselves to either the BigTen or vice-versa. Well, maybe Missouri.
LikeLike
I was watching ESPN this morning, specifically the Top Ten plays, and the top two were of BT baseball. #2 was a defensive play by the Iowa 2B making a sliding catch behind 1B (in foul territory). #1 was the IU CF making a diving catch. I’m not saying that BT baseball is elite, but it is ironic… especially in light of comments made on these blogs.
LikeLike
@Sportsman24 – I saw that last night along with another Top Ten play from the Big Ten a few days ago. Now, Big Ten baseball isn’t necessarily great, but it shows the power of the Big Ten Network. Those highlights wouldn’t exist for SportsCenter otherwise.
LikeLike
That is an EXCELLENT point. If nothing else, the BTN is pretty much the only network willing to play college baseball before the College World Series. I wouldn’t be surprised if Big Ten baseball improves dramatically just from the exposure it gets both regionally, but also somewhat nationally.
LikeLike
If nothing else, the BTN is pretty much the only network willing to play college baseball before the College World Series.
Fox sports has had 3 channels of college baseball (east, central, west) all season. I get them on my sports tier, and have lots of B12, P10, ACC, and SEC games available.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!
Toucher.
I will stand by the point of the comment, though. I still will not be surprised if Big Ten baseball improves dramatically over the next few years as the teams start to get more media exposure.
LikeLike
Yup, ESPNU, Comcast Sports, and tons of other regional chanels play college baseball throughout the year.
The BTN is the only station willing to show B10 baseball throughout the year.
LikeLike
I was watching the Northwestern-Purdue game dvred and they mentioned that it was a top 10 play “on that other sports network”. I guess the don’t-mention-the-competition works both ways.
LikeLike
Before the Big 10 expands, the presidents have to answer the question of what they want the conference to be. Judging from the comments, there are many alternative visions. Those visions — which involve the type of schools the Big 10/CIC would like to gather under its umbrella, and the region the Big 10/CIC would like to operate in) open the door to different candidates.
1) The leading coalition of major research institutions (read: AAU members with high ARWU rankings) in the midwest/north. This is why we talk about Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt and the other “usual suspects.”
2) The coalition of the country’s leading major research institutions, east of the Continental Divide. This would include the “Southern strategy” schools Frank is talking about.
3) A grouping of the leading academic institutions (think: US News ratings) playing Division I sports in the midwest/north. This definition would bring in Notre Dame, perhaps UConn.
4) Same as number 3, with the region being defined as east of the Continental Divide. This definition would allow Miami, e.g., to be considered.
5) The national grouping of the nation’s leading research institutions with major sports programs. This would open the door to every AAU school from Stanford to Rutgers. The only AAU/high ARWU schools that couldn’t be considered would be those in the Ivy League and University Athletic Association.
6) Number 3, national.
Of course, conference cohesion decreases as you proceed down the list. So the presidents will be thinking about that as well.
So, answer the question, “What is the Big 10’s brand identity?,” and we’ll get a rough idea of what schools are to be courted.
LikeLike
I think this is a good way to approach the issue, though I might phrase it a little differently. Assuming that academic excellence and a comprehensive D-1 sports program are prerequisities, there are actually two separate decisions to be made – geography and identity.
Geographic scope – 3 possibilities:
(1) Midwest to Mid-Atlantic
(2) Eastern US
(3) National
Identity – 2 possibilities:
(A) Only large research-oriented universities – Rut/Md/Tex
(B) Include smaller humanities-oriented universities – ND/Syr/Mia/BC
As you indicate, none of these are right or wrong; it depends on what you want to be. If the choice is 1-A, which is in my view the traditional B10 identity, then there aren’t many choices – Rut, Neb, Mizz, Pitt, Md. (Vandy a little too Southern, UConn and UVa not quite research-y enough.) If, say, 2-B is the choice, then your Vandys and Miamis and Syracuses are in the mix.
I can’t imagine that 3 is truly on the table right now – just too radical a departure – and I suspect that only Notre Dame and Texas would be appealing enough to entice the B10 presidents to deviate from 1-A. If either ND or Tex is prepared to be the first mover, the one responsible for permanently changing the landscape, then all bets are off. I don’t think either of them will do that, and accordingly I think that at least for now, it will be a 3-team move with Rut/Neb/Md, with Pitt/Mizz as alternates.
LikeLike
I should clarify that “academic excellence” isn’t always equal, as one could rightly argue that Pitt/Rut are on a different level than Neb/Mizz, for example. I was thinking in terms of a certain minimum level of academic standing, for which AAU membership is a rough proxy.
Also, this obviously doesn’t consider other factors like TV markets and football success (though I would still lean toward Rut/Neb/Md as the B10’s best non-ND/Tex combo, all things considered).
LikeLike
Re “What is Big 10 brand identity” (Mike R)
Important post.
Basically there is (seems to be) a fundamental disconnect between the important role said to be performed by the CIC and the dynamics of expanding an athletic conference driven by the historically unique Big 10 network driven by market footprint and advertising potential.
The University of Chicago, member of the CIC yet not a participant in athletic competition, illustrates there need not be such a disconnect.
The “passivity” of the Big 10 not reaching out and expanding the CIC network to major research institutions based on reciprocal benefits is puzzling to an outsider. Or perhaps there are such arrangements which are not well known outside the research community.
From an athletic perspective, the seeming upper limit of schools that might be added seems to be 5.
Who are some of the expansion schools mentioned? (Correct me if I am wrong)
ND, Miami, SU (AAU member) which are not considered elite research institutions; Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas which are not considered elite universities; Pittsburgh which is considered a major research institution but lacks a unique market footprint for the Big 10 channel; Texas and Texas A&M which are major research institutions but located in the southwest, who seem to be evaluating their options including a “Western Alliance”; Maryland, a major universtity whose AD again restated that they aren’t leaving the ACC; RU, Vanderbilt, UVA and on and on.
The fact that the expansion search is led by an athletic conference director is just another indication of the disconnect.
Personally I believe the Big 10 ought to consider expansion and reorganization of its brand on 3 tracts:
1) an athletic conference of quality schools based on affinity, athletic competition, markets and the Big 10 channel.
2) a CIC research cooperative that enhances research to qualified candidate institutions not limited to 16 universities.
3) Universities that are joint members of the CIC and the athletic conference.
That at least would be a start to rationalizing and enhancing both the Big 10 athletic conference and the CIC.
I can just imagine the institutional and bureaucratic and personnal obstacles in the way.
LikeLike
It’s because the CIC is perceived to be an arm of the Big Ten, and Chicago received an invite as a former member (and obviously prestigious research university).
The presidents were probably only willing to make a one time exception for Chicago and stipulated that Chicago would not get a vote (I assume Chicago has no vote on CIC expansion because a CIC invite would be granted to any university receiving a Big Ten invite) on “CIC expansion” because it would be a consequence of Big Ten expansion.
I think it’s to maintain the CIC’s identity as the “Big Ten (+ Chicago) research arm.” The point is to brand the Big Ten as an academic and athletic powerhouse. If you invite universities to just participate in the research arm, then it loses that identity.
LikeLike
It’s not easily quantified in a soundbite, but how about major research/football schools in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Mid-South? That excludes only the Pacific Coast, Mountain states, New England, New York and South Atlantic.
You’d be talking about an 18-school conference of the current members plus Texas, A&M, Vandy, Pitt, Rutgers, Md and Va.
LikeLike
Interesting article in today’s San Antonio paper.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/buck_harvey/the_ache_of_change_will_slow_uts_move_94988074.html?showFullArticle=y
“But McCombs thinks the dollars will need to be financially clear and one-sided, making it a no-brainer, as he likes to say.”
LikeLike
Good find.
LikeLike
Yeah, good find. It does beg the question of what’s the definition of dollars: athletic or academic.
LikeLike
By far one of the more insightful articles on Texas’ decision making process.
LikeLike
The top 75 schools in merchandise sales for October through December 2009. To the extent that we’re still interested in how adding teams might ultimately affect the cable market, this might be a proxy for fan interest.
Maryland and Virginia don’t fare particularly well at 37 and 39. Vandy at 63 is probably not a surprise. Rutgers does not appear to be on the list.
Probably no one will be surprised who’s at #1. Nebraska’s #13 demonstrates that its strength exceeds it population. Mizzou at #17 barely surpasses its KC market competitor Kansas at #19, but still better than A&M at #23.
ATLANTA, Ga., (February 10, 2010) – The Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) is pleased to announce its top-selling institutions and manufacturers for the second quarter of the 2009-2010 fiscal year. These rankings represent royalties reported October 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 on all collegiate merchandise sold.
Top-75 Universities
(1.) The University of Texas at Austin (2.) University of Florida (3.) The University of Alabama (4.) Louisiana State University (5.) University of Georgia (6.) The University of Michigan (7.) University of North Carolina (8.) The Pennsylvania State University (9.) The University of Oklahoma (10.) University of Notre Dame (11.) University of Kentucky (12.) University of Tennessee (13.) University of Nebraska (14.) West Virginia University (15.) Auburn University (16.) University of Wisconsin (17.) University of Missouri (18.) University of Arkansas (19.) The University of Kansas (20.) University of Illinois (21.) Florida State University (22.) University of South Carolina (23.) Texas A&M University (24.) Texas Tech University (25.) Clemson University (26.) Oklahoma State University (27.) University of Minnesota (28.) University of Miami (29.) Purdue University (30.) University of Louisville (31.) University of California Berkeley (32.) University of Mississippi (33.) The University of Arizona (34.) University of Washington (35.) Oregon State University (36.) University of Maryland (37.) University of California Los Angeles (38.) The University of Virginia (39.) Kansas State University (40.) Georgia Institute of Technology (41.) Washington State University (42.) University of Colorado (43.) Syracuse University (44.) University of Pittsburgh (45.) Boise State University (46.) University of Utah (47.) University of Cincinnati (48.) Duke University (49.) Stanford University (50.) Brigham Young University (51.) University of Connecticut (52.) State University of New Jersey (53.) East Carolina University (54.) Texas Christian University (55.) The University of Montana (56.) Boston College (57.) University of South Florida (58.) Fresno State University (59.) The University of Memphis (60.) United States Military Academy (61.) Marshall University (62.) Colorado State University (63.) Vanderbilt University (64.) The University of New Mexico (65.) The University of Wyoming (66.) University of Central Florida (67.) Georgetown University (68.) Northwestern University (69.) University of Houston (70.) University of Nevada (71.) Gonzaga University (72.) Villanova University (73.) Texas State University-San Marcos (74.) James Madison University (75.) University of Delaware
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/Second+Quarter+Rankings+2009-2010
LikeLike
Keep in mind that this is only the Collegiate Licensing Company’s list. Some schools do not use the company for their merchandising (e.g., Ohio State is not on that list but I imagine would have to be in the top 5 of any list of merchandising royalties).
LikeLike
That makes sense. I guess it tells you something about the schools relative to one another if they are on the list.
LikeLike
I usually like to bash Rutgers because they are a riding a 5-year high after years and years of utter futility… but I think that they are #52 on this list.
LikeLike
Rutgers is on the list at #52. “The State University of New Jersey” is usually called Rutgers.
LikeLike
The average B10 school R & D annual expenditures are over $500M. This is a band of CIC Presidents deciding on this so sports apparel licensing of even $5M/yr pales in comparison to the Federal grant $. These are career educators who will always place education above athletics. Why would they include UC as a non-athletic member if it weren’t all about academics?
LikeLike
(Had a posting hiccup, so I apologize if this is a repeat.)
The ARWU rankings for only the US:
WI – 15
MI – 18
IL – 19
MN – 20
NW – 22
MD – 28
TX – 29
Van- 31
PSU- 32
Pit- 37
Rut- 38
OSU- 41
PU – 42
MSU- 48
aTm- 50
VA – 51
IU – 52
GT, Mia, IA – 56 to 70 level
CT, FSU, NE, Cincy, VTech – 71-90 level
ND is down at the 91-112 level, along with schools like USF, UCF, UHou, MO, S.Car, and LSU.
So if this week’s leak is true, expansion looks to be heavily focused on academic reputation. Hence the rumors of some members balking about MO and NE’s academics may be legit. If Texas does join, NE will likely be competing on the bubble with Rut, GT, and Mia.
Rut beats those 3 on academics, so let’s glance at the internal ranking components for GT, Mia, and NE. You can get the detailed explanation on the ARWU site:
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp
http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2009.jsp
IA – 00 – 00 – 33 – 22 – 48 – 21 (baseline)
GT – 15 – 00 – 25 – 23 – 45 – 28
Mia- 00 – 00 – 24 – 19 – 41 – 24
NE – 20 – 00 – 16 – 15 – 34 – 18
One frustrating aspect of the ARWU is that they don’t list the total score for the schools ranked below 100. But you can calculate it.
Total scores work out to:
WI = 46.7
MI = 43.8
IL = 42.4
MN = 40.4
NW = 38.7
Duke=37.1
MD = 34.1
TX = 34.0
NC = 33.4
VB = 33.0
PSU = 32.5
Pit= 31.7
Rut= 30.4
FL = 29.8
OSU= 29.1
PU = 28.5
MSU= 25.5
aTm= 25.2
VA = 24.6
Calculated:
IU = 24.4
GT = 22.9
IA = 22.7
GA = 19.6
NCSt=19.5
Mia= 19.2
VTec=19.0
TN = 19.0
FSU = 18.2
ISU= 17.4
NE = 16.8
Cin= 16.8
CT = 16.2
LSU= 15.9
KY = 15.2
UHou=15.1 (!)
KS = 15.0
ND = 14.9
MO = 14.8
SCar=14.5
USF= 13.6
UCF= 12.7
WkF= 12.1
Syr= 11.9
Now let’s look at the US News rankings:
Duke-10
NW – 12
VB – 17
ND – 20
VA – 24
MI – 27
NC – 28
WkF- 28
GT – 35
WI – 39
PSU- 47
TX – 47
FL – 47
Mia- 50
OSU- 53
MD – 53
Pit- 56
Syr- 58
GA – 58
Clem-61
PU – 61
MN – 61
aTm- 61
Rut- 66
CT – 66
IU – 71
MSU- 71
IA – 71
VTec-71
Aub- 88
ISU- 88
NCSt-88
AL – 96
KS – 96
NE – 96
FSU- 102
MO – 102
TN – 106
SCar-110
LSU- 128
AR – 128
KY – 128
Since their seems to be heavy emphasis on the academic side, if I were NE I’d be very worried about Mia, and perhaps GT. Yes, NE has AAU and spends 40% more on research than Mia, but otherwise Mia is well ahead of NE, which seems to be near the likely cutoff line. NE has a great and large fanbase, but Mia is also a big TV draw and has the massive potential FL footprint. GT doesn’t have as much TV pull and fan support isn’t great, but it is in a lucrative state and is a step up in academic ratings, within the B10+ range and close to VA and aTm. If TX joins, I could well see one or more of Rut, GT, and Mia place ahead of NE on the conference’s preference list. So even if MD and VA don’t work out, the B10+ may still not get down to NE before the 5 invite slots are full.
Syr ain’t so hot, either.
LikeLike
NEBRASKA ACADEMIC SUFFICIENCY?
On the athletic side there are many reasons NU fits in the BT as previously documented. However on the academic side, they may not fit. The research R & D expenditures are way below the BT average. The academic ranking is way below the average BT ranking. The student body is small in comparison to the BT average & the freshman acceptance rate is higher then the BT average. They do not have that public ivy image either. There are other factors as well but as much as we might like them, I’m thinking the COPC is not interested in diluting the academic prestige of the BT.
LikeLike
“They do not have that public ivy image either.”
I like to tout Penn State (and other Big Ten schools, I believe all but Purdue are given the “Public Ivy” treatment, although Northwestern isn’t Public and isn’t an Ivy, I think the general consensus is that it certainly fits the “Public Ivy” category) as a Public Ivy.
But then according to Greene’s Guides, the University of Georgia (NOT Georgia Tech, but good ol’ UGA) is also a “Public Ivy” per Greene’s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy
I find this odd considering that UGA is not AAU. Additionally, I have lived in Georgia for over a quarter century and the general buzz I’ve heard is that if you want an education in Georgia, you go to Tech, avoid UGA. Not that UGA is a “bad” school, just that seeing them listed as a “Public Ivy” to me is surprising just to the point of being nearly shocking.
I guess my point is that there are the lists and then there are the clubs. Nebraska is AAU, Miami is not, although a previous poster considered Miami a “better” school academically, presumably based on USN&WR rankings, which other posters have posited probably don’t mean much to university presidents. Maybe Nebraska is considered a “legacy” AAU member because they attained that lofty status way back in 1909, kinda like Flounder in Animal House, he’s a legacy so he qualifies and “has to be” invited.
Frankly I think that if the presidents are looking to get “better than average” academics for Big Ten expansion, expansion will never happen. There just aren’t any schools around (and willing to join) that fit that bill other than Texas and Notre Dame. ND has already stated commitment to independence, and Texas appears to be playing hold ’em, they may join, probably won’t.
LikeLike
Problem is, there really is no such thing as a “Public Ivy”, ie there is not an official ranking system, so anybody can call any school a “Public Ivy”. It’s as an official a ranking system as calling such-and-such school “The Harvard of . . ..” or “The 9th ranked party school according to Playboy”.
That being said, Arizona State truly is the Harvard of Tempe.
LikeLike
Rice is one of the top 5 party schools in Houston.
LikeLike
“Problem is, there really is no such thing as a ‘Public Ivy'”
True. But we should remember in this thread that “Ivy League” is a standard of academic quality that arises from an athletic conference.
If the expansion is these 5 schools perhaps we can retire the term “Public Ivy”. Instead, we should then refer to schools like the University of Florida and the University of California as “Big 10 caliber” schools.
LikeLike
P10, their expansion candidates, and some neighbor schools’ ARWU scores:
Stan=73.1
Cal= 71.0
UCLA=52.3
WA – 48.0
CO = 36.4
TX = 34.0
USC 32.4
AZ = 26.9
Utah=26.6
aTm= 25.2
ASU= 24.3
Calculated, based on their formula:
ORSt=21.7
CSU= 17.9
ISU= 17.4
NE = 16.8
NM = 15.4
UHou=15.1
KS = 15.0
WSU= 14.9
MO = 14.8
OR = 14.4
—–
KSU= 12.1
SDSU=11.9
NV = 11.4
OU = 11.1
TT = 10.6
BYU= 10.1
WY = 9.6
Lou= 9.4
UtSt=8.7
SMU=8.6
TCU, Baylor, UNLV, Fresno, and Boise didn’t make the Top 152 in the US.
US News rankings:
Stan=4
Cal= 21
UCLA=24
USC= 26
WA = 42
TX = 47
aTm= 61
SMU= 68
BYU= 71
CO = 77
Bayl=80
ISU= 88
KS = 96
NE = 96
AZ = 102
MO = 102
OU = 102
WSU= 106
TCU= 110
OR = 115
ASU = 121
Utah=126
CSU= 128
Tier 3 (unranked, alphabetized)
KSU, OK St, OR St, SDSU, TT, WY, Utah St
Tier 4
UHou
That Tier 4 ranking really screws UHou. Hard to reconcile that with how high they rate in the ARWU: In the 91-112 rank group and a Top 100 score. Ahead of OR, MO, WSU, and KS, and well ahead of OU and TT. That doesn’t mean the US News ranking should be completely ignored, but it does help explain why the rumor that TX had proposed to the P10 a Texas-based quad (for local travel) of TX, aTm, TT, and UH might have some truth to it.
Also illustrates how hard it would be for the P10 to reach 16 without a Texas school, especially if NE goes to the B16.
LikeLike
Forgot to add NV and NM as Tier 3.
LikeLike
Once again, interesting posts, Playoffs Now.
LikeLike
Kansas ticket scandal spreads. Apparently some of the core scammers brought their trade to KS from…
…OU!
http://www.newsok.com/kansas-ticket-scandal-touches-ou/article/3464109
More clouds gather over the B12’s future.
LikeLike
Those won’t be the last Universities involved. It will be interesting to see what the Federal investigation reveals– especially with the Pump Bros. They probably have their fingers in a lot of pies.
LikeLike
I’d be curious to hear an analysis from Texans about how Texas and TAMU are perceived within the state.
Both are large universities, not overly far from each other. Both well regarded.
I’m curious why one school would be chosen over another. Is one school considered better in the humanities? Hard sciences? Engineering?
I appreciate the on-campus cultural differences a generation ago, but is there a difference today that might make someone choose TAMU over Texas or vice versa? Is there a strong familial tradition with these schools–like some families would only send their kids to one or the other?
Is one significantly harder to get into? Is one significantly more expensive?
Thanks for any insight…
LikeLike
My daughter got accepted by both, here are my thoughts:
Same cost.
Same selectivity.
I would choose aTm for engineering (although UT is good).
UTx seems superior for the history/languages/soft stuff.
UTx seems more snooty.
Family ties are HUGE. Most people are born into one of the clans, except for us Rice folks and the Baptist weirdos in Waco. Couples that marry across the clans put “House Divided” flags on their house. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QeIgVX%2BKL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
UTx seems more old-money.
If you want to be a veterinarian, there’s nowhere better on the planet than aTm.
LikeLike
You have also just described exactly how most folks in VA see the difference between UVA and VT (formerly VPI&SU).
LikeLike
As much as I like to rib the Aggies, I would say the two schools are perceived as offering a similar quality education at the undergraduate level. My impression is that Texas might have a bit more depth at the graduate level, though there are certainly programs (like the vet program loki mentions) at which A&M excels.
Is there a strong familial tradition with these schools–like some families would only send their kids to one or the other?
I would amend what loki says to read that family ties are huge, but not any larger, I suspect, than they are for rival schools elsewhere in the country. One would suspect that the offspring of Aggies would more likely wind up at A&M, and vice versa, but it’s certainly not uncommon for children to grow up to be traitors to their parents.
And again, as much as we’ll rag on each other, it’s a friendly rivalry, in the sense that I would have no worries about anything worse happening to me than being called a few names if I showed up at Kyle Field dressed in burnt orange. (Unless I charged the field, of course.) And vice versa. I think the aftermath of the bonfire tragedy, and the atmosphere at the game in College Station a few days later (the UT band performed a very moving tribute at halftime), helped create the atmosphere of today.
LikeLike
Another distinction is that UTx has one of the great libraries in higher education. aTm is far behind in that aspect.
LikeLike
As somebody who lived much closer to A&M than UT but attended neither, that was my impression, but the bonfire tragedy and the internet may have changed things a bit. If UT is still considered “snooty,” A&M would be in for a culture shock in the Big Ten. I do not think that A&M would accept a Big Ten invite if offered, as A&M has the soul of an SEC school and knows that it could hold out for a spot there. The Texans here can correct me if they think I’m wrong, but I’d bet that if Vandy left the SEC, A&M would abandon UT and jump on the open spot in a heartbeat.
…one more reason why the combination of these five schools is fiction that originated here.
LikeLike
UT is harder to get into, but A&M is also difficult. The differences between the schools are decreasing as both are restricting admissions more and A&M is growing too big (45k) to continue to be a cult.
UT has a perception as more liberal. But it applies more to the professors than the student body. Its liberal by Texas standards, but its not Madison or Berkeley. There’s a bumper sticker around Austin saying, “keep Austin wierd.” The fact that saying exists tells you that Austin is getting more “Houstonized” every day. A&M in small town Bryan/College Station is viewed as being more conservative and sheltered.
There are family differences. My cousin told me it really hurt to write that check to A&M when his daughter couldn’t get into UT. It didn’t hurt to write the check to UH when she later transferred.
LikeLike
Thanks for your insights.
LikeLike
Historically, there have been vast cultural differences between UT and A&M, but they have diminished greatly over time.
The two shools (and their system members) share the Permanent University Fund (revenue from West Texas oil fields that has been invested over the years to build a very large endowment, dedicated to capital improvements), with the UT system receiving two thirds, and A&M one third.
A&M’s mission originally was simply agriculture and engineering, and it did not stray very far from that mission until the last half century. So, while A&M has the vet school, it doesn’t have a law school nor does it have much history in liberal arts. Other than a vet school and a medical school (which has always been kept separate for some reason), UT pretty much has had graduate programs in everything.
A&M was all male until about 1969, and all military (compulsory ROTC for the first two years) until 1963. The campus is now 50/50 male/female, and participation in the Corps of Cadets is under 2,000. A&M was historically anti-frat (they didn’t have any until the 1970s, and weren’t officially recognized until the 1990s), but now has a significant Greek presence (though nothing like what you find at UT or many SEC schools).
UT tended to be much more urban than A&M, and much more centered on the states major urban areas. There was a time when you could string together counties in West Texas without a single student matriculating at UT, while A&M has a presence throughout even the most remote areas of the state thanks to its agricultural background. A&M tended to skew more toward rural students, but it’s demographics have become much more like UT’s since the state adopted the top 10% rule (any Texas high school grad in the top 10% of his graduating class was guaranteed admission to A&M). Now, the studenty bodies are much more similar than they were 20 years ago.
Politically, there has also been movement. While UT has always had its share of moneyed conservatives, it was a magnet for anyone with left wing views, whereas A&M was downright hostile towards anyone left of center. Austin is frequently called “The People’s Republic of Austin,” and has at times had a running battle with a conservative oriented legislature that it likes to pick fights with. A&M gave Texas Phil Gramm and Rick Perry. Still, the changing demographics of the A&M student body has changed politics among the students, and politics amongst the moneyed set at both schools is largely conservative (with a few exceptions).
LikeLike
Interesting synopsis. Thanks much.
LikeLike
To add to your comment, both universities’ student bodies have converged. When I went to UT in the 70s there were a lot of rural and out-of-state students. I had one friend from Michigan who said UT’s out-of-state tuition was cheaper than in-state tuition in Michigan. In the 80s, tuition for both in-state and out-of-state was dramatically increased and enrollment standards were increased to stop the growth of the university (which hit 50k in 1980).
As a result, out-of-state and rural students got squeezed out and UT’s students (like the state) became more suburban and conservative. The top 10% rule was to spread out the student body. The President was quoted as saying, “We can’t be the university for only 5 suburban school districts.”
LikeLike
Mizzou too?
Mizzou makes good sense on the athletic side & BTN viewership expansion but the academics are in general below the lowest B10 school. The R & D expenditures are low, smaller student population than all but a couple B10 schools, lower USWNR ranking, etc.
LikeLike
The Huskers have been trying to join the B10 since 1900. UM, OSU, MSU, PSU have joined during that time span. What has changed other than the BTN so that we would all think the COPC would want NU? If the COPC has been plucking better academic schools the last 100 years, what makes us think they are going to have a change of heart and vote for a lesser academic institution?
LikeLike
It would be rather surprising if either NU or the B10 were exactly what they were a century ago.
LikeLike
There has been no public acknowledgement from any University president stating either Nebraska or Missouri as a candidate during the last four expansion exercises. One former Prez said he was hopeful for Pitt for example.
LikeLike
In fact, the B10 did mention Missouri during one of the past exercises. There was a B10 official who mentioned they were looking at 3 schools, Missouri, Rutgers and Kansas. They were looking at 12 or 14 teams. This was in between the Notre Dame courtings. Interesting that Kansas has not been mentioned this cycle. All 3 of those schools are much better in football than they were at that time.
LikeLike
Other than ND in the 90’s, who else was publicly acknowledged as being recently considered for admission besides Pitt?
LikeLike
Per http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136871/1/index.htm : Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, West Virginia and Maryland
LikeLike
No way WVU was considered even if it was reported in the papers. Tier 3 school so it must have been a typo where a stealthy WVU alum added “West” to Virginia and the Editor didn’t catch it. The only interest the B10 has in WVU is as a feeder school for UM coaches.
LikeLike
IIRC, WVU actually approached the Big Ten about joining, hence their inclusion on the list.
LikeLike
After the PSU invite debacle where the COPC was waffling worse than a politician, what makes this expansion seem so certain of multiple school invites? It sounded like they couldn’t even agree on PSU or had to sneak it by the AD’s who were in revolt. If they could barely get consensus on one invitee, how are they going to agree on 3 or 5 schools 20 years later?
LikeLike
I think the difference is that back when PSU was being debated, there was no real impetus to expand. Sure, PSU helped the Big Ten get a better TV deal, but the Big Ten didn’t start actively canvassing for expansion candidates. Rather, PSU reached out and made the first contact (IIRC). The Big Ten was perfectly happy as it was, which made the vote on expansion as difficult as it was.
This time around, there are definite reasons why expansion could benefit the extant Big Ten schools in obvious and very positive ways. That is why the Big Ten took the step in announcing its intentions to expand. Obviously pulling in more money from the BTN is a big reason that has been hashed and rehashed here ad nauseum. A conference championship game and an extension of the season for BCS-caliber teams is another factor. Fiscal realities of the current economy for each school are another reason. Heck, it’s entirely possible the presidents/chancellors have something else up their sleeves as well in terms of the CIC. None of these were issues at all when PSU was debated in the early 90s, but they most certainly are now.
That’s not to say there won’t be some contentious votes and difficulties in reaching a consensus on who to invite– there absolutely will be– but it should be a lot easier to agree on at least one school than it was last time around since there are clear financial reasons to do so.
LikeLike
Addendum: it should also be noted that the Big Ten is going about the process completely differently than it did when Penn State was being invited to the party. Read http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136871/1/index.htm to see what a clusterfuck that process was, and see how Delany learned from the mistakes of that process. Delany also learned a lot in getting embarrassed by Notre Dame the last time expansion got this far. As such, I fully expect that, as others have noted, the Big Ten will make sure every potential school is going to get a passing vote before they are formally invited, schools that aren’t going to get enough votes will be informed that they shouldn’t even apply so both sides can save face, and no school will be invited unless the Big Ten knows there is a very high probability they will accept. A lot people are wondering why 12-18 months is the timeline for expansion. Well, after how botched expansion has been the last two times schools were actually invited, 12-18 months seems like a pretty good idea.
I imagine things will get plenty ugly in deciding who and how to invite, but this time around, that should play out in private rather than in public.
LikeLike
Football history is also a driver this time. Not just the success factor vs. the SEC, but the scheduling factor. Almost every year some weaker team contends for the title in a year when their schedule skips 2 of the big 3. I’m sure the Big 3 have noticed and aren’t happy. I believe NW played only 1 of the big 3 in 2 of their 3 recent titles. There was a Purdue team a few years back that was barely over .500, didn’t have OSU or Michigan on its schedule and would have gone to the Rose Bowl if they had upset Penn St. Iowa and Ohio St. both went unbeaten in conference a few years back. You can’t do a 9 game schedule to reduce the schedule inequities. 11 teams just does not work well and leaves you only 1 team short of the $ you can get with a championship game.
LikeLike
If you assume that Notre Dame and Texas aren’t coming, I think the issue continues to be Missouri. Most people around here think two schools are locks to get invites: Nebraska and Rutgers. Both have flaws that ironically make each other complementary. Nebraska brings the rabid fan base and storied football program that Rutgers doesn’t have, and Rutgers brings the population base and academic chops that Nebraska doesn’t have, although we all seem to be in agreement that Nebraska has improved enough academically to qualify for an invite. The fact that one is east and one is west is important for the internal politics of the Big Ten as well–Penn State, Ohio State and probably Michigan want eastern schools whereas Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota want to add schools to the west. Giving one to each makes everyone happy. I’m almost beginning to think they’re a package deal. Only Texas or Notre Dame could get the votes to let the Big Ten stop at 12. For the others, compromises will need to be made.
The problem is that you simply can’t stop at 13. There’s no way to make the football schedule work and have everyone play the same number of conference games. A 14th team (or 15 and 16) needs to be added, and Missouri, the eager and natural choice, seems to come up lacking in so many areas. They meet the bare minimum qualifications, but that’s it.
So the conference is trying to make this work without Mizzou. Pitt’s location is a problem. Syracuse is small, private, remote and a basketball school. UConn and BC aren’t AAU. Kansas is small (although they might “deliver” KC better than MU), basketball and might not go without KSU.
So at this point, I think they’re desperately trying to find someone better than Missouri. That’s why we’re hearing Georgia Tech, Maryland, UVA, Vandy.
I also think Missouri’s weak case for an invite is why so many of the rumors we’re hearing seem to be coming out of the Show-Me State. Mizzou people are trying to create the impression that their invite is a fait accompli, if only to make it so.
LikeLike
‘we seem to be in agreement . . .’
you guys slay me. you look like kids trying on their parents’ clothes.
LikeLike
“You guys” means who, glenn? Since, from your comment, I’m supposed to believe you’re a grownup, why don’t you go ahead and say what you mean?
LikeLike
I can’t speak for glenn, but I agree with his sentiment. Anyone says that someone is a “lock” to be added has no clue, and I haven’t seen anything that says people here are “in agreement” (as if that would mean anything).
FWIW, I think Nebraska has something less than a 1% chance of an invite. It’s in a very small state that is only getting smaller in relation to the rest of the country. Without the population base, the school’s resources will continue to decline as compared to other schools, so it will have little prospect for (a) recapturing its ’60s-to-’90s football glory days, or (b) reaching the academic and research standards of the current Big 10 members.
No way do eight of the 11 universities vote Nebraska in based on the above.
LikeLike
I think it’s extreme to say that the University of Nebraska has a less than 1% chance of getting an invite. It doesn’t bring a large market, but it does have a national following, much like Notre Dame. The Western schools in particular would all like to have conference rivalries with them in football. It will never be at the top of the Big 10 academic charts, but with the push from Big 10 membership and donations from its large and devoted alumni, it will probably keep itself in the ‘acceptable’ range.
That said, if the conference is getting the 2 Texas schools and some quality schools from the ACC, Nebraska probably will get squeezed out. However, it’s still nowhere near certain that those schools will come.
LikeLike
Agree that no one is a lock. That extends to even Notre Dame and Texas, the supposed shoe-ins, if they want in. Even they could overplay their hand.
And, no, there is no consensus agreement about Nebraska being academically fit. Not all, but most of the sniping in that regard mostly goes back and forth between Texas and Nebraska partisans. Since conference expansion talk has laid out the gulf between the two schools for all to see, no doubt many disinterested observers talk it all with a grain of salt.
Less than 1% chance? Seems to me this is where you’re venturing off into personal whimsy.
LikeLike
Look, population base isn’t everything.
Notre Dame has no state population base since it’s as far into the population base of the Big Ten as it possibly could be, yet it’s as close to a lock as you can get.
Nebraska has a lot of factors that outweigh the lack of a state population; similar to Notre Dame.
On the other hand Pittsburgh tends to not have those factors since it has less of a national sports brand.
LikeLike
Nebraska doesn’t meet the Big Ten’s academic/research profile, plain and simple. It’s really not even close, and, unlike some schools from growing states, it’s not likely to EVER get there. There’s just no way that the Big Ten presidents would permanently downgrade their academic brand absent a truly compelling reason, along the lines of a sports presence like Notre Dame.
Nebraska certainly has a strong national presence, but it’s never been Notre Dame, and it’s certainly not now. There may be plenty of rumors, but when it comes down to the votes, the presidents would never go for it.
I have nothing against Nebraska, other than the fact that they pounded my school in a bowl game 10 years ago, and I’ve managed to get over that. But that doesn’t mean I’m willing to overlook reality.
LikeLike
@Howard – I can assure you based on what I know, out of all of the schools that we’ve been talking about over the past few months, I’m most confident that Nebraska will end up in the Big Ten over any other school. Rutgers is 2nd.
LikeLike
Frank-
I don’t doubt that you have good sources, or that they have told that you Nebraska is likely getting an offer. But I have a very hard time believing that most of the presidents have focused on the details of expansion enough for anyone to predict the exact candidates that will get invites.
It only takes four ‘no’ votes to doom a candidate, no matter how much Delaney, assistant ADs, etc., favor that school.
LikeLike
@Howard – I can assure you based on what I know, out of all of the schools that we’ve been talking about over the past few months, I’m most confident that Nebraska will end up in the Big Ten over any other school. Rutgers is 2nd.
Thing is, that might just unleash a sleeping giant in the ACC that could become the equal of the B16 and SEC. Chaos Theory and Expansion…
Run the numbers. Let’s say the B10+ does pull off the academic super grab, taking MD, VA, and VB. Can’t reach an agreement with TX and aTm (perhaps over channels and revenue) and ND still says no. The logical 15th and 16th are NE (for the fb star power) and Rut (academic good fit, 10 million footprint, games for NYC B10+ alumni.) That gets the conference from a state pop of 68 million to an impressive 99.
TX and aTm could look west, but all combos for a P16 max out at 88-97 million.
Now to the ACC. They’re free to grab CT, Syr, and Pitt, going from 62 to 93 million. Add Texas and aTm and they’re at a whopping 118 million. Complete with ND and they have a great shot of leveraging all those NY population figures into actual cable households. ND, Syr, CT, Duke, NC, Mia, GT, FSU, and VT all have a degree of following in NYC and TX can’t hurt. ND and many niches = critical mass.
I posted earlier how the ACC potentially has the flexibility in scheduling, a blank slate for channel creation, and with Texas the geographic spread that could attract ND in a way the B16 might not be able to. ND, TX, and the right Northeast schools to the ACC could be a potent combo.
With that in mind, does the B10+ take Syr instead of Rut or NE? Swap for Rut and your at 110 million vs the 107 for the ACC, but they’d still have Rut and ND for perhaps enough critical mass in NYC. Swap Syr for NE and you have a shot at NYC basic cable and reach 117 million vs the ACC’s 107, and the ACC has a slightly tougher sell in NYC.
I still expect TX to go to the B16, but that article where ND says they and TX are thinking alike spurs the imagination.
LikeLike
Nebraska hasn’t got the academic chops for the Big Ten, IMO. I could easily see four presidents voting against them on that basis alone.
LikeLike
“I have nothing against Nebraska, other than the fact that they pounded my school in a bowl game 10 years ago, and I’ve managed to get over that.”
Another Northwestern fan joins the fray. Keep up the good fight.
LikeLike
howard and mike b see it like i do. this is not the only big ten board i have dealt with, only the most sports-centric. elsewhere, loud and clear the message has been the big ten is blood-in-the-eye serious about academic advancement.
frank cautioned us in his excellent first write-up to think like college presidents. i have said it before, i just don’t see that here. most who post here strike me as a.d. wannabes. especially the non-big ten people.
LikeLike
ok, ok. i’ll say what i mean.
you guys slay me. you look like kids trying on their parent’s clothes.
LikeLike
oops. apostrophe in the wrong place. guess maybe i’m not that adult, huh.
LikeLike
@ glenn
Ah. Hubris and tediousness all rolled into one unappealing package. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
‘tedium’, ‘tediousness’. however you choose to say it, the devil is always in the details.
and there is some first-class silliness going on here.
LikeLike
whee! this is fun.
LikeLike
Frank – If in the end its Nebraska & Rutgers, and UTx & Notre Dame are off the table (I think they are), Pitt is best choice for the 14 hole.
1. Nebraska is a football home-run.
2. Rutgers can take their ass whippings and allow either Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan & Nebraska to play in the new Giants/Jets Stadium every year. Those 4 teams will deliver the NYC market better than Rutgers. Rutgers is the excuse for your superstars to play in the NYC market. I do think Rutgers gets the BTN on expanded basic in New Jersey and probably NYC too.
3. Hopefully, Rutgers, a B10 championship game, Giants/Jets Stadium games bring in enough money for the Big Ten to do the right thing bring in Pitt. From everything I’ve read over the last month on this board and in other places, Pitt is the best combo of academic standing, research, geography and athletics. They would be a would be a perfect fit for the Big Ten.
If the Big Ten stops at 14, the apocalypse doesn’t happen.
The SEC doesn’t expand.
Texas has no reason to leave the Big XII. The Big XII probably gets Utah to take Nebraska’s spot, since the Pac 10 probably doesn’t expand either. Big XII and Pac 10 work out some sort of TV deal.
The Big East hangs on by a thread by bringing in Central Florida & Temple. I think they ought to talk to Army & Navy too.
MWC survives the loss of Utah by picking up Boise.
Then, all will be well in college football . . . until an undefeated Big Ten team gets left out of the BCS NCG.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – It’s all logical for Pitt except for the lack of BTN households, and it’s looking more and more that’s going to be the killer financially. It’s a shame because I agree that Pitt is such a good fit in so many other ways. What I’m hearing right now is that Syracuse would be more likely to get a 14th spot instead of Missouri. For better or for worse, getting the NYC market is the top priority if the Big Ten can’t get Texas and my feeling is that conference isn’t confident that Rutgers can do that alone. Having both Syracuse and Rutgers plus the existing Penn State and other Big Ten fan bases, though, may push it over the top. To get NYC, you have to depend upon the “penumbra effect” of multiple schools as opposed to, say, the Texas market, which UT can deliver by itself.
LikeLike
Re 14th team if and Delany’s strategy (Frank)
I really believe Delany told the world his strategy and it is a large view of markets and demographics that the Big 10 wants to anticipate and capitalize on in the coming decades.
Your latest blog indicates the Big 10 is considering as many options as may be available to maximize markets and competition with quality schools.
One approach is to get home run must carry schools.
Another is to consider strong regional markets.
My outsider guess is the Big 10 will not get schools like Maryland and UVA and may not get Texas (or ND) though they will obviously work with key target schools re packages and so on as long as they feel there is a reasonable prospect of success.
If not they are likely to go to Nebraska and RU for all the reasons you have discussed.
However I believe Delany essentially said they will look at population and footprint as their key goal and that means to me a 3 school expansion of Nebraska, RU and SU.
Missouri, Pitt, UConn, Kansas simply don’t address the goal of large potential markets and population footprints like a combination of RU and SU in combination with PSU and the other major Big 10 teams.
In truth RU and SU are likely to be important regional rivals to each other more than PSU which is likely to continue to see OSU, Michigan and Nebraska as their main rivals for the conference title.
Additionally SU provides an opportunity to schedule an additional game at a major venue like Giant’s stadium for football and perhaps a Madison Square Garden event game against a major Big 10 team or teams.
Another consideration is that although SU is certainly not a state university, like RU it is the only BCS level school in the state. And it is part of a a contiguous market bordering NJ and PA.
LikeLike
One of the frustrating things about this process is reading the completely unwarranted assumptions that are repeated … and repeated … and repeated.
Look at a map. Syracuse is not New York City. And it’s not the NYC market. Not even close. It’s 246 miles from New York, which is further than the distance from NYC to:
Rutgers
Army
Temple
UConn
Navy
Boston College
Maryland
Penn State
Plus, the fact that Syracuse happens to be in the same state as NYC is meaningless, b/c it’s a private school, so there’s no automatic fan base that many flagship and land grant schools get.
Really guys, some of you apply extremely detailed logic in some areas, and then just ignore it altogether in others.
LikeLike
Re assumptions (Howard Hemlock)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts re SU.
1) Actually almost everything on this blog reflects assumptions.
UVA, UMD, Miami, GT, Vanderbilt, ND, BC, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas, RU, Pitt, Uconn, Kentucky, UCLA and USC: all have had posts on why they are or should be a target for the Big 10 and counter posts why they are not good targets or not in play.
Personally I don’t believe Texas or ND are joining the Big 10. And I don’t believe UMD or UVA or GT or Miami or Vanderbilt or Kenticky are joining the Big 10.
And I doubt Kansas or Missouri or Colorado are going to be invited.
So who is left?
2) With respect to SU, last year, rebounding from 10 years of misery, under it’s new coach SU beat RU 34-13. Also beat Northwesteren and had a close game against Minnesota.
3) SU’s student body comes largely from NYC region and Long Island; its alumni work in the NYC region; its been a major BB team in the major BB conference in the region and averages 22,000 at home games, 2d only to Kentucky. It’s also a major draw on the road whereever it plays BB.
4) Comparing SU to Army, Temple, UConn, BC, Navy, UMD only makes clear SU is the only major BCS school in the region aside from RU, who for the last hundred years was largely a punching bag for the other teams it played.
5) Of course Nebraska and a few other teams have had years and years of setback for a variety of reason. Yet the history of SU football is one of great success and with a new Chancellor and AD and new coaching staff and increased support I have no doubt SU is on its way back.
6) I agree as a private school SU would be a much better fit in the ACC with BC and perhaps UConn and Pitt and perhaps it will end up there.
However, as the only BCS school in the state, a quality school with a beautiful campus and at the heart of northeast football and BB, I can see the Big 10 having an interest in both SU and RU if they are interested in the NY metro region markets.
LikeLike
Re BB attendance 2010 home games
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/8753820042742b01b8b6be967b4a3893/Awide_Mbkbattlists.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=8753820042742b01b8b6be967b4a3893
2010 NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE TEAM LEADERS
Rank School Games Attendance Average
1. Kentucky 18 433,989 24,111
2. SYRACUSE 19 420,890 22,152
3. Louisville 19 368,537 19,397
4. Tennessee 16 306,680 19,168
5. North Carolina 19 337,934 17,786
6. Wisconsin 17 292,910 17,230
7. Maryland 16 268,673 16,792
8. Memphis 20 329,968 16,498
9. Kansas 19 312,230 16,433
10. Marquette 17 265,484 15,617
11. Indiana 17 260,028 15,296
12. Illinois 18 267,658 14,870
13. Michigan St. 17 250,903 14,759
14. Texas 17 248,697 14,629
15. Creighton 17 246,419 14,495
16. Ohio St. 18 255,265 14,181
17. BYU 16 224,460 14,029
18. UNLV 19 264,422 13,917
19. Arizona 16 221,047 13,815
20. Purdue 16 218,896 13,681
21. Vanderbilt 16 217,965 13,623
22. New Mexico 18 244,718 13,595
23. Minnesota 17 228,709
13,453
24. North Carolina St.17 224,131 13,184
25. Arkansas 21 276,821 13,182
26. Iowa St. 18 224,846 12,491
27. West Virginia 15 185,629 12,375
28. Dayton 18 220,657 12,259
Rank School Games Attendance Average
29. Georgetown 16 192,638 12,040
30. South Carolina 16 191,905 11,994
31. Kansas St. 17 202,020 11,884
32. Wake Forest 15 177,498 11,833
33. Michigan 16 187,602 11,725
34. Connecticut 19 222,024 11,685
35. Oklahoma St. 16 185,362 11,585
36. Florida 17 186,106 10,947
37. Alabama 17 186,068 10,945
38. Villanova 14 153,105 10,936
39. Oklahoma 15 159,744 10,650
40. Missouri 18 186,290 10,349
41. Wichita St. 18 185,994 10,333
42. Pittsburgh 18 185,209 10,289
43. Virginia 17 172,389 10,141
44. Xavier 15 151,843 10,123
45. Nebraska 18 179,343 9,964
46. Texas A&M 16 158,222 9,889
LikeLike
@Howard Hemlock,
The twisted logic here is exactly what makes the whole thing so entertaining.
LikeLike
Re assumptions (con’t) (Howard Hemlock)
Please note my original post was simply a follow-up to Frank’s post that “he is hearing” that SU is more likely to get the 14th spot over Missouri to pair up with RU to target the NYC regional market.
If Frank says this is his current impression of Big 10 thinking, then maybe YOUR assumptions may benefit from re-examination.
Also should have noted in prior reply, I also doubt U of Florida or U of Georgia or Duke or UNC are going to join the Big 10.
LikeLike
C:
I didn’t realize at first that you’re just a Syracuse homer, and that’s the reason for your faulty assumptions. But I would hope that even you would understand that a private school 250 miles from New York City isn’t going to bring in that market. If you believe that not to be true, can you show me any impressive NYC TV ratings numbers for Syracuse football?
LikeLike
@Howard Hemlock
The point in my mind is to grab more than just New York City, but to try and grab the whole state. What’s more important than the actual proximity is which university New Yorkers relate to the most. I grew up on the west side of Michigan, closer to Chicago than Detroit, but we all still rooted for the Pistons, Lions and Tigers over the Cubs, Sox, Bulls, and Bears. It wasn’t about proximity, it was more about how we related more to teams from our own state. Similarly, I was actually closer to South Bend than Ann Arbor, but we HATED the Irish.
The idea is that Rutgers provides the proximity for your average Joe New Yorker, while Syracuse provides some connectability, along with the current Big Ten alumni base. One thing’s for sure, the Big Ten needs more of an East Coast presence if it wants New York.
LikeLike
@Howard
There’s a pretty strong school of opinion here that Notre Dame is the best bet to deliver NYC. That’s a private school 640 miles away.
LikeLike
Art:
I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that Syracuse is the “university New Yorkers relate to the most.” If there is such a school, as Eapg says, it’s probably Notre Dame.
There’s simply no basis to claim that Syracuse is followed by enough people in NYC to make a difference. The schools with statewide followings are almost always the flagship and land grant school of the state. Private schools tend to be followed only by their alums and the people in the immediate vicinity. A few schools (Notre Dame, USC, Miami) have managed to break through to get national audiences, but Syracuse certainly has not.
I understand that people want easy answers, hence the siren song of Syracuse. But easy answers often lead to bad results.
LikeLike
Re Howard Hemlock
Thanks again for another thoughtful post about Syracuse.
1) To repeat my prior post, which you perhaps did not read, my original post was a follow-up to Frank’s post, directly above, that he is hearing that SU is now considered a likely 14th team instead of Missouri to combine with RU to target the NYC market.
Not sure what part of this you are unable to understand.
If Frank is correct and the Big 10 believes SU in combination with RU will help them expand their market to address the demographic issues Delany has stated is motivating expansion, then maybe you are the person who needs to re-examine your assumptions.
Yes, SU is a private school but perhaps you are unaware the only BCS school in NYS is SU. And the only 2 BCS schools located in the NY-NJ region are RU and SU.
What drives college football interest is either great national programs like Texas or USC or Florida or OSU or regional competition.
If the Big 10 can attract Texas or USC or Florida or ND , that certainly would be an excellent expasion.
Somehow I doubt those schools are signing up. If that is the case, it makes sense to me the Big 10 will consider quality teams in large markets to address their demographic concerns as described by Delany.
If you need details of why Frank is reporting SU may likely be team 14, please address your concerns to Frank. Perhaps his sources can share the Big 10 studiies on this subject.
LikeLike
The recent comments by Delaney and the BT presidents lead me to the conclusion that SU is out.
They want a school with a large alumni base. SU has 19000 students.
They want a sun belt school. SU is the rustiest of the rust belt. If we wanted frozen tundra, we could get Wisconsin-Green Bay.
They want like-minded institutions. Syracuse is a private school with 1/15(?) of the research money of Pitt.
Throw in a crappy 50000 stadium that can’t be expanded and a mediocre overall sports program, and you have a huge loss if the BT takes SU. They won’t be dumb enough to do so.
LikeLike
Same old, same old from Mushroom. Can always count on your hating of Syracuse.
But you’re pushing it saying the sports program is mediocre overall. SU is one of only 7 schools to win a championship in both football and basketball (Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, and UCLA). That may not be 100% accurate, but close enough.
LikeLike
Re Syracuse (Mushroom)
Thanks for contributing to the discussion about SU and Frank’s report they are the likely 14th team with RU to target the NY-NJ market.
1) Frank indicates his report is based on what he is hearing presumably from persons close to the Big 10.
Are you saying his sources are incorrect and you have your own insider sources?
What are your insider sources telling you?
2) You continue to refer to SU as being located in the “tundra”.
Perhaps you can clarify. It is my understanding that the Big 10 consists of several schools close to the Great lakes and that winter in Madison, Chicago, Ann Arbor, Minnesota are cold during the winter and might even be a point of commonality.
3) You continue to refer to SU’s on-campus indoor domed stadium seating approximately 50,000 as “crappy”.
Is that a “technical” term representing the stadium or perhaps another description of your state of mind?
Perhaps you may not have heard the dome recently set an on campus BB attendance record of 34,000.
4) If as you say the Big 10 wants “sun belt” schools, are you saying that you also agree Missouri and Kansas are likely out and even Nebraska with its small population base may not be a given?
5) Have you now changed your views that UMD, UVA, GT, Vanderbilt and Miami are unlikely expansion candidates?
LikeLike
C:
Your only argument about Syracuse is that Frank supposedly thinks that Syracuse could get an offer. It’s very telling that you–a die-hard Syracuse fan–can’t come up with a single bit of independent reasoning, other than blind, unsupported assertions.
Again, you have no basis whatsoever for claiming that adding Syracuse would have any measurable effect on the Big Ten’s ability to get NYC viewers. I know you would really, really like that to be true. But you seem to have conceded that there’s not a single measure out there that would support that notion.
LikeLike
@Howard – The main reason why the Big Ten would want Syracuse is that if it can’t get Texas, then it essentially must add the NYC market in order for a multi-team expansion to work out financially. Whatever combo of teams that’s necessary to do that would be top priority targets. Note that NYC is more of a college basketball town than a college football market (much like, say, Indianapolis) and that makes Syracuse a valuable piece. No single school can deliver NYC (not even ND), but the Big Ten would be banking on the penumbra effect of 4 or 5 schools, of which Syracuse makes sense as being one of them. It’s not an accident that the ACC really wanted Syracuse before the Virginia legislature got involved, so I think that people are really underrating the school based on a historically bad football run over the last 5 years.
LikeLike
Anybody who questions which school the STATE OF NEW YORK follows must not have been to New York ever.
Like anywhere, you can find fans of the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders in New York and throughout the Big 10 footprint. There are those types that are 99% front runner. So I don’t dare suggest that there are New Yorkers that do not view Syracuse as the state’s school. However, the majority of New Yorkers follow Syracuse… from Buffalo to Albany… North to South. It is what it is.
As for New York City itself, I think people are confusing transplants with locals. If you got to Manhattan and canvas the professionals, you are going to get something based on the number of graduates and other factors. However, NYC is not just Manhattan. Go into the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island… and even Long Island… and see what kind of Syracuse following there is.
Maybe Syracuse does not deserve to have the whole state follow it. But what are the options? The state university system is spread out–Buffalo, Albany, Binghamton, Stony Brook–among four universities, as well as many other state colleges. The state also has many private schools. Perhaps it is by default, but Syracuse is the school followed by people throughout the state. Opining to the contrary is based on ignorance, rather than reality.
LikeLike
Re Mr Hemlock
SU as a potential or likely candidate has been noted in numerous articles and blogs from the beginning including articles by Teddy Greenstein and others.
If Frank says he has heard from persons close to the Big 10 SU is a likely 14th team to combine with RU to target the NY-NJ market, that makes sense to me.
I am still unable to understand what you don’t understand about this.
Are you claiming Frank’s sources are incorrect? Do you have your own independent sources that dispute Frank’s report?
If the Big 10 at this point is currently seeing SU as their 14th team, I would assume they have studied the situation, talked to their media consultants, spoken to the SU administration as to their long term plans for athletics and research and so on.
If you require the confidential Big 10 studies for the various teams in play, then please direct your comments to Frank or the BIg 10 office.
Thanks again for your interest in my thoughts on this subject.
LikeLike
Re long term perspective(Frank)
In addition to your thoughts above, I believe Delany provided an important window into the large motivation driving expansion.
He is thinking long-term and wants to target large demographic markets that will add to the current Big 10 footprint a decade or more from now.
This is not a one year project but a view over the horizon.
The challenge is to find quality schools that can be happy in a long term partnership.
If Texas and ND or UMD or UVA or other excellent schools want in, then that will be an excellent expansion.
If those schools are not in play, then again it seems to make sense that
RU and SU in combination with PSU can credibly help the Big 10 become over time the conference of the northeast.
LikeLike
The above arguments are why I resisted chiming in on this blog in the first place. In a moment of weakness, I posted, and now I sort of regret it, b/c the responses I’m getting are “so-and-so heard such-and-such, so any arguments to the contrary are wrong.”
C: More than anyone, you seem to be a one-trick pony. You’re holding onto rumors of who may or may not be invited as the only basis for your argument, and I’m really not interested in the rumor of the week. What I want is actual analysis, based on some sort of objective criteria. Discussing this with you is useless, b/c you cannot provide that.
Ezdozen- You bet I’m going to question which schools are followed in New York, b/c questioning is what this process is (or should be) all about. I’m certainly not just going to blindly accept what you say. However, if you could provide some sort of evidence that a significant number of people in New York City follow Syracuse football, I’m all ears.
Frank- I’m quite familiar with the notion that the Big Ten wants the New York market, and given its size, that of course makes sense. But after repeatedly reading statements by you and others that expansion is all about football, now you’re saying that Syracuse is “a valuable piece” b/c of basketball. Why have the criteria suddenly changed for Syracuse? And why then are the other schools at the top of C’s basketball attendance list (such as Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis and Kansas) not in the discussion?
LikeLike
Re “Why aren’t Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis and Kansas not in the discussion (Mr Howard Hemlock)
Howard thank you so much for so clearly and unmistakably revealing how amazingly ignorant and totally clueless you are.
Are you seriously suggesting the Big 10 with some of the major universities in the country is going to consider inviting Memphis and Louisville for inclusion in the Big 10 under any circumstances?
Or that a desirable path to attracting the NY-NJ market is to target Kansas or Kentucky because they have good BB programs?
Looking forward to your next post.
LikeLike
C: I’m not suggesting that any school is likely to get in based on its basketball program. I don’t think Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville or Memphis will, and I don’t think Syracuse will.
It sounds like you’re putting down Louisville and Memphis as academic/research institutions. I would not want to get into that argument if I were you. By the ARWU rankings, Syracuse is just above Louisville, and just BELOW Kansas and Kentucky. More importantly, all five schools are ranked below the lowest-ranked Big Ten school, Iowa.
As for your reference to the “NY-NJ market,” well … there you go again. You continue to make the same baseless assertions, and still have not cited one bit of evidence that Syracuse football has a significant following in NYC. Now you’re even adding New Jersey to the markets Syracuse supposedly will bring in. Fortunately, the presidents who vote on conference expansion will not be making the same faulty assumptions you are.
LikeLike
Re Howard Hemlock
Thanks for another interesting post and clarification. Please excuse my off subject comment in my prior post.
1) In other words, when you say “why are schools such as Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis and Kansas “not in the discussion”, what you mean is a good BB team with NCAA leading home attendance is not sufficient reason for the Big 10 to invite a school.
That certainly seems reasonable though hardly a major insight.
2) You suggest I am putting down Louisville and Memphis and further imply these schools compare well with SU.
For fun I looked at the US News & World Report’s 2010 National Universities rankings. Memphis is ranked a “tier 4” school; Louisville is “tier 3”. Kansas is ranked 96 and Kentucky 128.
Rutgers considered an excellent school for its research is ranked 66. SU, an AAU member school that does relatively little research, is ranked 58.
3) All of my comments are related to Frank’s post above that he is hearing that SU is a likely 14th school in COMBINATION with RU to target the NY-NJ regional market.
That PACKAGE makes a lot of sense to me since RU and SU are the only BCS schools in the contiguous states of NY and NJ and both are quality schools.
4) By way of reminder, if you believe Frank’s sources are incorrect or you require confidential studies conducted by the Big 10 with respect to the target schools, please direct your inquires to Frank or the Big 10 office.
LikeLike
Still the one-trick pony, huh?
I get it. You’re pretending that nameless, yet supposedly unassailable sources have said that Syracuse will get an invite—and nothing will change your mind, because you really, really want it to happen.
Let me know when you come up with something showing that Syracuse would make a difference in the NYC market.
LikeLike
Re “I get it” by Howard Hemlock
Thanks once again for your additional update of your views.
By way of summary, Frank is the person who has reported that SU is the likely 14th add in combination with RU to target the NY-NJ regional market.
Unfortunately I know no insiders but find Frank’s comments reasonable.
If you dispute Frank’s report, then you may want to direct your comments to him.
Perhaps he can arrange for you to speak to the insiders in question. Or provide you with the other detailed analysis you require.
Whoever the Big 10 selects I am sure we can agree it will be based on a thoughtful, deliberative process.
Please continue to update everyone on your assessment of this issue.
LikeLike
@Howard Hemlock
This discussion has strayed a little with the argument, so to be clear, I agree that I don’t like Syracuse from an academic standpoint. They don’t fit the general criteria for a Big Ten school, and how seriously the Big Ten presidents want to maintain or improve their academic perception will likely be the determining factor on whether the Big Ten goes after New York or not (in my guessing opinion).
I’m not from New York, and I’ve only been there twice, so I really can’t speak for the population there, but if Notre Dame is off the table (who I don’t think is much better than Syracuse as an expansion candidate based on academic criteria), I’ve got to believe that Syracuse is the next best option with Rutgers to get New York State. The reason Frank brought up basketball in regards to Syracuse is because New York is more of a college basketball city than it is college football (which you may argue is baseless, but the Big East does play in Madison Square Garden quite often and gets a ton of exposure in NYC).
I really don’t think MD, VA, Temple, Navy etc. would be more likely to adding the BTN to households than Syracuse would. One thing that I don’t think you’ll disagree with me is the Big Ten will likely need another East Coast presence along with Rutgers if they want a chance at both NYC AND New York State. Especially as the NFL has to take a back seat in the football world with the looming lockout coming, college football has a chance to be illuminated. If Syracuse can pull some New Yorkers, Rutgers can pull some New Yorkers, and the current Big Ten alumni base can be a little more demanding, there’s no telling what could happen. All Syracuse and Rutgers has to do IMO is garner a cult-following in NYC for the BTN to make it on the basic cable packages.
It is all speculation, but that’s all any of this is. You seem to want to discount it as even plausible, but there just don’t seem to be any other significantly better options from a financial perspective in my mind. If the Big Ten is definitely going to expand with multiple teams, and Notre Dame and the Texases are off the board, what better options does the Big Ten have?
IMO, they go after DC with Maryland and Virginia, which seem like almost bigger longshots than the Texases, or they go after South Florida and grab Miami, which seems like a bigger longshot, or they go after New York with Rutgers and one, possibly two others if they can convince Notre Dame it’s worthwhile.
There just aren’t many other viable options. Otherwise, there’s a good chance that the Big Ten stays at eleven. I’m not sure Nebraska by itself brings enough. I still honestly believe the goal of the BTN is to become a national cable channel. It needs a couple of large markets to even make this attainable. Going after DC or New York, grabbing the Texases and/or a Miami or Nebraska would probably be the minimum they could do to achieve this.
It could happen. New York’s there for the taking, DC is possibly there for the taking, and Texas is possibly, if not likely there for the taking. With the Pac 10 not having much to negotiate with as far as their TV contract goes, the West Coast is there for the taking if Fox and the BTN can buy their television rights.
LikeLike
Art:
I also don’t like Syracuse academically, although to be precise, the problem is research. As c pointed out, when only the undergrad school is considered, they’re in the range of the other Big Ten schools. But when you look at the overall school, including research, they’re not even on the map. Look at the ARWU rankings noted above, as well as the pure research numbers ($36M in total research vs. $346M for Iowa, $358M for Michigan State, $800M for Michigan and $832M for Wisconsin).
But aside from that, the Big Ten isn’t going to bring a school in to achieve an unachievable goal. And there’s simply no reason to believe that Syracuse can achieve the goal of bringing in NYC. You say that Syracuse may be the “next best option” after Notre Dame for the NYC market, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that there is a “next best option,” except maybe Rutgers, and the evidence for that is flimsy at best. It’s been said before, but if Syracuse and Rutgers deliver NYC, why is the Big East (which also has nearby UConn plus St. John’s and Seton Hall in bb) so weak? You’d think that the Big East would be one of the strongest conferences in the country if all these assumptions were true, yet here it is, about to fall apart.
And the argument that there are not any other viable options anywhere does not make sense. If that were true, the Big Ten would not expand at all. No expansion would be better than adding a school that can’t deliver the goods.
LikeLike
Kansas actually has a higher enrollment than Missouri.
Mizzou is loudly trying to solicit a spot. Kansas seems to be circling the wagons. I don’t see either schools getting invites.
LikeLike
Sorry. I used “small” twice meaning different things. I meant that Kansas was a small state, not a small school.
LikeLike
To invite Maryland, the Big Ten would need at least one ACC partner, hence Virginia. To get Virginia, it needs to find a better home for Virginia Tech, hence Vanderbilt leaving the SEC for the Big Ten and Tech taking its place.
LikeLike
I thought Vandy was leaving the SEC to make room for aTm so Texas had cover to go the B10? I can’t keep all these conspiracies straight.
LikeLike
Loki, believe you have it right.
LikeLike
If these are the 5 teams invited, I think A&M administrators have a very hard time turning it down to go to the SEC. This would be a conference with at least as much money as the SEC per school and top academic credentials.
If A&M went its own way there would always be 1 major Texas school in the academic elite conference, and 1 major Texas school in the SEC. This would affect the academic reputations of both schools.
LikeLike
I don’t think VT has to tag along with UVA. The issue with ACC expansion had to do with leaving VT in what was seen as a dying conference, the Big East. If UVA left the ACC, VT would still be a member of a solid conference. There would be no reason to tag along.
On top of that, UVA was only able to get VT in because the ACC didn’t have the votes for expansion without them. The state legislatures in the Big 10 schools won’t have that issue.
I don’t think Maryland gets to make demands, actually. If Maryland says “We won’t join without another ACC school coming with us” and the Big 10 doesn’t want to invite UVA, then the Big Ten moves on to the next candidate.
The only school that gets to make those kinds of demands is Texas. No other school is worth diluting the money pot to get to join.
LikeLike
Any research or evidence of how the BTN is helping with athlete recruiting?
LikeLike
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/ru_ready_for_big_move_gbrVRVpZPa0tgsn0GerWDK
…And, of course, there are logistical issues at play, as well. One of the reasons the Big Ten is so high on Rutgers, is because of the strong alumni bases that all the member schools have in New York.
“Everywhere you go around this area, you’ll find people who went to Big Ten schools,” Alvarez said. “Getting a chance to play here, at Rutgers, in front of them, would be a plus to all involved.”
——
Seems obvious. You don’t necessarily have to bring in all of a market to basic cable to still have enough synergy. Bring NJ’s portion and draw from the heavy alumni base can be enough synergy to make the numbers work.
Which also helps explain why Vandy could be a target. Not the strongest team in TN, but within driving distance of Atlanta, Huntsville, Knoxville, Asheville, Greenville, Charlotte, much of the Appalachian villages, and of course Nashville. All of those areas have seen a huge migration from Big Ten country for jobs and retirement. Most of the ‘Halfbacks’ who could afford to retire to scenic Appalachian villages still have plenty of disposable income and free time. String together enough niche market strategies and you can bring in the academic powerhouse you’d prefer.
I’d say GT was better in that regard, but perhaps a step down academically. Maybe also a tougher lure because they’d be more of a geographic outlier. In contrast IU, PU, OSU, and IL, aren’t really that far from Nashville.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt’s driving distance to more major centers that may have not only Vanderbilt alums, but also Big Ten alums is a good point and one I hadn’t considered.
Google Earth tells me that Charlotte is 6.5 hrs away; Atlanta 4.5 hrs. So its doable. But it’s not what I’d call particularly close.
You’re right, though, that Georgia Tech would have more appeal demographically in its much larger market. I’d wager a lot more BT alums there. And Charlotte is 2.25 hrs closer to Atlanta than it is to Nashville, as well.
With taking Georgia Tech, though, you’d just hate to get clobbered in ratings by the Georgia game every week.
Then again, Vanderbilt may very well get clobbered in ratings in its home market by Tennessee.
LikeLike
Yes, Charlotte is a bit of a trip, but fans who would drive to Columbus would also drive to a slightly closer Nashville. Much closer than Ann Arbor, Lansing, and State College. 6 hours isn’t bad for a weekend trip. Also a scenic drive for the retirees.
LikeLike
Vandy is also about as close to Austin as the University of Missouri. So if you’re adding non-Texas schools to bring the conference closer to Austin, Vandy is on the list to be considered.
Not an easy drive, but a short plane trip.
LikeLike
FWIW, Indiana University is 4.45 hrs from Nashville. Ohio State is 6 hrs. Penn State is 11.5 hrs.
LikeLike
About 25% of adult population has a Bachelors degree now up from less than 10% about 50 years ago. What is the projected percentage of college graduate population 50 years hence? If it gets to 50% of adult population with degrees, that will be a lot of people who want to watch BTN sports. BTN says they plan another big increase this year in live sports events which equates to more viewership. The BTN seems to have an insatiable diet for more teams & sports.
LikeLike
The conference’s strategy appears to that getting Texas (perhaps by also taking aTm) would cover the $ and competition side and then they could go after the most preferred academic schools. Hence VB, MD, and VA. Of course no guarantee that any of those 3 will come (but I bet VB does, it is the academic misfit in its conference that MD, VA, GT, and Mia are not. Born the son of a poor SEC sharecropper, it just doesn’t have that SEC rhythm. Then it learns it was adopted! Vandy gets a new mascot, a dog named Sh!thead.)
One can wonder if Duke and NC would have been the bigger academic prizes, so if they aren’t being courted does that suggest:
1) They were contacted and indicated they were off the table or had too high demands to even consider (WF, NCSt block) while MD and VA were open to discussions?
2) The combined MD-DC-VA market is more lucrative than NC’s?
3) Right now it is purely a speculative approach, with the assessment that Duke-NC would be too tough a nut to crack, but MD and VA may be less dedicated to the ACC’s core if the $ difference is big enough? Academic step enough to an all AAU conference vs less than 1/2 AAU (though FSU, Mia, and VT might be qualified within the next 10 years.)
If MD and VA decide to stay put, the B10+ might then simply go down their academic preference list. Rut and GT seem to be next, perhaps followed by Mia or even FSU. Academics are similar to NE (don’t let the AAU certificate fool you, it matters but was gained a century ago. Legacy as much as a current assessment. FSU is working hard towards qualifying) but the massive FL population footprint, recruiting grounds, and conference alumni base is huge. Both have the similar TV appeal that NE is using to differentiate themselves.
Note that TX-aTm-VB-MD-VA isn’t an ND type of expansion, I wouldn’t expect ND to agree to join if one of those drops out. The Irish already have the option to play in MD every other year with Navy. VB by itself may not be far enough south for their ‘National’ strategy. TX, Rut, GT and/or a Florida school would seem more likely ND demands.
Appears to be a strong possibility that NE could be 11th on the conference’s list of preferred schools. TX, ND, MD, VA, VB, aTm, Rut, GT, Mia, and FSU add up to 10. If 2 big draws like TX, ND, Mia, or FSU agree to join, does Pitt move ahead of NE? Do 6 or 7 of the Top 10 or 11 choices turn the conference down?
OTOH, I could see TX lobbying for NE and the higher TV $ they would bring (adults are doing the negotiating, not bitter drunken trolls.) Especially if the decision makers deem FSU and Mia bridges too far academically. Or TX may not want Mia to get back their recruiting prowess in Texas that burned TX in the 80’s and 90’s. TX knows how NE currently does in recruiting the state, but can’t be sure how Mia would fare if in the same conference. Austin may not have much appetite for another “Shock the Nation”…
BTW, former TX coach Fred Akers should be credited for some of Miami’s rise. In the Jan. 1984 Cotton Bowl undefeated TX controlled UGA, whose offense rarely even crossed midfield (just twice, IIRC.) However a gift TX turnover in their red zone late in the 4th led to a UGA TD and a 10-9 TX loss. That night Miami beat NE for their first MNC, a title that would have gone to an undefeated TX. Mia would soon become one of the biggest drains on TX recruits. 10-9 was the tipping point that would lead to TX’s long wandering in the wilderness.
LikeLike
However a gift TX turnover in their red zone late in the 4th led to a UGA TD and a 10-9 TX loss. That night Miami beat NE for their first MNC, a title that would have gone to an undefeated TX.
I was at that game. And the gift turnover was a fumbled punt in a stadium with a swirling wind on a bitterly cold day, a punt fumbled by a player who hadn’t been called upon to field a punt all season.
If you want to read something a bid sad, read this story a few years back about the player who fumbled the punt and has had to carry that burden with him for so many years:
http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2005/writing/over250/over250_features_third1.html
I’ve always thought that, had Texas won as expected, the result in the Orange Bowl that evening would have been different. The door unexpectedly open to a national championship, the Hurricanes played with a furor no one could have foreseen, opening a 17-0 first quarter lead. I have my doubts as to how inspired UM would have played, particularly out of the gate, without the championship being available.
As such, I haven’t been quite as quick to chalk that fumble up as one which “certainly” cost Texas a championship.
LikeLike
That’s what I always tell my Bulldog wife whenever she brings that game up and talks about UGA costing UT a national championship. That and the fact that the sealing block that led to the TD was a lineman grabbing the UT defender by the arm and flinging him down. Alas, no holding call.
UGA cost Nebraska a national championship, not Texas. Nebraska would have been more fired up if Texas had kept the pressure on them.
LikeLike
“don’t let the AAU certificate fool you, it matters but was gained a century ago. Legacy as much as a current assessment.”
So, is it only Nebraska that is coasting out of the schools admitted around the same time?
1908
Illinois
1909
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
Or are you just making things up?
LikeLike
You can only be admitted once. But it’s pretty clear that Illinois would be admitted today if wasn’t already a member, whereas Nebraska would be iffy at best.
LikeLike
Sorry to be blunt, but all those schools except Kansas kick NE’s ass academically. So does Mia, GT, Rut, VA, and MD. Not made up, I posted the ARWU rankings and scores and the US News rankings yesterday further up in this thread. Facts, but of course ignored because it torpedoes your worldview.
But of course US News and the ARWU are just hacks for Texas, right? When all else fails, Texas ate your homework.
LikeLike
Uh huh. And when you compare factors like population base, tax burden, manufacturing base, money (in the case of Texas) provided by natural resources with a virtually guaranteed market (oil), Texas and those other schools should, as you so graciously put it, eat the homework of schools located in states that that have historically had no choice but to rely on the cyclical, and nearly always depressed, agricultural sector.
So maybe the question you should ask yourself isn’t why Nebraska is doing, in your eyes, so terribly academically. You might want to allow the thought in that they’re doing well considering the resources they are afforded. Which isn’t to say they can’t strive to be even better. But there’s a lot of people in this conversation who could say the same about themselves, myself included.
LikeLike
All those excuses would apply to Iowa as well.
LikeLike
So maybe the question you should ask yourself isn’t why Nebraska is doing, in your eyes, so terribly academically.
Apparently the NE School of Victimology takes a backseat to no one.
Look, nobody is saying NE is a bad school. Elsewhere on this thread I’ve argued that TX may be lobbying for NE to be included in the B16. But we are talking about a job interview of the best of the best for just 5 select spots. The facts for comparisons are what they are. Most of us are simply trying to analyze and predict who those 5 will be and explain why.
No need for:
Chip
shoulder
LikeLike
State tax burdens aren’t as much of the issue to the school’s academics as in years past. A case in point: state taxes cover just 18% of the University of Wisconsin’s budget. The single largest source of income comeing into the university is federal research money.
Hence, if I were a state school in a small or less populous state, I’d try to improve my research facilities and hire better researchers. If they can draw more federal (or private) research money, it improves the cash flow of the university and improves academics.
LikeLike
Perhaps, they also support two large state schools. Population is higher, tax burden is lower, manufacturing base higher.
LikeLike
@playoffs
Facts are facts. It isn’t, and never has been, an equal footing situation. Try disputing that instead of resorting to ad hominems.
LikeLike
As a dirty Southerner, I always ad hominems to my grits.
LikeLike
They’re already in there, since they’re made from hominy. Growing up in the north and eating hominy, imagine that, I’ve managed to arrive at this conclusion without an agricultural degree.
LikeLike
you could add hominy to grits just as you could add steak to hamburger meat. for that matter, not all grits are made from hominy anyway.
don’t be such a putz.
LikeLike
I wasn’t blaming him, turnovers are part of the game. (I do blame Akers’ offensive conservatism.) The point was that TX was the better team and perhaps the best in the country that season. It was fluke loss, but also the true start of TX’s slide. A backbreaker that helped feed the myth (or reality) that TX was often overrated and couldn’t win a championship. Over the next decade that myth (reality) would grow in acceptance and recruits increasingly would flee (various shades of red Trans Ams and stealth bags of green also were big factors…) Shock the Nation was just an amplified bookend to 1-2-84.
It was also an ironic example of chaos theory. I’m not at all buying the excuse that Mia would have played any different if TX had won. Besides, it wouldn’t have been a win without NE going for two and failing.
Also an excellent example of why college fb and supposed titles are a pathetic joke without a playoff.
BTW, I always wondered (jokingly) if that game is what made Jeff Ward such a sourpuss. What a waste of a radio show.
LikeLike
I wasn’t blaming him, turnovers are part of the game.
Wasn’t trying to imply that if it came off that way.
(I do blame Akers’ offensive conservatism.)
Ironically, though instinctively conservative, I recall Akers’ choice for starting QB that day (McIver?) was not conservative and not the logical choice. I recall Texas having a three-QB rotation that season (wasn’t current UNT coach Todd Dodge among the three?), and McIver was the fan favorite because he was the best passer (though not necessarily the best choice to lead, as you note, a conservative offense). Given the weather conditions at the Cotton Bowl (in the middle of the coldest snap of weather Dallas had seen in decades — lakes froze over [seriously!), I don’t think McIver was the right choice for a game that could only be won on the ground. If only Akers had made one more conservative decision.
I’m not at all buying the excuse that Mia would have played any different if TX had won.
It’s not an excuse (what exactly would I be trying to excuse?). Never underestimate the psychological effect such events can have on the minds of a bunch of 18-to-21 year olds. Hell, pro football gives a great example from a couple of years ago. Would the Eagles have so thoroughly destroyed the Cowboys in the last game of the season if an unexpected confluence of events earlier in the day hadn’t materialized to give the Eagles a chance to make the playoffs with a win?
LikeLike
My old HS in Texas had a few blue chip recruits a couple of years after that Cotton Bowl. 2 went to Miami, 1 to Nebraska.
And every bowl every season shows the impact of psychological effects on the players (and every bowl Akers’ teams played in that wasn’t the Cotton Bowl).
LikeLike
The fact that you guys are debating a 25 year old football game and the fallout from it is one of the things I love about College football. Seriously.
It’s why I’m lukewarm on a playoff system. I love the messiness of the sport.
LikeLike
Any way you slice it, the Big 10 and BTN are getting PLENTY of free advertising right now. How many cable companies in Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, NY, New England, NJ, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, etc., are beginning to think about BTN options (moving tiers, adding, whatever).
In the end, however, does the Big 10 have any idea what it is doing??? All this attention could backfire in the long run.
#1 If they take Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers… that is a HUGE yawn for everyone outside of the Big 10.
No Notre Dame? No Texas? Not even sure the SEC would bother expanding.
But if the SEC did… they would end up with 2-4 more excellent programs that would only further exceed the Big 10’s package of programs. The SEC can choose from the ACC or the Big 12 due to location.
So, if the Big 10 can’t get Notre Dame or Texas, it’s just the SEC’s call whether to bother crushing the Big 10 product.
#2 Really, with all due respect to Notre Dame, the only way this works for the Big 10 is to get Texas. Now you have added a top 5 power that is in AND… importantly… controls a huge market. Texas is Big 10 quality on all levels and can compete with the SEC schools.
Even so, this type of move will cause a shift. The Big 12 may not survive, leading to its best teams heading to the SEC and Pac-10. Does that help the Big 10? Maybe the SEC ends up with Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas, and Florida St. Maybe the Pac 10 takes Colorado and Utah. The ACC adds Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, UConn, and So. Fla.
Remember… getting Texas is the BEST case scenario. And the Big 10 still might not end up the premier football conference.
#3 If the Big 10 can’t get Texas… does it just take one of the 3 teams (Nebraska, Rutgers or Missouri)? If the Big 12 loses Nebraska and Colorado, it can easily reload. If the Big East loses Rutgers, it can easily reload. You don’t end up with a seismic shift. And you end up having a big let down… we waited 18 months for this??? Ratings may spike, but ratings are not permanent. Making $30M per team now is nice… but nothing is permanent. A Tier 1 channel need not always be a Tier 1 channel.
#4 Which brings me back to Frank’s 5 teams. If you get Texas… under #2… that is a win. But by packaging it with the three teams contemplated… you don’t lose a thing academically. You got Texas, so you improve football at the top. You improve basketball. You improve baseball and lacrosse. You add markets. If you can’t top the SEC in football… you at least come close and improve all your other sports and widen the academic gap and make more money.
If so, maybe they do know what they are doing.
LikeLike
If Neb is added, the Big 10 would have 4 of the top 10 CF programs all-time….so no need to worry about the product being crushed, imo
LikeLike
All-time or recently?
LikeLike
All-time
LikeLike
The Big Ten is the nation’s oldest Division One conference. And as football success ebbs and flows, I’m sure the Big Ten is looking at all things, including the athletic picture, long term.
While having bragging rights over recent football success is great for a fan, the bigger picture isn’t just football. Or basketball or track. Or wrestling or hockey.
The point is, first, to find like-minded universities for a long-term, happy academic fit. This ensures academic success, which is, after all, the point of a university.
And second, to make money. If the Big Ten expands in a way that distances themselves even further academically and financially from the other conferences, I think they’d be pleased enough to let you brag about your football conference.
LikeLike
I was thinking about ez’s question (though it appears meant as a backhanded insult to the Big Ten) and was curious what the numbers really were. I was thinking about a reasonable cut off for “recent” success and though you could pick any cutoff date, I thought I’d look back to 1993, when Penn State began playing in the Big Ten. Not too few years ago when all sorts of weird results could pop up, but not so far back that no one could accurately call it “recent”.
So I ran the numbers.
Since 1993, the Big Ten has 4 of the 15 winningest teams (Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin).
The SEC has 3 (Florida, Tennessee, Georgia).
The B12 has 3 (Texas, Nebraska, OK).
The ACC has 3 (Virginia Tech, FSU, Miami).
(Boise State and USC are the others)
So, Mushroomgod is correct, if Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the BT would have four of the top ten winningest teams since 1869–but with Nebraska, the BT would have five of the 15 winningest teams since 1993, when Penn State joined.
Texas, Miami and FSU have also been discussed as BT candidates, any of which would also add to that number.
LikeLike
Don’t assume anyone in the ACC would leave for the SEC.
FSU had the chance 19 years ago to join the SEC or ACC. FSU enjoyed having that choice. It been rejected repeatedly since the 50’s in its requests for SEC membership. As a matter of fact, the SEC didn’t even court FSU until its pitch to Texas and A&M fell apart in the Texas legislature. FSU decided it had a better option, citing its desire to be associated with UNC, UVA, Duke, etc, as well as the fact it wanted to be in a league where it would be respected for its own traditions & merits. Many at FSU figured that the old guard would take a condescending approach. (“We don’t care about all your Top Five finishes & Bobby Bowden. This league belongs to us; you’re just a newbie.”)
A dozen ACC and two national titles later, it’s certainly worked out in football. It’s a better basketball league. For baseball, you’re splitting hairs for which league is better. But most importantly, FSU cites academic progress as the #1 reason why it made the right decision for the ACC over the SEC. FSU has ambitions to become an AAU member within 5 years, a much more ACC-like ambition than SEC.
Speaking of schools with AAU aspirations, NC State has those as well. Its new chancellor was the provost at Purdue. Plus, let’s face it: NC State has deep, deep athletic traditions with the NC schools and wouldn’t want to leave that. Moreover, it is intricately involved with UNC and Duke at a research level; it’s called the “Research Triangle” for a reason. NC State doesn’t need to sever any kind of ties with the other area schools when it’s so involved in professional/research areas.
Miami also credits the ACC as a factor in improving its academic profile, and that’s having come from a league with Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, Rutgers, and Notre Dame. Why, then, would Miami’s next step be the SEC if it was dissatisfied with the Big East? Besides, Miami is so isolated that the SEC schools seem no closer than those in the ACC. Let’s not forget, either, that Miami may still hold a grudge against the SEC from the early 90’s: When FSU turned down the SEC, Miami hoped to be the next choice. Instead, the SEC went with South Carolina.
Since the ACC’s 1953 inception, Virginia Tech had had aspirations to be in the ACC. Basically, they didn’t wait 50 years to join a league where 6 opponents are within a five hour drive just to leave it just 7 years later. Like FSU and Miami, VT credits the ACC for its spike in academic reputation. I don’t think VT fans are, exactly bored with ACC competition. Sure, BC, Wake, and Duke are no Florida or Alabama, but neither are Ole Miss, Vandy, or Miss. State. VT fans LOVE being in the ACC and aren’t afraid of the occasional SEC game (LSU, Alabama, Tennessee).
Georgia Tech and Clemson are the only ones I wouldn’t be utterly shocked to see leave for the SEC, but since they add zero new markets, I doubt they’d even get the opportunity.
For all the bad rap it gets (because it dares to play schools like Florida, Alabama, USF, Stanford, BYU, TCU, Georgia, UConn, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Cal and doesn’t always win), the ACC is a pretty darn appealing league to be in. I don’t think the SEC gives any ACC something too great to turn down. Only the Big Ten might be able to do that.
LikeLike
Really, the only school I mentioned was Florida St. If the Big 10 were to steal Maryland and Virginia, opening up the potential for the ACC to add NE schools, maybe FSU would then think that it was becoming less what it was when they joined.
LikeLike
It’s been said on this board many times: the ACC is a healthy league. Maybe they don’t make as much TV money as the SEC or B10 do and perhaps BC hasn’t worked out the way they had hoped. But the core members aren’t going to leave just for a bigger paycheck. The Big Ten would really have to do a sales job to get Maryland or Virgina to leave.
Think of it this way. If the Big XII had a TV network and a contract that paid them $8 million more a year, would Minnesota or Iowa leave decades of tradition in the Big 10 for an uncertain future? Maybe. But probably not.
There is a reason the focus is on Big XII and Big East is that they are not healthy leagues. The schools do not look out for each other and both are, for football, less than 20 years old.
LikeLike
Regardless of what the Big Ten does, the SEC will succeed in producing the superior top-to-bottom football product. If the Big Ten is confident that Texas won’t jump to the SEC, then I don’t think they should worry about the SEC’s next move. The SEC has a more singular focus on football and will do whatever they need to do to stay on top.
LikeLike
I get the impression that Texas wants to join the SEC about as much as Ohio State or Notre Dame want to join the SEC.
LikeLike
michael, apparently paul finebaum, the alabama shill, had a guy on his show who really ripped texas academics.
my immediate suspicion–to my enormous delight–is that the sec has gotten some sort of answer from the guys in austin.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that people haven’t noticed this yet…
It’s a well-known fact that the Sun Belt is exploding with population growth. What seems to be overlooked often, though, is how it’s limited only to certain parts, and most of it is OUTSIDE SEC territory.
Obviously Florida and Georgia have grown tremendously, and South Carolina is growing fairly fast as well. But most of SEC land (i.e., Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas) is growing at a much more modest rate. In fact, Louisiana is and likely will be losing population, due less to economic forces than to Katrina and, it appears, BP’s oil f***-up in the Gulf.
My point here is that the size of the SEC’s “footprint” is not as fast-gaining on the size of the Big Ten’s. States with the ACC’s and the Pac-10, on the other hand, are growing much more quickly (besides Massachusetts).
So if one of the goals is to enlarge the footprint in order to keep the SEC at bay, this is why it makes so much sense to expand into Texas.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten can distance itself from the SEC enough with increased revenue, which I think it can, then I think we’ll see a shift in power.
Adding OU, OSU, A&M, and, say, Clemson still wouldn’t allow the SEC to collect cable subscriptions (especially in NYC) and advertising revenue directly. Texas has zero interest in the SEC so forget them.
I think SEC expansion would only lessen the blow. The SEC will be chasing the Big Ten so not to get too far behind, just like the ACC signed its deal knowing it wasn’t as good as the SEC’s, but better than what it had.
Over time, due to the Big Ten’s stockpiling of revenue that could get into $40M/year/school, the league will start being able to hire coaches other leagues can’t afford. Honestly, does anyone think that Nick Saban wouldn’t leave Alabama for Michigan if he could go from $4M to $8M? If the Big Ten schools were paying head and assistant coaches at the level of the SEC, wouldn’t the BT be able to get the best coaches? Best recruiters? And, after a while, the best players?
LikeLike
Sure, the top programs will be able to do so. But they have always been able to do so.
If you are Nick Saban… do you leave Alabama to make $8M coaching Indiana? Money is nice, but money + winning is nicer.
Unless you start paying the players. I don’t see the Big 10 as being cheaters.
Well, aside from Michigan. 🙂
LikeLike
Saban changed jobs, what, 3 times in as many years? What’s more, guys like him get their thrills by taking bad programs and “showing the world” how much they can turn things around (look what he was trying to do at Miami and when was Alabama’s last Top10 finish prior to him?).
If the Big10 can afford (and is willing) to shell out more money than the SEC, you can bet those coaches will be heading north.
LikeLike
I can see Saban returning to the Big 10 coaching someone other than the Spartans. That’d go over great with the fans.
LikeLike
Kyle – kind of like going to Alabama after coaching at LSU?
LikeLike
Would have loved to be in stadium for his return game.
LikeLike
In following the pattern where we’re thinking further and further “outside the box,” I’m surprised how one school that seems so out of reach, and yet so sensible, is not even being discussed: the University of Florida.
Yes, I know the objections: Why would UF leave the SEC where they’re already making so much money? Why would UF leave a conference where other members share the common culture of “SEC pride,” heated rivalries, fierce competition, strong recruiting grounds, etc etc, to join, from its perspective, “the dark side?”
There are plenty of reasons:
(1) Because of UT’s desire to distance itself from less research-oriented schools and Notre Dame’s dramatic cultural differences, the SEC has no schools available as complete home runs. The BT stands a great shot at landing one of them or even both. Thus the B10’s signature addition will create a greater spike in revenue than the SEC’s.
(2) Presuming TV contract renegotiation is possible for either league, ANY addition to the B10 will add revenue not just from its ESPN/ABC deals, but also through the BTN. The BTN adds revenue for the league via cable rights fees AND increased advertising. It effectively eliminates much of ESPN’s function as the “middle man,” allowing the BT to make more money per advertisement and subscription fee than the SEC.
By contrast, additions to the SEC could add little value to its CBS deal. If the SEC was struggling to offer compelling content, CBS might welcome the addition of teams that could reliably promise good ratings, such as Oklahoma or Florida State. For example, CBS wouldn’t be willing to pay much more for the option of airing, say, #4 Oklahoma v. #6 Alabama when it already has the choice between # 1 Florida v. #3 LSU and #15 Tennessee v. #9 Georgia. CBS has only one game/week and its choices are plentiful. I don’t see CBS paying more to continue having only one game.
(3) Florida itself would add greater revenue to the Big Ten, and thus to itself, than additions to the SEC would. Moreover, if anyone among UTx, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Notre Dame joined the BT, UF would recognize that under no circumstances could it come anywhere close to BT-level revenue as long as it is in the SEC.
(4) Certainly there are people in power at UF who desire UF to be the academic equal with Cal, Michigan, UNC, UVA, and UCLA. As one of the two official “flagship universities” in the third-largest and high-growth state of Florida (FSU being the other), but the only one as an AAU member, UF has many advantages which can aid a mission towards becoming one of the nation’s best public universities. As a BT and CIC member, Florida could obtain the resources to go from a perfectly-respectable but middle-of-the-road school AAU school to being a true academic superstar.
(5) Some of the objections to leaving the SEC could be answered, at least to a degree. UF will still play Florida State every year. It also would face a somewhat more manageable schedule, which might encourage the Gators to take on a more daring non-conference schedule. It is possible; FSU, for instance, plays UF, BYU, and OU next year, and it’s not as though Miami, UNC, and Clemson will be any walk in the park, either, but I digress. UF’s non-conference could consist of FSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and a pushover one year; FSU, Miami, and LSU another.
Another objection is that UF would give up an edge in recruiting. Um, isn’t THE University of Florida still… in Florida… as THE University of Florida? What it may lose in Georgia, Louisiana, & Alabama it could gain from being in the same league as Texas.
Basically, I just question whether the SEC should be considered as off-limits as everyone presumes it is. Their athletic ties may be as strong as anyone’s, but I’m not so sure how emotionally attached the faculty, deans, and even presidents of schools like UF & Vandy are to their association with the rest of the SEC. I don’t see those folks objecting to the opportunity to be associated with BT members and simultaneously ballooning their athletic revenue. For them, it could be a win-win. In that same way, I question all the assumptions that Miami, VT, Clemson and FSU would jump at the SEC, especially since each has stated they view ACC membership as a factor towards the notable improvement in their reputations in the past decade.
LikeLike
I suggest we go to thinking within the box. And also that the words/terms “outlier” and “due diligence” be forbidden.
LikeLike
UF will never leave the SEC where they can continue the practice of over-signing players, no other member university is allowed to report recruiting and other NCAA violations on them, and where there crying won’t get them there way into a BCS championship game even though they lost give me games. Actually the most important reason is that Jorts don’t work up north. Never mind the dishonesty the school has always had like stealing gatoraide from FSU and possibly Rutgers as well as UF latest attempt to screw over FSU in state funding.
My hate aside UF is not going anywhere. They don’t play north of Kentucky period and hate that they have to play outside of Florida. They will never play a schedule where its possible that they play more than 3 tough games a year. If they could get away from the FSU game they would in a heart beat despite there recent success but the legislator will go ballistic if that happened. They dropped Miami as fast as they could once Miami because a power and only recently played them because of murmurs in the capital about cuts in funding if they did not play a home and home. There is just no way they want any part of a conference where in a single year they might face 3 to 4 top 10 teams plus FSU.
Joining the CIC is not that big of a deal for UF either. There is no other comparable school until you hit Chapel Hill in the North and Austin in the West. They are pretty much the only game in the state of Florida in university based medical research. FSU med school is only a few years old and not based on research. USF partners with local hospitals that also partner with UF Shands so must of the money is still funneled though UF. U Miami is much smaller in scale. In the area of Engineering they are so far ahead of anyone in the state its not worth mentioning and until FSU can fix the administration of their department no one will ever come close. Its only when it comes to the hard sciences and soft subjects does FSU even come close in research dollars.
Academic boost is also not much of an issue. Florida law allows any student that gets an AA at a Florida Community College to gain entry to any state school because of this both UF and FSU already cap the number of incoming freshmen and are already at there limits on politically acceptable out of state and international students. And the gap between these 2 schools to the next tier of USF and UCF I would imagine is similar to that of the difference between UT and TT in Texas.
LikeLike
Wow, only a little bit of venom there.
Florida doesn’t totally oversign. Or, I guess I should say they definitely aren’t the worst offender. They have the 9th lowest in the SEC, just ahead of Georgia and Vandy. Alabama, for example, signed 25 *more* players than Florida from 2002-2010 — an entire maxed recruiting class by NCAA rules — and that’s despite the fact Alabama had reduced scholarships from 2002-03 as part of their NCAA punishment. Since Saban arrived Alabama has averaged 29.33 recruits per year (2008-2010 recruiting classes).
Florida would be in the middle-to-upper pack of signing in the Big Ten, and averaged roughly 3 more players *per class* than OSU and PSU during this period (Bama averaged 6).
The rest of the vitriol I either can’t or don’t feel like arguing with, but I have to at least credit Florida that they aren’t the worst offender in oversigning. They’re no Auburn (avg. 28.11 per class).
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
LikeLike
The SEC passed a rule against over-signing last year, after Houston Nutt of Ole Miss signed 37. Very embarrassing, but its now a thing of the past.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/05/29/oversigning/index.html
LikeLike
In fairness…
why does it take one idiot coach trying to game the system in a state’s favor (albeit in such a way that I can only applaud him for his “juevos”) for the NCAA to actually force people to follow the intent of the rule that was passed two decades ago?
LikeLike
Yeah, I remember reading that.
When does that rule go into effect anyway? Auburn, Alabama, and LSU still signed more than 28 last recruiting class, at least according to oversigning.com.
Sorry, the recruiting game and how scholarships are handled with some teams is kind of disgusting imo. But that’s probably going to be regional bias and a big argument, and anyway this isn’t the forum for that discussion.
LikeLike
“The SEC passed a rule against over-signing last year, after Houston Nutt of Ole Miss signed 37. Very embarrassing, but its now a thing of the past.”
Absolutely, positively not true. The SEC’s current “restrictions” would still be embarrassing for any conference other than the SEC and maybe any conference that includes Memphis.
It is not in the “past” at all. It is simply that the malignancy (win at any costs and never let academics or integrity stand in the way of victory) will evolve and mutate in other ways. Literally every practice I abhor (oversigning, grayshirting, and so on) either began in the SEC or was turbo-charged in the SEC. Don’t for one second try to pawn off the — one bad apple theme. Don’t bother.
LikeLike
My post was over the top but you have to understand the history of what UF has done to FSU to fully comprehend the hatred. At nearly every point in the history of FSU, UF has tried and to varying degrees succeed in halting the progress of the school. From trying to stop the integration of genders after the war to trying to prevent the school from offering grad programs and than professional degrees. More recently they tried to block the medical school and where able to prevent it from concentrating on research and than this year attempting a money grab in the state legislator. On the sports front they refused to play FSU for years when they where an up and coming program and only relented when the governor got involved after years of dragging its feet. It only became a permanent game when FSU went into its down turn. Than UF blocked FSU entering into the SEC a couple of times. They rarely get called out for there off field problems while FSU gets called out and self reports most of theirs. A FSU player gets arrested and its reported state wide, UF has 4 dozen arrested in the last 4 years and no one knows. That is why there is the animosity.
LikeLike
From my knowledge and experience of native Floridians I’d say this is the norm in how they act. Petty, deceitful, & vindictive.
LikeLike
Hey Jim, I’ve been a Gator-hater my whole life. My mom and dad went to FSU.
I just wanted to make an argument to see why Florida has been seen as so off-limits since they’re AAU and they’re in such a huge state.
LikeLike
Living several years in Jacksonville, Florida would have to keep Georgia on its schedule OOC. Much more heated rivalry than FSU.
LikeLike
If you lived there in the 80’s and 90’s, you’d feel differently. FSU and UF players have gotten in fights on the field more than once. Plus, for a string of 6 or 7 straight seasons, the winner of the game remained alive for the national championship, so it was pretty heated. FSU’s always resented UF for their pompous attitude, calling them a “Women’s College” sixty years after it became co-ed.
LikeLike
I’ve been following the post meticulously but I may have missed the answer to my question. Sorry if this is repetitive.
How does Vandy feel about being a “Southern school”? I know they were an original SEC member from way back. I know Tennessee is not a “border” state like Maryland is. But how do they fit in down south?
I read “To hate like this is to be happy forever” about the UNC-Duke rivalry a few years back. Duke is well-known to be a “northern” school in Carolina. More transplant eggheads from up north than Carolina natives. So, while they are “deep” south they aren’t a deep south culture. Is Vanderbilt a deep south culture school? Or a “northern school located in the south” like Duke?
LikeLike
Vandy is an interesting case. In some sense it’s like the opposite of UMiami since it tends to draw most of its student body from outside of TN but still has a strong emphasis on the south in general. The feeling is that it’s a southern school. That said, Vandy fans are SEC fans, so I don’t think leaving the SEC is on anyone’s radar.
LikeLike
I’m from central Illinois, and I had a good friend attend Vanderbilt. I went to visit on a football weekend and it was total culture shock.
First, the game was at night. I had never attended a college game at night before. Second, everybody was dressed up for the game. The guys all wore blue blazers, Polos with ties, and khakis to the game. It was like a uniform.
Vandy was also terrible that year. Got crushed that night by of all teams Tulane.
This Vandy thing doesn’t fly with me. Strikes me as just another stalking horse, like Mizzou was for Texas. The question on Vandy is, who are they the stalking horse for?
LikeLike
Mike B – Hopefully, Vandy is a stocking horse for the team that crushed the Commodores on your visit . . . GEAUX GREEN WAVE!!!
LikeLike
i want a stocking horse. where can you get one?
LikeLike
LikeLike
^ And that’s why you read the replies.
LikeLike
What if TX and the B16 can’t come to an agreement? What if the channel issues are too wide, disagreement on the other invites? The assumption is that they’d turn to a P16. But that has the aforementioned travel and time zone issues. The unanimous vote requirement and Stanford and Cal’s picky nature could make it difficult to even reach 16, especially with the KS and OU scandal perhaps taking them off the table (if OU ever was on it.) P10 schools may not allow the arrangements necessary to make a 14 team schedule work.
Perhaps there is a third option besides the SEC. TX and ND are rumored to have become buddies. There seems increasing confidence that the ACC could avoid losing schools in an SEC raid. If they don’t lose any, or just a couple to the B16, might the ACC be more flexible in negotiations to create a 16 school super conference with ND and the Texas schools?
Since the ACC hasn’t yet started a cable channel, there’s an opportunity to mold it closer to TX’s vision. But did the conference sign away its right to start their own channel the way the SEC did?
Perhaps TX and ND could work an agreement to share NBC, with an increase in total broadcasts but enough left over for ESPN to reopen the ACC contract. Surely in this environment the ACC inserted expansion-reopen clauses into their ESPN contract.
Allows TX to bring a 3rd Texas school if they want. Unlike the B16 or P16, the religious privates are options. Baylor, TCU, and SMU are all decent academic schools. Though adding a quality BEast school would also be an option and might bring more TV and cable $.
You can do an 8-game conference schedule with 16 teams and still have a championship game, if you’re willing to be more flexible than perhaps the B10+ is. 4 quads, something like:
A) – BC, MD, VT, VA
B) – WF, Duke, NC, NC St
C) – Clem, GT, FSU, Mia
D) – ND, TX, aTm, TT (or Bay, SMU, TCU, UH, Pitt, etc.)
You play the 3 in your quad and then the 4 in another quad = your division that year. The division quad rotates between 2, and then each year you play 1 from the other ‘Far’ quad. For example, you’re in quad A. A plays all of either B or C each year, with 1 game per year from quad D. So you play teams in your quad every year, teams in B and C twice every four years, and teams in D once every four years. So in 4 years the number of times you’d play teams in each quad would be:
– | A | B | C | D
——————
A | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1
——————
B | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2
——————
C | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2
——————
D | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4
Leaves 5 games for OOC if the NCAA goes to 13 per year, which the B16 will push for. That give ND room for USC, Navy, and three 2-1 series if they need 7 home games. 1 or 2 games each year in TX, every other year in FL, every other year in GA or SC, and every year in NC. Lots of recruiting hotbeds. Or switch it around to get a game every year in the NE/Mid-Atlantic instead of NC, but that would reduce the visits to that region for GT and the FL schools. Either way, more of a national schedule than the B16 could likely offer ND.
Also leaves Texas more OOC games to fit in OU and still have a marquee game against say UCLA or AR, plus local Texas schools.
Academics at the bottom of the ACC are better than I realized. 9 of the 12 could end up with AAU membership in the next decade or so. WF, Clem, and BC aren’t slouches, scoring 12.1, 11.2, and 9.2 on the ARWU. For reference, Syr is 11.9. In the US News rankings WF is 28, BC 34, Clem 61, compared to Syr at 58, MD at 51, and only NW and MI ahead of WF. (For the Texas privates SMU is at 68, Baylor at 80, and TCU at 110, close behind FSU’s 102.) So an A16 with ND, TX, aTm, and a 3rd Texas school would perform better than a P16 on the US News rankings and just behind a P16 in the ARWU. IOW, not a step down.
Not arguing that the ACC would be preferable to the B16 for TX. But if the latter falls through, the ACC might be a better backup plan than the P16.
LikeLike
The ACC plus TX and ND might be a good conference to drop the champ game and go to a full slate of games the final week, if they develop their own channel(s). Have just 1 protected annual rivalry game and play 7 of the other 14 per year would keep the schedule at 8 games if needed to lure ND. Solves the problem of low attendance at the champ game. Also helps avoid balance of power issues.
LikeLike
Hmmm, those 4’s should be 3’s in the grid. Anyway, here’s a better way: For competitive balance you put FSU, Mia, GT, and Clem in one quad called the National Division. TX, aTm, and VT go in another quad called the American Division. The other two quads rotate playing in each division every two years. The National and American quads play 1 game per year against the other.
National quad – FSU, Mia, GT, Clem
Rotation A quad – ND, MD, BC, CT (or ND, Syr, CT, BC)
American quad – TX, aTm, VT, VA (or TX, aTm, VT, Pitt)
Rotation B quad – WF, Duke, NC, NC St
A 3-4-1 format for an 8 game conference schedule and allows a championship game. Gives ND a game in TX or FL every year, 1 or 2 in the Northeast per year, and 1 or 2 in the Southeast per year.
LikeLike
Given the demographic appeal of the University of Miami, I now have a question for you Floridians (or anyone who went there). I profess to a certain level of first-hand ignorance about the place. I always had a negative connotation about the place during their glory years on the football field.
How is Miami perceived by you Floridians compared to, say, FSU or the University of Florida? Given the fact that it’s private, it would likely be a fair bit more expensive, I’d assume. Yet the University of Florida would be, in my mind, a better school academically. Is this how it is perceived in Florida? Is there a reason someone would choose to pay more to go to Miami? Do they offer something superior to the state schools? Does it attract a certain demographic?
LikeLike
I’m not a Floridian, but I’ve spent more time there than any place other than Illinois. The stereotype of Miami is that it’s for rich kids from New Jersey that didn’t get into Duke and wanted nice weather compared to Rutgers. The thug image of the football team is actually the complete opposite of the student body, similar to the image of a lot of John Thompson’s Georgetown teams. Miami is truly a “Northern” school or even a NY/NJ-centric school more than a Florida school.
LikeLike
When I was at Tulane law School, a lot of the undergrads from up North went to Tulane to for great weather, great education and a great party. That’s why the choice for many of them came down to Miami & Tulane. If the beach is more improtant, go to Miami. If music more important, go to Tulane.
LikeLike
I can only speak generally for central/north Florida. But, Miami as a school is really not thought of at all. My graduating class of a 120ish people in a pretty good representative school for central Florida for example only about 2 or 3 went to Miami and maybe only a few more than that even applied. For the top quarter of the class the most of students went to either UF, FSU or other private schools in the south like Duke, Emory, Vandy or Ivy/NE liberal arts schools and a few went to Auburn but that was because of olympic sport scholarships. This was before the lotto scholarships so I would imagine that UF is even more popular now with FSU second. The 25th to 50ish bracket went mostly to USF and UCF. The rest either USF/UCF if they could get in or community colleges and about 20 kids with no further education.
In central Florida UF is seen as a good school but I really don’t get the impression that it is seen as good as it really is. In the Tampa area where I went to high school, USF has almost as good as a rep as Florida does despite the huge difference in reality. Miami in all honesty is seen as a football team just as often as it is a school. I am sure things have changed but Miami did not have the presence in student recruiting in my area as most of the other Southern state schools or the relationship with HS GC as an instate school would suggest.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for how its perceived in Orlando, Tampa or Jacksonville, but I’ve lived in Miami for the last 11 years and received my MBA from UM (Penn St undergrad).
You first have to understand that the U of Miami is very small (fewer than 10k undergrads). And with undergrad costs running at 50k a year, it’s fair to say the student body is made up largely of rich kids. The vast majority of students are come from South Florida, the Northeast and Latin America. As such, its about as “Southern” in character as Syracuse.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand its place in the Florida sports landscape is to think of it as a smaller USC. Both are small, private universities located in major cities dominated by professional sports. Both have established national reputations based heavily on football success. Both have a large non-alumni/bandwagon component to their fan bases.
The differences are that USC has twice as many students, is far older and established, doesn’t compete with an NFL franchise for attention and draws from the Southern California market of 17 million people versus the South Florida market of 5.3mm.
I’d suggest that as anemic as UM’s attendance is, it still ranks number two in local sports interest (well behind the Dolphins).
As to your question of why someone would attend UM over UF – even assuming the two schools are academically equivalent in every respect, some students are going to prefer attending college at a small school in an urban setting as opposed to an enormous, state school adjacent to a small town.
And I think Frank answered your question regarding image versus reality. Allen Iverson is as representative of the average Georgetown undergrad as Warren Sapp is of Miami’s.
LikeLike
Thanks, all, for your comments.
LikeLike
Hilarious that a BT expansion discussion is being stampeded of late with talk about misc Florida U’s, Vanderbilt, etc & various southern schools.
Wow, and I thought Texas was a stretch. So much for the BT as a midwest conference 🙂
LikeLike
And that’s what I think Delany’s comments concerning shifting demographics was really aimed at.
While the mid-west has been good for the Big10 it simply cannot continue to be seen as solely a “mid-western” conference if it wants to maintain its stability and growth.
At the very least this round of expansion needs to make the Big10 multi-regional and I think Delany is really pushing to make it a much more “national” conference with the addition of the correct members
If it could get Texas and Nebraska, it’d be well on its way toward being exactly that.
LikeLike
National conference is definitely the edgier scenario. Just don’t know if you have a conference with any cohesion if you stretch too much. Maybe more of a league( = pros).
Don’t you lose the college-rivals-traveling fans-instate/border state boolah-boolah “thingy” that makes college sports so unique and deliciously appealing [vs pro sports]????
I think you do lose it.
LikeLike
I think if you added UCLA, Florida, etc (ie: schools that are literally spread out across the country) then yes I do think you lose that cohesion. While that might happen down the road (even then I’d doubt it), I think for this round of expansion the only true geographical outliers will be any Texas schools added (and even then, they’d not really be THAT far from their nearest “pod mates”.
I see the Big10 wanting to add brands with national appeal (& with large alumni) and mid-sized brands (& with large alumni) in areas where there are already large Big10 presence.
Nebraska and Texas fit the former. Rutgers fits the latter.
At that point you have 2 slots (1 if you grab TAMU also) and I’m just not sure who that last slot falls to, but I easily see it as being “attached” to the current Big10 footprint.
LikeLike
And BTW, my point was that by adding the “national appeal” teams THAT’s how they’re going to make the BTN national, not necessarily by taking schools from all over.
LikeLike
The “already large Big 10 presence” in the Washington area is why the Big Ten covets Maryland, and to a lesser extent Virginia, every bit as much as Rutgers. And you can argue that in terms of athletic achievement and tradition, UMd (one of the few schools to have won national titles in football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball) has it all over RU.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
What Delany means in buzz words like ¨cohesion¨, ¨marriage¨, and ¨institutional fit¨ says a lot about whether his strategy revolves around schools like Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers or others like Texas, Maryland, Miami, Vanderbilt, etc.
If you go back and read Delany´s comments, I think you´ll see that the idea of affiliation goes both ways. He talked about how conference affiliation is an institutional decision, seemingly making universities currently under ¨untouchable¨ situations, more accessible to the Big 10. Affiliation under this paradigm is a fluid process – as he described – and, although this makes it easier to attract schools to the Big 10 now, I think Delany understands that there may come a time when a school within the Big 10 is a better institutional fit somewhere else.
I think we´ve gotten a bit too caught in his earlier talk about expansion equating to marriage – and as something that should last forever. While I think it´s important to find institutional fits, I don´t think Delany´s going to limit himself geographically just because proximity supposedly makes a university more loyal. The fact alone that we´re stealing schools from other conferences in order to expand, proves that conference affiliation is not inviolable. All he meant by the marriage comparison, IMO, is that we´re looking for better institutional fits, not necessarily schools within geographically contiguous states.
And if we´re talking about ¨culture¨ or some kind of sociological fit, I think it also has to take a back seat to ¨institutional values.¨ Each university´s mission is to instruct its students in a certain way, not to limit itself to a certain cultural homogeneity.
¨Cohesion¨ then, as you describe, should be based off common ideology alone, not cultural or geographic proximity. This is why the idea of demographics has become so pivotal, since we are not limiting ourselves to geographically contiguous states.
LikeLike
@Michael
There’s a lot of what I believe in your statements (especially regarding institutional fit), but one thing I think stands out as 180 out from my own view points.
I really think the Big10 sees acceptance into its conference as something MUCH more than even a “mid-term” aligning of goals.
While you bring up good points about geography’s relevance to conference membership, you marginalize the “marriage” idea (which BTW is more of a Joe Paterno description of the Big10). I really believe that “marriage” moniker is a much more appropriate description for how the Big10 wants to expand than any other I can think of.
I mean it is the only conference that has an official “academic” arm (the CIC). For any school there are only two “arms” (academics and athletics) and for the Big10 to have created major infrastructure toward addressing both “arms” needs speaks volumes about what it (and each school in it) values and how they seek to accomplish those values.
If a school (note I don’t say “team”) wants to join the Big10, it makes the conscience decision to compete on the field, but cooperate off it. Helping each other member school become stronger while itself gains for the other members’ strength.
Relationships like this are not forged easily, nor broken easily either and that’s why I think while geography may take a back seat to “institutional fit” it will be VERY understood by all parties that this relationship is something that’s going to last, at a minimum, of decades.
At some point, yes, there might be a school that decides it wants to part ways (who can honestly say what will happen in the future), but I think that the understanding when entering the conference is, just like marriage, that this conference “will be it”.
LikeLike
Midwestern State University is located… in Texas. it’s destiny.
LikeLike
SIAP, but I found an interesting site today about the practice of oversigning (basically offering more scholarships than you actually have with the plan of cutting underperformers aka “unspecified violation of team rules”). While not a perfect measure I believe it gives some reflection of the school’s commitment to student-athletes. Basically, anything over 85 means that some of the recruits who signed LOIs didn’t receive 5 full years of scholarship.
Vanderbilt 77
Notre Dame 82
Georgia Tech 82
Virginia 85
Duke 85
Boston College 86
Texas 86
Kansas 86
Big Ten Average 86
Pittsburgh 87
Maryland 90
Rutgers 90
Texas A&M 93
Nebraska 96
Big XII Average 96
Syracuse 98
Missouri 99
SEC AVERAGE (!) 103
Northwestern 74
Ohio State 78
Penn State 82
Indiana 84
Michigan State 88
Iowa 88
Purdue 89
Wisconsin 89
Illinois 93
Michigan 93
Minnesota 97
While there are a number of causes that could increase the number (some legitimate like a kid deciding to quit the sport or leave early for the draft), substantially greater than 85 means that students are either flunking out, academically ineligible to begin with and were signed anyway, or were strongly suggested to transfer. In the extreme, you have cases like Alabama’s current predicament where the school has to make 6 kids disappear before August to be under the limit.
LikeLike
http://oversigning.com.
Basically, their data shows what you would anticipate: that the SEC plays a different game than the rest of CFB. There is no solution for the overall problem (universities that generate the bulk of their support from major constituents based on their football record, not AAU membership, ARWU or USN&WR rankings, ACT Scores at the 75 percentile, or Per Student Endowment and act accordingly) but if the one-year renewable scholarship arrangement was tilted more in favor of the student athlete it might help.
LikeLike
you might find this interesting, rich2. these numbers come from the past five year’s classes reported at that site.
here are the conference averages and the ‘worst offender’ of each conference with its average and std dev over the past five years.
for each conference, the first number is the conference average class size for the five year period, followed by the std dev for the averages for the conference members. then the ‘worst offender’ school and its avg and std dev over the five years.
texas and nd averages and std dev’s are shown for reference.
SEC_25.80_2.56_Ole Miss_29_5.79
B12_24.63_1.96_Kansas State_27.8_6.98
BEast_23.83_1.13_USF_25.6_3.65
P10_23.04_2.15_Oregon State_25.4_7.80
ACC_22.33_2.14_Florida State_25.4_5.68
B10_21.89_1.79_Illinois_24_3.39
B12_22.2_2.28_Texas
Ind_22_4.18_Notre Dame
LikeLike
Very interesting… Could you share the link?
LikeLike
Frank: When you think about new markets, other than Texas, New York (which has no great single candidate school) and California (which is an unreasonable target), there is probably no other market that would be as valued as Florida.
While the U of Florida and FSU may not be reasonable candidates, Miami might be. And though small, it has a formidable football team and the academics don’t appear to be terrible.
Have you heard this as a potential candidate school by anyone with any knowledge of the situation? Or is Miami simply an idle musing, discussed only on this blog?
LikeLike
Something I just realized for why the Big10 shouldn’t take Miami…they’d be our version of the ACC’s Boston College.
A complete geographical outlier with (currently) marginal athletics whose sole purpose is exposure in a high population density area.
How well has that worked out for the ACC ?
I don’t know (I’m serious, I know they got that nice new contract, but other than that has it been good?)
LikeLike
Unless Miami goes somewhere with UF, UCF or USF, they´re going to be a geographic outlier no matter what conference they´re in – even in the ACC.
If BC hasn´t worked for the ACC, while Miami has, I think you have to look deeper than geography.
LikeLike
I’ve gone through the candidate schools and tried to assign numerical values to their worth (in BT eyes) in Academics, Market, and Sports (meaning mostly football). I’d typically weigh academics higher, but I weighted them equally because of the importance of the BTN–both markets and product on the screen.) I included all the reasonable candidates east of Colorado. This is the order I’ve come up with:
School, Academics, Market, Sports, Total
Texas 5,5,5=15
Florida 5,5,5=15 (however, quite unlikely)
UNC 5,4,4-13 (Unlikely to leave other NC schools)
TAMU 4,5,3=12 (Could have a point off for duplicating TX’ market)
Florida State 2,5,5=12 (but seemingly unlikely)
Maryland 4,4,3 = 11 (Gets the nod over Miami because of size.)
Miami 2,5,5 =12 -1 for its small size=11
Tennessee 3,3,5= 11 (Unlikely)
Notre Dame 4,5,5 =14 -3 = 11 Market higher than Indiana for great following; Subracted 3 for cultural fit and general anti-BT sentiment
Virginia 5,3,2 =10 (Gets the nod over Nebraska and Rutgers based on academics; population gets 3 as doesn’t fully pull DC)
Nebraska 2,3,5 =10 (Gets nod over others at 10 for better football)
Rutgers 4,4,2 =10 (NJ market still a 4)
Colorado 4,3,3 =10
Duke 5,2,3 =10 (Marked down because it doesn’t really pull the state; Sports is just basketball. Unlikely to come, but if Vanderbilt is on the table, why not?)
Syracuse 4,3,2 = 9
BC 4,3,2 =9
Pitt 4,1,3 =8
Missouri 2,3,3 =8
Georgia Tech 4,2,2 = 8
CT 3,3,2 = 8
Kansas 2,2,3 = 7
Vanderbilt 5,1,0 = 6
Iowa State 3,0,2 = 5
Removing the lowest-rated schools and the candidates most unlikely to be interested in joining and I get these as the candidates (in order of how I think the BT would value them):
15 Texas
12 A&M (Could be lower if considered a duplicate market)
11 Maryland
11 Miami (That market is just so appealing…)
11 Notre Dame
10 Virginia (Could be higher as BT may heavily favor academics)
10 Nebraska
10 Rutgers
10 Colorado
Of these, Rutgers and Nebraska seem the most willing to come.
LikeLike
As subjective as the list is (and I would question ranking Tennessee and Miami as same or better academics than Nebraska – which one of the three is an AAU member?), after you get past Texas, which seems to be the consensus favorite, frankly Nebraska and Rutgers appear the “best fits,” and as you note “seem the most willing to come.” I think you need to decrement Texas, A&M, and Miami for being geographic outliers, which is a problem often admitted by presidents, ADs, etc. when discussing non-revenue sport travel costs and time. Heaven forbid we give the behemoths Texas and Florida anything other than straight 5s, but the geographic issue seems to me the elephant in the room that everyone wants to pretend isn’t there.
LikeLike
You know I was interested in this line of thinking a ways back and tried to do some rough order magnitude cost estimation on what it costs to have a sports program at a university (from a traveling standpoint).
Sports like football have large numbers of players/coaches going across the country, but do so infrequently. Other sports like basketball have fewer numbers, but travel more.
I also tried to throw in an “average” for coaching costs.
While it was VERY rough numbers, I was surprised at how close the numbers came to ~$750k per sport fielded (and mind you I used $1000 per round trip ticket as my “average”…grossly high IMO). Again, this was for travel, sports equipment (helmets, pads, etc), and an average of coaches fees (football basically gets spread out across all the other athletics), but made no attempt to incorporate facilities costs. Even if you make it $1 million a year, its an interesting number.
But here’s the thing of interest…how much of that number is really going to change (especially since I guesstimated so high on the ticket costs)? Whether you spend a round trip ticket to go to Colorado or Newark, Texas will still be paying about the same. Will it change? Of course, but its not going to be to the point where its per athletic program budget is going to double or triple.
What’s more, lets just assume the athletic program is breaking even right now. If you can double your conference payout (as a move to the Big10 is looking to yield) shouldn’t the athletic program, even with increased costs, be profitable and perhaps even giving back to the university?
As others have mentioned in regard to BC, Hawaii, and other geographical outliers…geographical distance is an issue, but one I think gets overplayed.
LikeLike
I hear ya…and I think Frank made a similar argument when he posited Texas in the first place. But it’s interesting, people often talk about avoiding the issues that the ACC has with BC being an outlier, yet they’re perfectly ready to bring in Miami (or Texas) which would be a worse travel situation.
I remember a link previously in this thread to comments from the Texas or Texas A&M AD or prez (can’t remember exactly which) that commented about a women’s sports team getting back late overnight from a west coast trip. In my mind “cost” also equates to lost time and interference with studies.
Add Nebraska or Rutgers and either is close enough to do bus trips or short airplane flights to other Big Ten schools. Add Texas or Miami and neither is close to any Big Ten school. The question is whether Texas or Miami bring so much more to the table that the travel issues can be ignored.
LikeLike
True enough on that. And to be honest, that’s actually something I could see the Big10 presidents considering an issue come expansion.
LikeLike
Let’s talk about travel for a moment. It’s a good point.
If Iowa Or Minnesota or Wisconsin is playing Penn State, Indiana, or Michigan, how do the teams get there? Bus? Plane? If a plane, is it a chartered direct flight? Or commercial with transfers through O’Hare or wherever?
Does anyone know?
A lot of schools aren’t in cities in the most convenient of locations. FSU, for instance, a lot tougher than Miami, which is obviously a huge hub. Same for Maryland or Rutgers, Colorado and Boston College. These may not be close geographically, but unless you’re taking a charter direct, they’d be easier to get to than Charlottesville or South Bend.
LikeLike
Believe it or not, in terms of mileage, Chestnut Hill, Mass. is actually closer to College Park, Md., than Tallahassee is to Coral Gables. Culturally, however…
LikeLike
@djinn
I can’t speak for other schools, but for the University of Oklahoma, anything that is 3 hours or less is a bus ride. Any thing over is a plane.
However, in the Big 12 most schools are a bus ride anyway from a major airport like Lincoln, Manhattan, Lawrence, Lubbock, College Station
….so mostly buses.
LikeLike
@ Djinn Djinn
I would imagine in most cases you’re talking charter jets. Two air tragedies illustrate that. The Marshall football team plane that went down in the 70s was a large charter jet, as I recall. The Oklahoma State basketball team plane that went down just east of Denver after a game against Colorado was one of two small charter jets.
LikeLike
@Djinn Djinn,
For football anything over three hours most programs will fly, and for the vast vast majority this means chartering. As for your next question, since they are chartering flights are usually to the closest suitable airport. The only schools Nebraska buses to are Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State.
For non-revenue sports the situation is quite different. They will bus to more destinations, or fly commercial.
LikeLike
A while back I read an article that was talking about the last ACC expansion. It interviewed some BC officials who said the extra money from the ACC far outweighed the extra travel costs of leaving the Big East. The BC officials certainly seemed happy to be in their current conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think Miami’s academics are as bad as you indicate.
LikeLike
I know academics are very subjective. However, Nebraska, Miami and Tennessee are ball park close to each other on ARWU, and while each is certainly a good school, all would be at the bottom of the Big Ten if one goes by ARWU’s opinion. (And probably by the Big Ten’s own opinion. Of course, they’re biased.) Based on that, I think they should be given roughly equivalent ranks. Further, none would exactly be “like” a BT school either in terms of research focus, though Nebraska is AAU and Miami’s research numbers are going up.
LikeLike
The state of Virginia has a population of 7.8 million, while the Miami area has a population of 5.4 million.
Should Virginia’s market really be 2 notches below?
LikeLike
Not to be a homer (and I really do think the PAC 10 is a better fit), but if you’re going to give Texas a 5 for academics then Colorado should be one as well or Texas should be a 4. Colorado has a higher ARWU rating, and by all accounts the Big 10 is more interested in research then undergrad rankings. I dunno maybe you’re using some other criteria?
LikeLike
See my post below…
LikeLike
The Big Ten picking up any of the southern schools mentioned in Frank’s post (Maryland, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Texas or Texas A&M) would be a milestone in American history. It is no accident that two great college athletic conferences, the Big Ten and SEC, represent northern states and southern states respectively. Their border still follows a rough approximation of the border between North and South at the beginning of the Civil War. I would hope that higher level educational institutions would eventually be capable of bridging this gap and help to bring us together as a nation (even though a lot of our federal political structure is historically designed in a way to make this difficult). It would be nice to see Big Ten expansion serve a higher purpose than just an increase of network profits and school payouts.
LikeLike
Which is why I suspect the University of Toronto and McGill aren’t being considered. They represent the border for the War of 1812–something we, as a nation, are still living with each and every day.
😉
LikeLike
54 40 or fight!
LikeLike
@djinndjinn, Canada needs to be separate so that undersized but talented college QBs who can think on their feet like Doug Flutie, Warren Moon and Todd Reesing have a league to go to when the geniuses running the NFL cannot figure out what to do with them…
http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/896
LikeLike
Ron its about academics. Why else would you invite ND & PSU? Why is UC still in the CIC & why is NW still in there if they are small & private? Did you or your kids go to the best school they could get into or just go to another far away school to make the world a better place? These institutions are providing a service to educate not politicize. Do North & South companies merge because it is the right thing to do or because of some strategic fit? Each University is a multi-billion dollar business so we can’t expect them to act any different than well a business.
LikeLike
SDB10, education throws a little wider net than just a business. Otherwise, Notre Dame to the Big Ten would be a done deal, there’s just too much money on the table for both sides to pass it up. Politics, particularly for the sort of big state-subsidized instutions that mostly dominate the Big Ten, is a pretty big part of the equation and it is really hard to just split it out of decisions in the real world. As an example, Vanderbilt to the Big Ten looks pretty ridiculous on a number of levels unless you look at it as a way for the conference to gain a foothold in a new region of the country. Yes, there does need to be a “strategic fit” as you put it, but I would suggest that it would not hurt at all for the Big Ten to invite one or more southern schools that share core values. (Vanderbilt may be an example of what they’d call a “loss leader” in retailing though, so am not sure that’s the place to start. Which may actually play to your argument.)
LikeLike
Mizzou, Nebraska, and one East Coast team will be the chosen teams. UT and the Irish will stay put.
LikeLike
OFF TOPIC: I am co-commissioner of a fantasy baseball league that has existed for several years with mostly the same owners. This is a HIGHLY ACTIVE league with HIGHLY ANNOYING and EASILY HATED co-owners. Few of us know each other in real life.
We have a need for an owner to take over a disastrously performing team owner that has departed.
If you like baseball… monitor lineups on a multiple-times-per-day basis… enjoy competition… and are willing to take over a disastrous team paid for the rest of the year… please send me an email @ ezdozen@yahoo.com.
LikeLike
Mission accomplished.
LikeLike
I get all of the reasons why this won’t happen; but fun to think about. If you want to create a power football conference, merge the big 10 with the top 4 teams in the big 12 and add in ND. 6 of the top 8 most prestigious programs of all-time (according to espn’s recent ranking) would be in one conference … and 7 of the top 11. The content on the network would be so good they might actually land the BTN here in NYC w/o the local teams.
Big 16 West:
————
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Big 16 East:
————
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Northwestern
LikeLike
Even if it was Rutgers (or Vanderbilt) instead of Oklahoma this would be good. Flip Northwestern to the west if it’s Rutgers and you are good to go.
LikeLike
And while it sounds “fun” to imagine even OU in the Big 10, the truth is that the Big 10 already isn’t that far behind the SEC for great football historical football programs. The SEC is certainly “up” right now, but before 2006, the Big 10 was every bit the SEC’s equal for half a decade.
Now, if you talk about adding Texas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame (no matter who the other two are), you’re adding HUGE teams to your conference. We don’t have to thump our chests about who would be better…but I can guarantee that the SEC superiority mantra would dissipate immediately.
My best guess today is below (with pod separations)
Big 16 West
Texas
Texas A/M
Nebraska
Illinois
NW
Iowa
Minny
Wiscy
Big 16 East
MSU
UM
ND
Purdue
OSU
PSU
Rutgers/Vanderbilt
Indiana
LikeLike
Sucks to be Illinois.
LikeLike
I had forgot about something that could be a deal-breaker. Hopefully Texas will insert a clause that Pam Ward will not call ANY TX games…
And if Hoggy Rowe roams the sidelines, the great Ron Franklin has to call the game.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – I want that clause even if the Big Ten doesn’t expand.
LikeLike
I’m still intrigued by Texas and ND to an ACC16 instead of TX to a P16. First off, the P16 won’t get ND, too far of a geo outlier. But the ACC has a shot, for reasons I lain out earlier.
ACC travel is no worse for TX on average than a B16, and better than a P16. None of the time zone issues.
Say for politics or travel reasons TX and aTm bring a 3rd TX schools. The biggest population footprint possible for a P16 is 93 million. For the ACC16 it would be at minimum 87 million. Getting ND surely would more than make up for that, and substituting a BEast team for ND narrows or eliminates it, too. If TX and aTm don’t bring a 3rd Texas school, the ACC is very likely to come out ahead in population.
The perception is that the P10 is a better football conference than the ACC, but is it really? Let’s compare a P16 to an ACC16, minus the Texas schools:
P16…..ACC16
Superstars:
USC
—————
Stars, usually Top 25:
OR ….FSU
Utah…ND
…….VT
…….Mia
—————
Good, often Top 25:
UCLA…GT
…….Clem
—————
Decent, sometimes Top 25:
ORSt…BC
ASU….NC
Cal….NCSt
Stan…Wake
AZ…..VA (or CT)
WA
MO(KS)
CO
—————
Relative doormats:
WSU….MD (or Syr)
…….Duke
I’d call that either a wash or advantage ACC. The perception is probably because of the ACC’s lack of a superstar. However, ND, FSU, and Mia all have potential to reach that level, and TX would bring it.
Add TX, aTm, and perhaps TT and the ACC is not far behind the SEC, fighting the B16 for second. Consider their stellar basketball and baseball, and it might be the best overall sports conference.
LikeLike
I think you underestimate Oregon State. Behind USC, they’re probably the best Pac-10 team over the last four years.
LikeLike
Maryland “relative doormats” in football? During the Friedgen era, the Terps have more often than not been to bowl games, have won an ACC title (2001) and have periodically beaten FSU and Miami. Yes, the 2009 season was a disaster, but also an aberration.
LikeLike
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that the Big Ten presidents back (and get agreements from) four of the five colleges mentioned in this entry as potential members — Texas and Texas A&M for the Lone Star state, Maryland and Virginia for the Washington, D.C. region. However, they decide they’re not interested in Vanderbilt as member #16. Who gets it instead?
I would think the two prime candidates would Nebraska and Rutgers. Nebraska is certainly more of a “brand name,” particularly in football, has a solid all-around athletic program, and has decent (if not stellar) and improving academics and research. But I sense Rutgers would get the nod in this hypothetical situation for three reasons:
1. It’s perceived as a better quality institution than Nebraska.
2. It gives you a populous state in New Jersey and perhaps New York City as well if things turn out well.
3. It comes from a third conference, the Big East, thus preventing the Big Ten from being viewed as seriously damaging one conference (as would happen if three Big 12 members left).
So if only Rutgers or Nebraska is chosen to complete this particular 16, who’s your selection?
LikeLike
Can’t wait to watch the first Maryland-Virginia-Rutgers BT games. We’ll all be on the edge of our seats waiting for the kickoff. Sure to be sellouts. 🙂
LikeLike
Joke is, with all the Big10 alumni already in the area to help fill the stadiums, they probably will be.
LikeLike
If they get the markets of Maryland, DC, Virginia, and Texas, they can really add anyone and have it be a great financial success. If the options are Rutgers and Nebraska, I’d probably lean towards Rutgers, but would be happy with Nebraska, or a wild card like Vandy, Georgia Tech, etc.
LikeLike
Okay, based on the issues raised about academics of schools and population, proximity, etc, I’ve tried to put a little more thought behind my rankings.
I thought I would rank the following criteria:
Academics (worth 20 points) I gave 10 points for ARWU and 10 points for USNews. For each ranking system, a top 10 rank is worth 10, top 25 is worth 9, top 50 is worth 8, top 75 is worth 7, top 100 is worth 6 etc. Each system is worth 10 points, so a top 10 score on each would be worth 20 points. FWIW, the University of Chicago would be worth those 20 points. Only Duke comes close with 19.)
Research levels (worth 10. This is a value to the Big Ten as a new CIC member. This is taken from NSF rank, not dollar figures per se. If you’re top 10 it’s worth 10 points, top 25 is worth 9, top 50 is worth 8, top 75 is worth 7, top 100 is worth 6, etc.)
AAU membership (Worth 5. I thought real-life research should be worth more than AAU membership.)
Market (worth 20–this is a bit subjective–I’m trying to award points on state / city / area population, subtract some for competing schools, add more for a “national” following, such as Notre Dame and Nebraska. From a TV perspective to the BTN, this may be worth the same as academics.)
Quality of sports (Worth 20 Football is emphasized. This, too, is subjective.)
Cultural fit (Worth 5. Obviously somewhat subjective. Personally, I think quality universities have a more similar culture than the surrounding areas may have, so its worth only 5 points.)
Geography and Access (Worth 10. Keep in mind, I’ve tried to account for both geography and accessibility. So Atlanta may be far away from the Big Ten, but its easy to access with the airport. One flight no bus, and you’re at Georgia Tech. Virginia may be closer, but Charlottesville not so easily accessed. Notre Dame is close, too, but South Bend is not exactly a big hub.)
University size (Worth 10. More students means more alumni and more viewership. I took the student population, doubled it, then divided by 1,000. So if a school has 25,000 students, I doubled it to 50,000, divided by 1,000 = 5.0. Texas, TAMU, Florida, with 50,000 students would get a 10.0)
Here is the list: Numbers are, from left to right:
Academx, Resrch, AAU, Mrkt, Sprts, Cltre, G/Ax, Size Total
Florida 17, 9, 5, 19, 20, 3, 4, 10 = 87
Texas 16, 8, 5, 20, 20, 3, 5, 10 = 87
TAMU 16, 9, 5, 18, 10, 2, 4, 10 = 74
Nebraska 11, 7, 4, 13, 18, 5, 7, 4.6 = 70.6
Maryland 16, 8, 5, 10, 10, 4, 9, 5.6 = 67.6
Rutgers 16, 7, 5, 15, 5, 4, 8, 7.4 = 67.4
FSU 13, 6, 0, 17, 15, 2, 4, 7.8 = 64.8
UNC 17, 8, 5, 10, 12, 3, 4, 5.6 = 64.6
Miami 15, 6, 0, 15, 12, 4, 7, 3.1 = 62.1
Pitt 16, 9, 5, 4, 7, 5, 9, 5.5 = 58.5
Duke 19, 10,5, 5, 8, 4, 4, 2.7 = 57.7
Colorado 15, 9, 5, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6.0 = 57.0
Grgia Tch 16, 8, 5, 5, 4, 4, 7, 4.0 = 53.0
TN 12, 7, 0, 10, 11, 2, 5, 5.4 = 52.6
Virginia 16, 7, 5, 7, 6, 3, 5, 5.4 = 51.7
Missouri 11, 6, 5, 6, 5, 5, 7, 6.2 = 51.2
Kansas 12, 6, 5, 5, 8, 4, 5, 5.8 = 50.8
UConn 14, 6, 0, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4.1 = 46.1
Syracuse 12, 2, 5, 7, 6, 6, 7, 3.9 = 44.9
Iowa State 14, 6, 5, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5.6 = 43.6
Vanderbilt 17, 8, 5, 2, 1, 2, 6, 2.7 = 43.5
BC 13, 2, 0, 7, 5, 3, 7, 2.8 = 39.8
By this measure, based on somewhat superior academics, Florida would be worth more than Texas. So I think they’d be worth talking to, even though it’s doubtful they’d entertain the idea of joining the Big Ten.
After all is said and done, Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers would be my best guesses. If one of these said no, FSU would probably say no, too, as would UNC. So Miami may be a next guess.
BTW, Miami did score better academically than I guessed in my earlier estimate. As did Colorado.
If you all have any suggestions about weight put on these criteria or different values to the more subjective criteria, let me know. If something’s way off, I may have transcribed incorrectly, so let me know.
LikeLike
I see you’ve given Texas A&M a “2” in “cultural fit”.
I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’ve never heard of squeezing ’em or jizz jars or scoreboards for dead dogs or about a thousand other fun things Aggies do…
LikeLike
The entire state has some intereseting practices:
LikeLike
i’m certainly no texas tech fan, but that man was simply ringing that bell. if we take it some other way, shame on us, not him, his school, or his state.
LikeLike
badb ob, maybe that you never heard of Silver Taps, for when an Aggie dies, or Aggie Muster, a gathering of Aggies no matter the land or the country oa ew of the goof things that Aggies do for each other just because they Aggies. Seems that you are paying way too much attention to the rumors started by our little brother to the West. Whoops, you one of those orangebloods. As usual, we have to consider the source.
LikeLike
Now a word on academics. If you’re interested in simply seeing how schools stack up in academics, here is the list just for this. Again, ARWU and USNews ranks were used.
10 points for a top 10 showing
9 for a top 25
8 for a top 50
7 for a top 75
6 for a top 100, etc.
First column is ARWU, second is for USNews. Third is total.
This method is a little less arbitrary. For instance, are schools ranked #27 and #42 really that different? Or maybe its better to say schools in the top ten are most similar, schools in the top 25 are similar to each other, schools from 26-50 are similar to each other.
By doing it this way the ARWU ranks and USNews ranks look much more similar, and there should be fewer complaints about exactly what number your school has. So if you feel Missouri is really that much better or worse than Kansas or Nebraska, this may be a less subjective way to assess it. Two different sources with each school placed into a group by each source. If you feel that Big Ten schools are over-rated or sliding, or that Pitt is better or worse than Miami, well, use these numbers to see how they rank, at least by people looking at such things.
For those interested in adding in research levels (either because you feel it’s an important part of a university, or simply because you think that’s how the BT presidents will be looking at new prospects with this criterion in mind, I’ve included them too. The fourth column is research rank (NSF figures). Again, a top 10 rank is worth 10, top 25 is worth 9, top 50 is worth 8, etc. The last column is the total, ARWU, USNews, and Research combined. A perfect score would be 30. I’ve included Big Ten teams, as well, for a comparison. Schools are ranked first by academics, then by research. So schools should be in order by the third column (combined academic rank) but not necessarily in the 5th column (combined academics and research.)
U of Chicago 10 10 20 8 28
Duke 9 10 19 10 29
Wisconsin 9 8 17 10 27
Michigan 9 8 17 10 27
Minnesota 9 8 17 9 26
Florida 8 9 17 9 26
Illinois 9 8 17 8 25
Northwestern 8 9 17 8 25
UNC 8 9 17 8 25
Vanderbilt 8 9 17 8 25
Ohio State 8 8 16 10 26
Penn State 8 8 16 8 24
Michigan State 8 8 16 8 24
Purdue 8 8 16 8 24
Pitt 8 8 16 9 25
TAMU 8 8 16 9 25
Maryland 8 8 16 8 24
Texas 8 8 16 8 24
Georgia Tech 7 9 16 8 24
Rutgers 8 8 16 7 23
Virginia 7 9 16 7 23
Indiana 7 8 15 8 23
Iowa 7 8 15 7 22
Colorado 8 7 15 9 24
Miami 7 8 15 6 21
Iowa State 7 7 14 6 20
UConn 6 8 14 6 20
Notre Dame 5 9 14 4 18
Florida State 7 6 13 6 19
Boston College 4 9 13 2 15
Kansas 5 7 12 6 18
Syracuse 4 8 12 2 14
Tennessee 6 6 12 7 19
Nebraska 5 6 11 7 18
Missouri 5 6 11 6 17
LikeLike
The columns don’t come out as pretty as they did when I entered the numbers. But hopefully you can still make out the information.
LikeLike
Not disparaging your effort here. But I just don’t see University Presidents deferring to any outside source(s) to make determinations regarding the academic institutions. They know schools well enough to not have to rely on objective data to justify their subjective determinations. This is what they do.
LikeLike
In other words… I think the academic side of the equation will be “gut feeling.”
LikeLike
@ezdozen
I agree regarding the “gut feeling.” However, these rankings – many of which are based on subjective responses by academics – may be good ballpark proxies for the opinions of university presidents. No one can say for certain what those presidents think about a particular school. The personal connections made through AAU meetings may be enough to carry a Nebraska or Missouri. However, I don’t think these rankings are too far off.
LikeLike
The university presidents would likely know a great deal about the academic institutions. I doubt they’d use a table like this to decide much. However, a lot of us may not know everything there is to know about a school. For example, I’m certainly not very knowledgeable about Miami or A&M–schools that could be reasonably high on a BT expansion candidate list. So this is just a way to put schools into some sort of context.
LikeLike
I agree. For example, a UT administrator was talking about peer institutions and rattled off about 15 names. It included most of the b10 and a number of UC schools (UCLA, UCSD, Berkeley and probably a couple of others). UVA and UNC were also mentioned. If you could get 10 administrators in a room and group state schools (private are harder to compare) in tiers of 25, you would probably get pretty consistent groups for the top 3 tiers, especially if those 10 were all from the same region.
LikeLike
I added in the QS academic rankings to the academic synopsis. This offers a 3rd source. So we now have the ARWU done in China, USNews done in the US and the Times done in London.
The fourth column is the academic rank total; the sixth column adds in research.
Listing order: ARWU, USN, QS, Total, Research rank, Combined
U of Chicago 10…10…10….30…8….38
Duke 9…10…10….29…10….39
Wisconsin 9…8..9….26…10….36
Michigan 9…8…9….26…10…36
Illinois 9…8…9….26…8….34
Northwestern 8…9…9…26…8….34
Minnesota 9…8…8….24…9….34
UNC 8…9…8….25…8…33
Vanderbilt 8…9…8….25…9…33
Texas 8…8…9….25…8….33
Ohio State 8…8…8….24…10….34
Penn State 8…8…8…24…9….33
Pitt 8…8…8…24…9…33
TAMU 8…8…8….24…9….33
Florida 8…9…7….24…9…33
Purdue 8…8…8….24…8….32
Maryland 8…8…8….24…8….32
Georgia Tech 7…9…8….24…8….32
Rutgers 8…8…8…24…7….31
Virginia 7…9…8….24…7….31
Michigan State 8..8…7….23…8….31
Colorado 8…7…7….22…9….31
Indiana 7…8…7….22…8….30
Iowa 7…8…7….22…7….29
Miami 7…8…7….21…6….28
Iowa State 7…7…7….21…6….27
UConn 6…8…7….21…6….27
Notre Dame 5…9…7….21…4….25
FSU 7…6…6…19…6…25
Tennessee 6…6…6….18…7….25
Kansas 5…6…6….16…6….23
Nebraska 5…6…5….16…7….23
Missouri 5…6…5….16…6….22
Boston College 4…9…3…16…2….18
Syracuse 4…8…4….16…2….18
LikeLike
I took a look at the U.S. National Research Council doctoral program rankings from 1995 (the latest version is not yet published). These appear to be well-regarded academic assessments. The currently available information is dated, but the general strength of schools changes slowly. Certain PhD programs may rise or fall due to gains or losses of key faculty members. However, an across the board ball-park assessment of a school’s graduate program should not change too much.
The NRC report ranked graduate programs in 41 separate fields – from Art History to Linguistics to Cell Biology to Industrial Engineering to Economics to Physics to Oceanography and so on. For every school listed below, I counted the number of times they finished in the Top 10, 30, or 50 in a field of study.
# Top 10 Rankings
17 – Chicago
14 – Michigan, Wisconsin
10 – Illinois
8 – Duke
7 – Texas
6 – Northwestern
5 – Purdue, Minnesota, Virginia
3 – Penn State, North Carolina
2 – Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Vandy
1 – Florida State, Pitt, Texas A&M, Maryland, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
0 – Iowa, Michigan State, Indiana, Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri, Notre Dame, UConn
# Top 30 Rankings
36 – Michigan
34 – Wisconsin
32 – Texas
30 – Illinois
29 – Chicago
27 – Minnesota
26 – Northwestern
23 – North Carolina, Duke
22 – Ohio State
19 – Virginia, Indiana
18 – Rutgers
17 – Penn State
13 – Iowa
12 – Maryland, Purdue
9 – Vandy
8 – Pitt
7 – Texas A&M
6 – Virginia Tech
5 – Georgia Tech
4 – Notre Dame
3 – Michigan State, Florida State, Syracuse
1 – Missouri, Nebraska, UConn
# Top 50 Rankings
38 – Michigan, Wisconsin
37 – Texas, Illinois
36 – Minnesota
32 – Ohio State
31 – North Carolina, Duke
30 – Chicago, Northwestern
29 – Rutgers, Virginia
28 – Penn State
26 – Indiana, Pitt
25 – Michigan State
23 – Iowa, Maryland
18 – Purdue
16 – Vanderbilt
15 – Texas A&M
10 – Notre Dame
9 – Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
8 – UConn, Syracuse
5 – Florida State
2 – Nebraska
1 – Missouri
Texas – cut from the Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota mold. a high priority from both the athletic and academic sides.
Texas A&M – solid engineering school (narrow focus limits the number of areas in which it can excel).
Virginia, UNC, Duke – all fantastic schools.
Rutgers – just a tick below Penn State when they were admitted to the Big Ten.
Vanderbilt – a good school, but a small school. graduate programs not quite up to Northwestern, Chicago, and Duke standards. Big Ten worthy, but is it enough to make up for lesser institutions?…
Nebraska, Missouri – would they even be considered without the AAU inclusion from 100 years ago?
Notre Dame – science and engineering programs lag behind, but it did have highly ranked religion and philosophy programs.
I’m starting to think that Delany did present a Neb/Mizz/Rut/ND expansion plan to the Big Ten presidents at their meeting, but the presidents told him he would be lucky if one of Neb/Mizz got in. The “southern/academic strategy” is a result of the presidents’ redirect.
LikeLike
jw, this is not what people here want to read.
LikeLike
“I’m starting to think that Delany did present a Neb/Mizz/Rut/ND expansion plan to the Big Ten presidents at their meeting”
What meeting was this? The recent meeting was on the athletic side, no? The presidents meet the week of June 6, don’t they?
The presidents may not have a great deal of choice. Texas is undoubtedly a “high priority” but evidently there is difficulty getting a “deal” done or it would have been done by now. The ACC schools are fine but the question is whether they want to leave the ACC or not.
Nebraska and Mizzou may be “legacy” but they are still AAU until stated otherwise. The Catch-22 here is that if AAU schools are bypassed in favor of non-AAU schools because the AAU schools don’t measure up, what does that say about AAU membership in the first place?
I had surmised some time back that the presidents might nix an expansion. If any of the above postulation is true, that the presidents consider the existing options “not good enough” academically, non-expansion appears to be likely.
LikeLike
Television oversaturation with mediocre to downright deficient product. Good plan.
I doubt these thoughts are being considered in either academic or athletic isolation. A middle ground will be found that makes more money for the Big Ten, with enough academic respectability to keep (almost) everyone happy. It won’t swing to either extreme, or the idea would never have been made public in the first place.
LikeLike
a good design is always a compromise fitting the available options as neatly as possible to the various needs in an appropriate manner with respect to the level of importance assigned to the various needs. if we knew the weighting of the various needs in this exercise, we could make some reasonable guesses how this might shake out, but we are and should be reduced right now to guessing those weightings based on past history and whatever dropped breadcrumb trail of hints the insiders are willing to leave for us.
there is so little to go on at this point that we are essentially guessing. that’s ok as long as we realize that.
‘It won’t swing to either extreme, or the idea would never have been made public in the first place.’ i don’t see why there should be a connection there. why would making the idea public prevent a heavy weighting one direction or other in any given measure?
LikeLike
@glenn
Because if it’s only an academic strength decision, it doesn’t bring enough TV eyeballs to make it worthwhile, unless of course Texas is in and that’s where they stop. There’s been no indication (and yes, I realize you don’t put any weight into the tea leaves that are available) that this is the plan, or workable if it was the plan. If the presidents put too much weight into the academic side of things, you’re going to be splitting the same size pie into more pieces with the BTN. Seriously, Vanderbilt as some sort opening salvo at the sun belt market? On what planet is that going to work? They have SEC football to watch, the loss of a tomato can to the Big Ten isn’t going to move that dial towards the Big Ten the slightest fraction.
So, if Delany didn’t come to some sort of understanding with the academic types about the results of the expansion idea enabling the Big Ten to actually make more money with their network by providing an improved television product, then he runs the risk of having to say “whoops, never mind” down the road. I doubt he is that dumb, so that’s why I make the assumption.
LikeLike
here again, eapg, you are looking at this strictly from the viewpoint of the athletic department. the presidents are going to have the entire well-being of the conference and of the schools in mind in any decision they make.
for whatever reasons, vanderbilt has been in the discussion previously. i think we have to assume that something beneficial from adding vandy is there. let’s say just for argument that the right mix of additional schools is expected to supercharge the huge amounts of money coming in from research. amounts that might dwarf tv money from the btn. presidents would be nuts to ignore that.
my premise all along has been that texas wants a much better academic/research milieu, and adding the schools mentioned in whatever hint/rumor that generated frank’s recent article may well be the sort of change that would tip the scales in favor of getting texas.
we don’t know. and until we know we have no business questioning vandy in that group.
and i still say this search being made public gives no hint whatever how the conference is likely to proceed.
LikeLike
Sure, Vandy would be a great get from the academic viewpoint. Rinse and repeat several times and you’ve massively diluted the appeal of the BTN, which, by many estimates, maybe not yours, is part of what’s driving expansion. And no, I’m not looking at it only from the athletic POV. As I said, some middle ground is likely, because a) too focused on athletic brand and you’ve possibly pissed off the presidents, and b) without academic/athletic heavyweights, and only academic biggies, your TV people are going to tell the presidents that they really shouldn’t bother cutting into the take home pay of the current members.
It’s no disrespect to Vandy, it’s a bow to reality. Vandy gaining you any traction in the sun belt is like saying the SEC could gain fans in the rust belt by recruiting Northwestern. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
LikeLike
@84lion
I can’t keep these various meetings straight in my head.
LikeLike
Let’s keep Nebraska and Missouri’s research in perspective.
Nebraska did $350 million worth of research last year, to rank #52 in the US. That’s basically at the level of the University of Chicago and Michigan State, both at $357 million, and ahead of Rutgers’ research at $323 million and Iowa’s at $293 million.
As for Missouri, they’re #77 in research, $244 million last year, just ahead of Miami, UConn, and Kansas. That’s more than Carnegie Mellon or Princeton.
Neither school puts up Wisconsin or Michigan-type numbers, but I’d still classify both schools as good research universities on a national level.
The AAU school that has really lagged is Syracuse, which put up $38.5 million last year, #188 in the US.
LikeLike
Jokewood, do you have a link?
Here’s a link that ranks “faculty scholarly Productivity”. Basically it looks at institutional rankings of 375 universities offering the PhD. You can look up any field to see the top ten lists by department, or you can search for each school. It won’t be used to choose a school, but it’s interesting to look at your field of endeavour or a particular school.
http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&institution=3467&byinst=Go
LikeLike
djinn
the full NRC report costs $80. however, a Texas A&M prof posted the rankings on his website.
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html
LikeLike
jokewood, best I can tell, this report was from 1995. Would be interesting to see what the 2009 rankings would be.
LikeLike
I think this department ranking is what the Presidents would think in discussing academic value. Its consistent the with administrators list I mentioned above. As UT peers, he included MN, WI, MI, IL, PSU, UNC, UVA, UCLA, UCSD, UC Berkeley and about 5 other schools which I believe were all UC or B10 schools (out of IU, PU, OSU).
LikeLike
I just want to say thanks to you guys for finding all these different numbers that attempt to rank academics. It’s all interesting.
LikeLike
I added the QS ranks to the total evaluation table. This shuffles the order slightly. Also, this means the best possible score would now add up to 110 with academic rankings making up 30 possible points. I also noticed that I left Notre Dame off the first list, so its now been added.
So here are the final scores:
Texas 96
Florida 94
TAMU 82
Nebraska 75.6
Maryland 75.6
Rutgers 75.4
UNC 72.6
FSU 70.8
Miami 69.1
Duke 67.7
Pitt 66.5
Notre Dame 64.3
Colorado 64.0
Georgia Tech 61.0
Virginia 59.7
TN 58.6
Missouri 56.2
Kansas 55.8
UConn 53.1
Vanderbilt 51.5
Iowa State 50.6
Syracuse 48.9
Boston College 42.8
LikeLike
While we’re discussing conference fit, I thought I would lay out my understanding of why the SWC failed and see what those with more direct knowledge think of it.
To me, these seem to be the key causes:
-Arkansas leaving
-Rampant egregious and spectacular cheating
-Low population per school
-Schools with small undergraduate populations
-Attendance failings
-Professional sports teams entered region
-Television revenue becomes a major factor
In order: first, professional football teams in Dallas and Houston arrive in 1960 and begin to suck up fans and discretionary spending. This wouldn’t have been such a problem if the schools were not so small and thus so dependent on non-affiliated fans. As an example, Rice currently has 750 undergrads per year and a 70000 seat stadium. In other words, it is entirely possible that all Rice alumni living or dead could fit into their stadium. Once the Oilers showed up, Rice increasing could not compete for attendance. Similar situations threatened TCU, SMU, Baylor, and to a lesser extent UHouston. (Texas Tech was and is located in a location so remote that no sensible professional would be caught within 500 miles). Outside of the big 2, the average undergraduate enrollment was only 14000. By comparison, the Big Ten averages 30000. While all schools try to draw from non-alumni, they are always the most dedicated and least likely to switch allegiances to the local professional team.
This situation led to desperation and almost unbelievable in scale cheating by the smaller schools. (The larger ones also cheated, presumably to fit in.) The stories are hilarious: checks from a booster made out to “Student-athlete”, porn spliced into game video on official visits, slush funds galore. Every school in the conference except Baylor and Rice were caught by the NCAA for major violations (and not the “extra hour of practice every other week” kind, more the “bidding on recruits” kind). The cheating hurt the conference in several ways: first, NCAA sanctions banned programs from television which hurt the value of the contracts. They also banned schools from bowl games which hurt the quality of bowl tie-ins and effectively killed the Cotton Bowl as a major bowl game. The removal of scholarships also stung and furthered damaged the overall level of play. Most famously, SMU’s “death penalty” (for continuing to pay athletes from a booster supported fund after being sanction for the discovery of that fund) colored the reputation of the entire league. At a secondary level, the cheating also hurt any sort of conference camaraderie. The 80s were the period when university presidents decided to retake control of athletic departments, leading to a relatively strong NCAA regulation and punishment.
Another underlying was the relative population of the SWC compared to other major conferences. By the 1990 census:
Big East 63 million
Big Ten 61
Pac-10 41
SEC 39
ACC 36
SWC 19
Big Eight 16
As documented many times on this blog, low population hurts in several ways. Most directly, it hurts the number of households a television deal can reach locally, leading to low payouts to schools. After the breakup of the CFA, a collective of most of the major college football teams, conferences began to negotiate their own deals. The SWC couldn’t get anything close to what the Big Ten and SEC were receiving.
The departure of Arkansas was much more the first jumping off the sinking ship than a cause. In terms of population, in the 1990 census Texas had 17 million residents and Arkansas had 2.3 million. More directly, the conference went from 2.17 million people per team to 2.12.
LikeLike
my impression was that arkansas leaving wasn’t a factor in the conference failing as much as the conference failing was a factor in arkansas leaving. certainly the timing of the collapse was affected by the arkies bailing, but the swc was clearly augering in regardless of what arkansas did.
there was no cohesive force whatever in that conference by the end. its demise, when it came, was overdue.
LikeLike
#1 pro sports. TCU and Rice were powers in the 50s. SMU in the 40s. A&M played their home game w/Rice in Rice Stadium for 10 straight years as they drew so much better in Houston. The Cowboys and Oilers killed those 3 programs. In the 60s, instead of tough rivals, UT started 26 and 28 year winning streaks against TCU and Rice.
#2 TV. Despite what B12 North fans may say, the population figures you show clearly indicate that the SWC 4 and B8 saved each other.
#3 Cheating. SMU, TCU and A&M got caught in major pay for play scandals. Baylor didn’t so much cheat as regularly sign players who had only a remote chance of academically qualifying (see over-signing comments above).
Everything else was driven by those 3 factors, which led to
#4 Recruiting. Top talent headed out of state leading to declining competitiveness.
To some extent Title IX was also a factor. UT and A&M gave the other schools ultimatums in the late 80s on getting serious about women’s sports and the rest of the schools didn’t step up to the plate. To tie into this B10 expansion thread, that was a case of a lack of cultural cohesion.
Interestingly enough, the B12 South looks remarkable similar to the SWC in 1914: UT, A&M, Baylor, OU, Ok. St. and Arkansas.
And for anyone thinking UT will ever join the SEC, see #3 above. Been there, done that.
LikeLike
What I have repeatedly read is that every school except Rice and Arkansas were on probation, not necessarily “major” violations as the NCAA defines it. I am pretty certain UT did not get charged with a “major” violation during that period. TCU, SMU and A&M definitely had “major” violations and were banned from bowl games (SMU even more). The SMU death penalty hurt all the schools-not just SMU and sped the end. That’s why the death penalty will probably never be enacted again.
LikeLike
Texas got a year probation, scholarship reductions and limits on recruiting visits in 88-89. You can search major infractions from the search drop down menu here:
https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Reading the details of the 1987 report, it’s nickel and dime stuff compared to an SMU, but it still added up to a major infraction and probation.
LikeLike
i love sentences like ‘The larger ones also cheated, presumably to fit in.’ it tells me it’s ok to quit reading.
LikeLike
I calculated the % change in federal research funding, by state, over 10 years (1998 to 2008) using the NSF R&D data:
156% Tennessee
143% North Carolina
142% Florida
139% Ohio
135% Nebraska
122% Missouri
120% Georgia
120% Texas
118% Virginia
109% Wisconsin
106% New York
105% Indiana
104% Pennsylvania
102% Iowa
101% New Jersey
100% Illinois
94% Michigan
92% Connecticut
81% Minnesota
In 1998, Michigan universities received $472 M in federal research dollars, while North Carolina universities received $486 M. In 2008, Michigan universities received $917 M in federal research dollars, while North Carolina ballooned to $1.183 B.
LikeLike
Berry Tramel: Breaking up Big 12 hard, but necessary
http://www.newsok.com/berry-tramel-breaking-up-big-12-hard-but-necessary/article/3464642?custom_click=pod_headline_osu-sports#ixzz0pQVMht3K
Oklahoma sports writer. Not so much his proposal, but the start of recognition in Soonerland that TX may be heading for the door.
LikeLike
tramel is probably the most open-minded reporter is that area.
LikeLike
The only schools that are circling the wagons right now are Oklahoma and Kansas which are speaking in solidarity terms about the Big 12. Kansas has to because it’s unlikely that it finds another BCS conference, whereas Oklahoma may prefer the guarantee of a secured situation in the Big 12 with Texas versus an SEC that may or may not take Oklahoma if it can get 3 schools in Texas and another in the East…
Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Colorado have given every indication that they are most likely to pursue what’s in their best interest, whether that’s the Big 12 or something else if the Big 12 is raided.
KState/Iowa State/Baylor/TTech/OSU have no ability to be proactive in this conversation. TTech has an outside shot at the SEC if it’s grouped with Texas or A&M and OSU’s best shot would be to be grouped with Oklahoma in the SEC. Those 5 schools though in general are at the whim of whatever happens.
LikeLike
Oh and one other thing, it’s incredibly hard for the schools to be proactive.
Realistically, his tiers are a bit off. It’s more like Texas/A&M and then everyone else.
Texas and A&M can legitimately get an invite from any conference. They have the academic heft and the fanbases/TV markets to pull it off. I know some posters here don’t think A&M is a good cultural fit for the Big Ten, but A&M has every single box checked off that the Big Ten requires in an expansion candidate.
After those two, it gets a bit more convoluted.
Realistically, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado would be next because they each have a conference that would seem to be interested in adding their brands/markets.
And then you have Missouri alone which has a decent shot at a Big Ten invite.
Finally, the other 6 don’t really have options. Kansas has a great basketball brand, but where is it going to go? It’s not really on the SEC’s or Pac-10’s radar. The other 5 don’t really have options other than the possible tag-along additions of TTech and OSU to the SEC if Texas/Oklahoma go.
So, I’d revise his tiers based on the above:
1) Texas, A&M
2) Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado (1 possibly strongly interested conference)
3) Missouri, Kansas, TTech, OSU (possible outside shots at 1 conference, but most likely to stay in Big 12)
4) Baylor, Iowa State, KState (stay in Big 12)
That means that only 5 schools can “easily” get out, and I say that loosely because Colorado doesn’t have a partner to go to the Pac-10 (Utah may not be good enough), Nebraska may not end up getting an invite if the expansion scenario in this post occurs, and the SEC may bypass Oklahoma if it can grab FSU or 3 in Texas or some other other strategy we haven’t look at…
The whole, “let’s just throw 6 into the Pac-10 and be proactive” meme will get vetoed right away by Stanford.
Only Texas/A&M/Colorado are really “wanted” by the Pac-10, I don’t really see the Pac-10 looking at the others. Just as I don’t see the Big Ten looking at anyone other than Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Colorado.
LikeLike
Politically, I think it will be nearly impossible to kick a BCS institution out of the group, even if they’re left behind in conference realignment. I can’t see Iowans or Floridians on Capitol Hill standing by if Iowa State and South Florida are no longer part of the BCS coalition (especially if some non-BCS schools such as Utah find their way in).
Might conferences such as the Mountain West or Conference USA get a (politically-pressured) “reward” of some sort of BCS membership for taking in these “strays”?
LikeLike
When the BEast was raided, the remaining schools didn’t scatter to non-BCS conferences.
Your point about politics is correct, but I think the conclusion is wrong. More likely that the better programs will seek to enter an incumbent BCS conference (B12) even if it is weak, rather than hope that their current conference attains BCS status. Why would TTU, Kansas, etc. go to MWC just on the chance that it could move to BCS. Better off inviting the better MWC and CUSA schools to get back to 12.
The BEast may be bad, but can anyone doubt that Cincy, Ville, and USF are better in the BEast vs. in Conference USA?
LikeLike
An actually good bleacher report article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/398843-ncaa-football-attendance-figures-down-how-did-your-team-do
NCAA Football Attendance Figures Down: How Did Your Team Do?
For the MAC, this might be the first conference booted from Division One. To qualify for Division One status, you must average 15,000 fans per game. Many teams did not do that, and others “inflated” their numbers to reach that number.
LikeLike
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/30/football/doc4c01ac0931280956166083.txt
Steven M. Sipple (NE): Big 12 meetings could yield big drama
…He’ll listen intently to league commissioner Dan Beebe.
“I’m sure he’ll have some things to say,” Osborne said. “We’ll probably get an officiating report on football and basketball. I imagine we may have some discussion as to how you start or stop the clock on an incomplete pass.”
Can’t wait to hear Dr. Tom explanation why the clock should keep running after the ball hits out of bounds…
———
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100529/BIGRED/705299765
Big 12: Testy meetings or tedious? Osborne not sure
…“People were kind of caught by the glamour of the new stadium and intrigued by it,’’ Osborne said. “It’s very nice. There’s no question about that.
“In the interest of equity, you’d like to see the game played occasionally in the North Division because it is the single most important sporting event in the Big 12 in terms of dollars and media attention.’’
The B10+ AD’s and presidents must be filled with anticipation at all the 15-1 votes and perpetual nitpicking adding NE can bring. “Equity suggest we alternate the Rose Bowl with a midwest bowl. Such an unfair advantage, too long a drive, and rose is sorta the color of USC. That’s an unfair subliminal advertising advantage, how are we supposed to compete with that?”
…”And it is pretty expensive down there.”
Interesting complaint, seeing as how DFW has one of the lowest costs of living of any Top 50 urban areas. Lower than Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix, Salt Lake, and many cities in the Upper Midwest. Way lower than Chicago. Same for hotel and food. Sounds like BS.
…“If it’s the will of the group to play in Arlington the next three years, we’ll go down there and play as hard as we can,’’ he said. “It isn’t like we’re going to pout…”
!
LikeLike
Re Big 12 meeting (Playoffs Now!)
Interesting articles, especially comments by Osborne.
“I suppose at some point someone will address the issue of conference realignment,” Osborne said. “I don’t know how close to the vest people are going to keep their cards. I really don’t know how it’ll evolve. It could be fairly routine and insignificant. On the other hand, it could end up being a fairly dramatic discussion.”
The Big 12 seems to be in a difficult situation, with Beebe trying to pin schools down when it appears the Big 10 hasn’t decided what to do.
Seriously how does the Big 12 discuss a shared channel with the Pac 10 when who knows who may or may not be around. Or negotiate the upcoming TV deal?
Without a firm committment by the Big 10, what can Nebraska or Missouri disclose? Or Colorado re Pac 10? Are they going to unilaterally limit their options which may or may not happen?
Wonder if they are reading Frank’s blog which reports the Big 10 considers Texas and Texas A&M in play! Or that Missouri may not be invited?
LikeLike
I’m sure the Big 12 presidents and AD’s are poring over every word we write.
LikeLike
Re Big 12 meeting (allthat youcan leave behind)
It does raise issue how can Big 12 commissioner ask for a frank discussion with respect to intentions of Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado yet not find that these schools are asking what Texas is planning or considering or wanting to do. And is Texas willing to give up options.
Seems like a very uncomfortable situation given that Beebe has to conduct negotiations about their TV contract and possible discussions with the PAC 10 about a joint channel.
If Texas is in question, I don’t envy his situation.
Yet if Texas wants to work within context of the Big 12, then over 90% of the posts here are questionable.
LikeLike
Well, yeah. Nebraska and Missouri are rumored to one conference, Colorado to another. Texas and A&M are rumored to three. If I’m a representative of the first three schools and Beebe asks me anything, I tell him to go get the Texas schools on record first.
LikeLike
“The B10+ AD’s and presidents must be filled with anticipation at all the 15-1 votes and perpetual nitpicking adding NE can bring. “Equity suggest we alternate the Rose Bowl…”
In all fairness, what Osborne is talking about is the Big 12 championship game, not a bowl game. He has a point. The Big 12 championship game actually has been alternated consistently between a North location and a South location. Now the game is intended to be held for three straight years in Texas.
My question is, if Texas joins the Big Ten, is everyone OK with holding the CCG at Jerry’s World every year? Or alternating between Dallas and, say, Indianapolis? (That assumes a CCG will even be held in the Big Ten.) We don’t know how the “pods” or divisions are going to break out, so let’s say it is Ohio State-Wisconsin playing for the championship in Jerry’s World? Does that make sense?
Furthermore, how about putting Big Ten HQ in Dallas should Texas join the Big Ten? Why should that bother current Big Ten fans?
LikeLike
Having the championship game in Dallas every year doesn’t work IMO.
If the Big10 wants to turn it into their “Super Bowl” they’ll want to have mostly the two teams playing in attendance, but they’d also like other teams’ fans showing up to help fill the stadium. Putting it in Texas mean most of the Big10 simply won’t even consider going to the game. If its a couple hour car ride however, maybe they’d feel much more inclined to go, again, even if their team isn’t in the game.
As for swapping headquarters…why in earth would they ever do that? That’s like saying the capitol should have been moved to Anchorage when Alaska joined the union.
LikeLike
no way. i’m sure neither the hdqtrs nor title game, if there is one, would be located that far away from most of the schools.
LikeLike
I tend to agree.
While the CCG will be on the table in some part of a negotiation with Texas (if Texas is interested), it’s not going to be a here or there kind of agreement. Most likely they’d come up with some kind of system to send it around the league in that case.
In a hypothetical Big Ten, Texas is just 1 or 2 (A&M) votes for holding it in Cowboy Stadium.
If Texas decides to join the Big Ten, they’re going to have to negotiate everything they want prior to joining because they won’t have anywhere near the kind of leverage they might have in the Pac-10 or even the SEC if they bring more to the SEC…
LikeLike
actually, it might make sense to have the game in san antonio now and then. sa is a great old town with a lot to see, and maybe far flung big ten people might like the idea of a vacation weekend there once or twice a decade.
LikeLike
what about a name for the amended conference? i say something snappy like ‘big ten’.
it’s just a name, not arithmetic. and it means something historically.
LikeLike
Why does the championship have to be at a neutral field? If the conference gets too spread out, have the highest ranked team in the BCS standings host. Give the visiting school half the tickets, and if they don’t sell in a certain amount of time, the home school will probably be able to sell out the rest.
LikeLike
yah – I think that would be difficult based on a one week turnaround. Having been to 4 SEC championship games, they can be a major event, or they can be a clusterf*ck, like the ACC.
However, I do think CUSA stages their championship game at the home of the team with the best record. But the CUSA CG is only a minor event.
LikeLike
@yahwrite – Always remember that the main reason for the existence of a conference championship game is for revenue. This means that the bulk of tickets go to sponsors, donors and corporations and professional firms that entertain clients in suites who will show up no matter who is playing. Thus, a conference like the Big Ten is going to follow the SEC model – it can sellout Soldier Field and all its skyboxes regardless of the matchup. It’s not about the fans, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Frank – each of the participating teams in the SEC CG get 17,500 tickets. The GA Dome holds 70,000. The other 35,000 go to the host city and the SEC office to distribute to sponsors and other SEC schools, though I’m not sure what the exact breakdown is between the ATL and the SEC.
LikeLike
The good thing about the SEC Championship Game being in Atlanta every year, is that there is a direct flight from just about every airport in the South to the ATL, on Delta or AirTran. Most of the time, you don’t have time to plan this trip, so its either drive or a last minute flight.
Indianapolis is centrally located and has a domed stadium, but I’m not familiar with the airport.
Cleveland and Chicago are hubs with outdoor stadiums.
Detroit and Minneapolis are hubs with domed stadiums.
LikeLike
Great find, Jokewood. Again the link:
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html
And your explanation:
I took a look at the U.S. National Research Council doctoral program rankings from 1995 (the latest version is not yet published). These appear to be well-regarded academic assessments. The currently available information is dated, but the general strength of schools changes slowly. Certain PhD programs may rise or fall due to gains or losses of key faculty members. However, an across the board ball-park assessment of a school’s graduate program should not change too much.
The NRC report ranked graduate programs in 41 separate fields – from Art History to Linguistics to Cell Biology to Industrial Engineering to Economics to Physics to Oceanography and so on.
Rankings:
School: Arts-Biol-Engr-Phys/Math-Soc/Beh – Avg in non-zero categories
B10+:
MI – 12 – 17 – 09 – 24 – 04 (13.2)
WI – 25 – 11 – 16 – 16 – 09 (15.4)
IL – 25 – 26 – 07 – 15 – 17 (18)
NW – 22 – 24 – 15 – 26 – 14 (20.2)
MN – 33 – 30 – 12 – 27 – 15 (23.4)
PSU- 42 – 42 – 20 – 24 – 32 (32)
OSU- 30 – 48 – 33 – 40 – 30 (36.2)
PU – 00 – 61 – 10 – 22 – 54 (36.8)
IN – 23 – 68 – 00 – 42 – 25 (39.5)
MSU- 49 – 42 – 43 – 48 – 42 (44.8)
IA – 39 – 37 – 51 – 69 – 35 (46.2)
Potential candidates:
TX – 17 – 25 – 12 – 12 – 19 (17)
VA – 15 – 33 – 35 – 40 – 24 (29.4)
Rutg-27 – 37 – 36 – 29 – 30 (31.8)
MD – 42 – 62 – 46 – 22 – 37 (41.8)
FL – 00 – 48 – 37 – 58 – 38 (45.3)
Pitt-36 – 58 – 52 – 52 – 42 (48)
aTm- 00 – 68 – 28 – 40 – 67 (50.8)
Vand-00 – 27 – 54 – 80 – 44 (51.3)
GA – 51 – 51 – 00 – 68 – 51 (55.3)
GT – 00 -109 – 18 – 50 – 00 (59)
Syr- 00 – 80 – 55 – 68 – 52 (63.8)
FSU- 47 – 76 – 00 – 68 – 70 (65.3)
CT – 00 – 58 – 67 – 93 – 67 (71.3)
Mia- 00 – 65 – 78 – 75 – 00 (72.6)
ND – 00 -107 – 51 – 00 – 62 (73.3)
MO – 00 – 75 – 77 – 00 – 78 (76.7)
NE – 00 – 94 – 00 – 90 – 80 (88)
For more context:
Hou- 00 – 94 – 54 – 68 – 51 (66.8)
KS – 43 – 89 – 60 – 80 – 63 (67)
OU – 00 – 82 – 67 – 93 – 90 (83)
TTch-00 – 83 – 00 – 95 – 94 (90.7)
AZ – 28 – 30 – 43 – 29 – 30 (32)
OR – 49 – 00 – 00 – 45 – 58 (50.7)
ASU- 00 – 65 – 48 – 70 – 58 (60.3)
ORSt-00 – 55 – 68 – 68 – 00 (63.7)
WASt-00 – 54 – 58 – 90 – 86 (72)
CO – 00 – 30 – 31 – 46 – 45 (38)
Utah-00 – 24 – 43 – 40 – 86 (48.3)
Note that in the current conference only Purdue and Indiana aren’t ranked in all five categories, but they still are in 4 of 5. So I wonder if the conference is looking for well-rounded candidates and would penalize the more specialized schools that rank in just 3 of 5 categories: GT, Mia, NE, and MO.
Ya know, for a supposed non-starter, UHou sure ranks high in the ARWU and these rankings. Seems like the only one that burns them is the US News rankings, which is starting to look like an outlier. The grad programs are good but maybe the undergrad needs to be cleaned up a bit. Perhaps UHou is an option if TX is trying to string together a P16. Such as Utah, CO, KS, TX, aTm, and UH if MO isn’t available, Texas state politics intervene, or TX wants more local schools for less travel.
============================
More from the above report:
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#TOP60
Top 60 Institutions by Number of Rated Programs, Average of Nonzero Scores, and all Scores:
Number of Rated Programs
————————-
2 Michigan 38
2 Wisconsin 38
2 Ohio State 38
5 Texas 37
5 Illinois 37
5 Minnesota 37
9 Penn State 36
14 Pittsburgh 34
18 Virginia 32
18 Rutgers 32
18 Iowa 32
18 Florida 32
26 Northwestern 30
26 Michigan State 30
33 Kansas 29
38 Indiana 28
38 Maryland 28
46 Vanderbilt 26
46 Connecticut 26
51 Texas A&M 25
54 Purdue 24
54 Syracuse 24
Average of Nonzero Scores
————————–
12 Michigan 7.24
15 Wisconsin 6.95
16 Texas 6.78
17 Illinois 6.70
19 Northwestern 6.63
23 Minnesota 6.41
28 Virginia 6.16
29 Purdue 6.12
31 Penn State 5.94
32 Rutgers 5.94
38 Ohio State 5.79
39 Indiana 5.75
44 Maryland 5.57
48 Texas A&M 5.48
50 Georgia Tech 5.44
52 Vanderbilt 5.38
53 Iowa 5.38
54 Michigan State 5.33
55 Florida 5.31
59 Pittsburgh 5.26
Average of all 41 Scores
————————
3 Michigan 6.71
5 Wisconsin 6.44
7 Texas 6.12
9 Illinois 6.05
13 Minnesota 5.78
17 Ohio State 5.37
20 Penn State 5.22
24 Northwestern 4.85
25 Virginia 4.80
26 Rutgers 4.63
29 Pittsburgh 4.37
31 Iowa 4.20
33 Florida 4.15
36 Indiana 3.93
37 Michigan State 3.90
40 Maryland 3.80
45 Purdue 3.59
49 Vanderbilt 3.41
50 Texas A&M 3.34
52 Kansas 3.12
58 Connecticut 2.85
60 Syracuse 2.78
Sure seems to support a TX-aTm-VB-MD-VA plan. Also helps explain all the talk about Rut, why there was talk of CT, and why Syr might still be in the mix. Every B10+ school is in the top 60 of all 3 lists. So are TX-aTm-VB-VA-MD, along with Rut, FL, and Pitt. Syr, CT, and KS are in 2 of the 3, GT in 1, and none of the other candidates crack the top 60 of those lists. However GT’s appearance in ‘Average of Nonzero Scores’ suggests they are specialized but very good in those areas.
LikeLike
“Every B10+ school is in the top 60 of all 3 lists. So are TX-aTm-VB-VA-MD, along with Rut, FL, and Pitt. Syr, CT, and KS are in 2 of the 3, GT in 1, and none of the other candidates crack the top 60 of those lists.”
well, if that doesn’t tell the story from that angle, i don’t know what would. thanks for taking this look at those numbers.
LikeLike
Also interesting that KS made 2 of the 3 lists, while Mizzou made 0. Back when we took Missouri seriously as a candidate, there were at least a couple people on here who screamed that KU was the more attractive of the two.
If for whatever reason Missouri gets back in this thing, you wonder if they may be bypassed for KU.
Of course KU´s athletic department is in a mess right now after the ticket scandal, and I doubt any conference would seriously consider them until it is resolved in one way or another.
LikeLike
More problems for KU.
>>Perkins filed a report with the Lawrence Police Department saying he was blackmailed.<>
allegations surrounding the high school eligibility of former and current KU basketball stars and about the disregarding of university drug policy for athletes<<
http://cjonline.com/sports/basketball/2010-05-30/details_of_alleged_blackmail_surface
LikeLike
yes, and i was surprised to see oklahoma make one of the lists and nebraska not.
poor kansas is in disarray. looks like some poor decisions are biting them hard. kansas is learning what indiana recently discovered: don’t hire ou people. don’t do it.
can kind of understand if indiana didn’t know better. kansas has no excuse.
LikeLike
Uhhhh… Sampson had a track record before Indiana hired him.
LikeLike
point.
LikeLike
i might add that this is exactly the kind of impression i had gotten from talking with big ten people, most of whom i believe were alums, the past several months. those discussions, together with a couple of reports that rank schools nationally and sometimes internationally and what i know of texas’ desires and aspirations are the basis for my very strong desire and expectation that texas will realign with the new, nationally-oriented big ten. it is the only direction that makes sense for the overall good for the school and for the people of the state.
my very strong suspicion is that the sports-centric commentaries of the various representatives of non-big ten schools who post here, daily reaffirm for any big ten whizbang who wanders through, why those schools are not a good fit for their conference.
thanks again, pn.
LikeLike
Very interesting looking at Texas A&M’s peer Universities. Maybe Texas A&M to the Big Ten is not that big of a stretch.
Listing of Texas A&M Vision 2020 Peer Universities
In 1999, Texas A&M released a long range planning report called “Vision 2020: Creating a Culture of Excellence.” The basic goal of the report was for Texas A&M to become a consensus top 10 public university by the year 2020. In the report, 15 universities were identified that Texas A&M should strive to emulate. Here is a list of Texas A&M’s and the 15 peer institutions rankings sorted by the average nonzero rating.
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#PEERS
UC Berkeley
UC San Diego
Michigan
UCLA
Wisconsin
Texas
Illinois
Minnesota
North Carolina
Purdue
Penn State
UC Davis
Ohio State
Georgia Tech
Florida
LikeLike
Depending upon what Texas does, half these universities are Big Ten. Sounds like they’d feel the fit with the BT would be comfortable.
LikeLike
Using the NSF data, I calculated the % increase in total R&D dollars over the past 10 years (’98-’08).
236% Notre Dame
213% Vanderbilt
179% Pitt
172% Duke
124% UNC
123% Virginia Tech
102% Nebraska
102% Texas
94% Virginia
80% Missouri
77% Maryland
68% UConn
64% Rutgers
48% Texas A&M
3% Syracuse
A few thoughts… given the recent emphasis on funding the life sciences, schools with major medical centers – Pitt, Duke, Vandy – found themselves on the top end of funding increases. Notre Dame has reportedly invested heavily in its graduate programs over the past decade or so, and the numbers attest to that. Syracuse… wow. In 1998, Syracuse received $37.3 M in research funding compared to Notre Dame’s $28.9 M. Ten years later, Notre Dame pulled in $97.2 M, while Syracuse had grown only to $38.5 M. In fact, Syracuse received 17% *less* federal funding in 2008 than in did in 1998 (I had to triple check to make sure it wasn’t a typo). Compare that to Nebraska, which saw a 132% increase in federal funding over that same time frame. Syracuse does not seem like a healthy institution these days.
LikeLike
The numbers on the fastest growth are impressive. Kudos to Notre Dame for increasing effort here. I’m biased, but a major university shouldn’t just be about teaching undergraduates what you know. It should also be about finding out new things and expanding humanity’s breadth of knowledge. And that’s done at the graduate level.
Big kudos to Vanderbilt, Pitt and Duke, which already had huge research numbers and are stepping on the gas. It’s hard to have that sort of increase when you’re already showing lofty research numbers.
LikeLike
“Every B10+ school is in the top 60 of all 3 lists. So are TX-aTm-VB-VA-MD, along with Rut, FL, and Pitt. Syr, CT, and KS are in 2 of the 3, GT in 1, and none of the other candidates crack the top 60 of those lists.”
well, if that doesn’t tell the story from that angle, i don’t know what would. thanks for taking this look at those numbers.
LikeLike
wrong button.
LikeLike
Another hypothetical scenario:
Let’s assume the Big Ten really went radical and enlarged to 20. We’ll say the conference took in Nebraska, Texas A&M, Texas, Rutgers and the ACC’s five AAU members (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech). From a “pod” perspective, this works pretty well:
Atlantic: Duke, GT, UMd, UNC, UVa
North: Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, RU
Central: Ill, Ind, N’west, Pur, Wisc
Heartland: Iowa, Minn, Nebr, UT, TA&M
A pretty good “national” conference, I’d say.
For football, every team plays members of its pod and has one permanent rival in the other pods. They would play two other games against teams in the pod their division was aligned with, rotating, one home, one away, for a total of nine conference games.
year #1: Atlantic/North, Central/Heartland
year #2: Atlantic/Central, North/Heartland
year #3: Atlantic/Heartland, North/Central
For example, Minnesota’s permanent rivals could be Michigan (Little Brown Jug), Wisconsin (longtime foe) and Maryland (no particular reason). When the Heartland was aligned in a division with the Central, Minnesota might face Illinois (home) and Indiana (away) one year, Purdue (home) and Northwestern (away) three years later, then Ill (away) and Ind (home) three years after that.
In the event of divisional ties involving teams that don’t face each other, common divisional opponents would be the deciding factor.
For men’s and women’s basketball, 18 games — home-and-home with your pod, single games against two of the other three pods (rotating).
Okay, now what happens to the conferences that lose teams to the Big Ten?
The ACC restocks itself to 12 by taking in Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and West Virginia from the Big East, plus Temple. (I know people gripe about WVU’s academics, but considering the state’s relative lack of affluence and resources, it does okay.) Those five plus Boston College form a “North” division, with Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State and Miami the “South.” It’s about the same for football as before and nearly as strong for basketball, with SU, Pitt and Connecticut replacing UMd, UNC and Duke.
The Big 12? To replace A&M, Texas and Nebraska, it looks east, taking in three Big East emigres: Cincinnati and Louisville (two schools with ties to that part of the country from their Missouri Valley Conference days) and South Florida (giving the Big 12 access to Florida recruiting). Cincinnati would be in the North, UL and USF the South. Were Colorado to split for the Pac-10, make Memphis #12, in the South, with UL going to the North. A lot weaker in football, to be sure, but pretty solid for hoops.
LikeLike
Wow…I like this set up a lot. Very strong academically, athletically, and market-wise. Also, as you said it is national, and with a new Southern angle.
LikeLike
Just 20?
LikeLike
I view this 20 as sort of a compromise between the presidents, who view academics and all-around athletic quality as paramount (the five ACC members of the AAU) and the athletic directors/TV people (who would want A&M/Texas/Neb for King Football, then Rutgers and Maryland for big markets and BTN viewership). Here, you satisfy both camps in a workable format.
LikeLike
In that light, maybe we shouldn´t be surprised that the list apparently went from Texas/aTm/MU/Nebraska/ND from before the Big 10 meeting to UT/aTm/Vanderbilt/Maryland/UVa after the meeting.
If the difference is as simple and distinct as Delany´s initial choice vs that of the presidents, it will be interesting to see if there´s any give-and-take going forward.
LikeLike
It’s hard to imagine the Big Ten jumping from 11 to 20 in one jump.
However, the biggest impediment would be getting the president’s to approve schools. And it’s hard to find a lot to complain about if these were your list of candidates. You could argue all day about what schools are “best”, but regardless, each of these candidates is certainly qualified academically–the weakest being Nebraska.
However, there’s a ton of talent brought in for football. For basketball. Baseball. Pretty well everything you could ask for. Plus great markets.
Seems unlikely, but would sure be nice.
LikeLike
Agreed. This is a conference that’s added two schools in 61 years, and the first one only after a member dropped athletics. They don’t like change and the only reason I think they’re expanding is because of the money coming in from the BTN and the lack of money coming in from every other source.
I’m having trouble seeing the schools approve going to 16, let alone 20. The only reason I think they’re going to 14 is because without UT or ND, there isn’t a single school that everyone can agree on, but there’s likely a package of 3 that they all can accept.
LikeLike
Yes, 11 to 20 would be radical, but no more so then when the NHL enlarged from six to 12 franchises in 1967 (it could have tepidly followed previous sports expansions and went to eight teams, then 10 a few years later). That made it a truly national sports league, and if the Big Ten envisions itself as a truly national collegiate conference, this 20-team scenario would be the best way to do it.
LikeLike
@Vincent – If there’s one model that I don’t want the Big Ten to follow, it would be the NHL!
LikeLike
Yo, Frank:
Want to see someone completely ripping off your material? Check this out:
http://blog.iqsportsgroup.com/
LikeLike
Thi sguy too:
http://college-basketball.aqimg.com/?p=1890
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me, but in the past 3-4 weeks, Dodds has seemed to really open up in terms that seem to leave open the idea of Texas heading out of the Big 12.
Before May, it seemed as it he was making the obligatory statement: “Big 12 has been good to us and we’re exploring our own network, etc.”
But of late, his comments have been more about Texas exploring it’s own options, so maybe discussions with Texas have started to go somewhere.
Of course, it’s still very early in the process, and I might be reading a bit too much into it, but I do get the sense that Texas is exploring other options very intensely…
LikeLike
Oh I put this in a reply to you because I was wondering if you got the same impression?
LikeLike
Oh, no, I meant it was a literal copyright violation. We’ve noticed it at BON lately as well: “aggregators” taking whole entire posts and republishing them on their own site.
LikeLike
Er, I wasn’t talking about that.
I agree with you on the issue of aggregators though.
LikeLike
Ah, OK, I was having a premature senior moment. I saw “Dodds” and for some reason was thinking “Dennis” instead of “DeLoss”.
But, yes, I agree with your impression that he has been seeming to leave the door open more than he had in the initial days of realignment interviews. I’m not sure I read too much into these newer statements, though, in the same way I never read too much into his earlier pro-Big XII statements really didn’t say anything either. There’s still a hell of a lot of wiggle room.
It could be as simple as interviewers beginning to ask him the right follow-up questions.
LikeLike
Dodds comments:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/01/1984924.texas-athletic-director-says-its.html
LikeLike
I agree also, but I think this has more to do with NU and UM to B10 rumours than anything else. It will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible, to maintain a financially competitive B12 w/o NU, UM and CU. However if Frank’s sources are right and B10 is talking $40/school, UT will definitely listen.
After absorbing Delaney’s comments and Maisel’s blog (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist-maisel_ivan&id=5221661), I’m thinking the B10 will approach these schools Frank is mentioning (maybe not Vandy). This would be the B10 dream team. The presidents may be concerned not just about their sports future, but their academic future. Its hard to maintain the quality of students if your base is down 25% or more (decrease in Ohio HS students over last 30 years per Maisel). They will see MD, VA and TX as fertile student non-athlete recruiting ground. SEC schools are already recruiting TX for the students who can’t get into UT or A&M. While TX has a fund to help 7 universities reach Tier 1 status, only Tech and UH will see any of that money anytime soon and both have a ways to go. There will be good TX students looking out of state for some time.
Ultimately, I don’t think any of these 5 apply to the B10, but I think Frank is right that they are being closely looked at by the B10.
LikeLike
All Quiet on the Expansion Front.
Dang, we need someone to have a beer with an insider or go to a Bill Powers speech.
Part of me was hoping against hope that perhaps the BOR’s for TX and other schools were FedExed a package late last week for holiday perusal, outlining the pro’s and con’s of B16, P16, A16, and SEC16 proposals. With recommendations. I want buzz out of Aspen and S. Padre Island. Overheard conversations, a leak from Kinko’s. Cell phone prompted unhappy scrambling out of Lubbock salad bars. Fear and loathing in Norman, legislators called back for Tuesday closed door sessions.
Maybe not today, but sometime in the next 12 months.
LikeLike
Anyway, while we’re waiting, here’s a shot of some Aggies at the President speech today, canceled because of lightning:
LikeLike
http://uk.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100531&t=2&i=116694683&w=300&fh=300&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2010-05-31T174337Z_01_BTRE64U1D9400_RTROPTP_0_OBAMA
LikeLike
now, those guys know how you chair a meeting.
LikeLike
*rimshot*
🙂
LikeLike
Cougar High grads are always the most bitter
LikeLike
SEC meetings crank up this week. Maybe we’ll get some sabre rattling.
LikeLike
I’m guessing most of you guys on this board aren’t big college baseball fans, but regional bids were announced today. BCS AQ conference teams accounted for 33 of the 64 spots. The ACC, Pac 10 and SEC each placed eight teams in regional action. Five Big XII teams made the tournament, as did three teams from the Big East. Minnesota is the lone (automatic)representative from the Big Ten.
The Golden Gophers are the #4 seed in the four-team Fullerton regional.
Regarding Big Ten expansion candidates (real and imagined), here’s the breakdown:
Texas, #2 national seed;
Florida, #3 national seed;
Virginia, #5 national seed;
GA Tech, #8 national seed;
Texas A&M, #2 seed in the Miami regional;
Miami, #1 seed in the Miami regional;
Florida State, #1 seed in the Norwich, CT regional;
North Carolina, #3 seed in the Norman regional;
UConn, #2 seed in the Norwich, CT regional; and
Vandy, #2 seed in the Louisville regional.
While not a candidate for Big Ten expansion, my defending College World Series National Champion LSU Tigers rallied from a disastrous last month of the season to win the SEC Tournament. After defeating Big Ten expansion candidates Vandy & Florida, Tiger pitcher Ben Alsup threw a one-hitter against the hated Ole Miss Rebels, to gain a spot in the championship game against Alabama. In front of over 13,000 fans in Birmingham (about 10,000 of whom were Gumps), LSU fought through two rain delays to win in 11 innings by a score of 4-3.
My son and I were were soaking wet, but cheered the Tigers all the way to the victory. I’m a season ticket holder, have been to Omaha back in 91 for LSU’s first CWS championship, and have seen at least 100 regional and super regional games, but this was my first SEC tournament. College baseball really is a lot of fun.
I know I was having a little fun at the Big Ten’s expense earlier in the post, but I really wish the Gophers good luck in the tournament. They came to Baton Rouge last year, played hard and represented themselves and the Big Ten very well.
LikeLike
Good luck to your team, Alan. I hope they make it up here to Omaha for the last CWS at Rosenblatt before it moves to the new ballpark downtown. LSU fans are always welcome in Omaha.
LikeLike
Scott C – thanks. The tournament selection committee didn’t do LSU any favors by sending the Tigers out to UCLA, but this team is a great group of kids who have worked through a lot of self-inflicted adversity. Most of the starters were starters on last year’s team. I’d give them a 50/50 chance of getting back Omaha, and if the Tigers get to Rosenblatt, I’ll be there too, one last time.
LikeLike
For those keeping score, Delany is the main reason why college baseball practices start later in the year. He didn’t want Southern schools to have as much of an advantage due to their warm Springs.
He’s had his eye on improving the Big Ten baseball product for a while.
LikeLike
@Gopher86 – I really hope this expansion improves Big Ten baseball even though I know it’s not at the forefront of expansion issues. Texas and other Sun Belt schools would obviously do that while Nebraska is also a strong Northern program (despite having a couple of down years recently). Adding Nebraska gets the College World Series into Big Ten territory, FWIW.
LikeLike
I think it will. Obviously, football is the biggest athletic factor, but all the expansion smoke has started to point to the Big 10 taking peer schools. I take peer schools to mean great top to bottom athletics; not solely football-centric schools.
Better baseball will come out of that vein, I think. The Southern focus obviously helps, as well.
LikeLike
I’m starting a fantasy big ten expansion league. Who wants in?
LikeLike
This sums up why Nebraska would leave the Big 12 (besides the money). I don’t blame Texas for acting that way, nor do I blame Nebraska for acting in their self interest. The question is, if both schools are used to getting their way, how will they integrate with the ‘all for one and one for all’ Big Ten. (The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “hook ’em” picture is pretty funny)
>>
Texas officials have stated that the Longhorns are in the Big 12 for the long haul, but Osborne and Cornhusker fans don’t believe it. Texas does what’s good for Texas. That’s the view from Lincoln.
<<
http://www.thewizofodds.com/the_wiz_of_odds/2010/06/to-nebraska-texas-is-the-axis-of-evil.html
LikeLike
mike, the irony here is that one of those schools has pretty much announced its exit from the big 12.
also, it should be noted that texas has exactly one vote in issues. the same as nebraska. osborne and many nebraska fans want desperately to paint texas as a fiend, but if there has been harmful, fiendish behavior, it hasn’t come from texas.
LikeLike
Glenn – Nebraska hasn’t done anything more than Texas. Nebraska has said it will listen to offers. Texas has said that all options were on the table (including independence). I know you dislike Nebraska, but to be fair, both are behaving in their own self interest. Nebraska will (and should) do what is best for Nebraska and Texas will (and should) do what’s best for Texas. The big question is will they continue to do so in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed. I have no problem with NE seeking B10+ membership, they’d be crazy not to look at it. Or P10 if that doesn’t work out. As noted below they might even wind up in the SEC, with both sides happy. Nothing to criticize Perlman about, he seems reasonable and has handled this well.
LikeLike
This is the crux of the matter.
Nobody has any problem with the fact that Nebraska has voted according to its own self-interest since the formation of the Big 12.
What people find objectionable is that Nebraska tries to claim its own self interest is virtuous and that it only loses votes because Texas is evil.
What people find incomprehensible is that Nebraska fans point to Missouri’s eagerness to jump to the Big 10 as evidence that Texas is particularly at fault. The main complaint Missouri puts forth is that there isn’t full revenue-sharing*, but Nebraska supports the current system. Missouri and Nebraska are more diametrically opposed than either are with Texas on the key issues(revenue-sharing, Big 12 championship location, partial qualifiers).
*Whenever this is brought up, I’m always compelled to point out that even if there was full revenue sharing, Missouri would still be looking to move. Missouri’s Big 12 revenue wouldn’t change much, and they’d get a huge boost in the Big 10.
LikeLike
*when the revenue sharing issue gets brought up it should always be pointed out that if it was implemented, Missouri’s share would not change. They already get within a rounding error of average for the conference.
LikeLike
Perhaps they sincerely believe that diverting a million or so dollars from Nebraska and UT (giving that to Baylor and Iowa State) will somehow allow Missouri to catch those programs.
Really, its just an excuse to move to what is clearly a more financially rewarding and academically exclusive conference. I certainly wouldn’t blame them for making the move.
LikeLike
>>
What people find objectionable is that Nebraska tries to claim its own self interest is virtuous and that it only loses votes because Texas is evil.
<<
I think you should try to make a distinction here between fans and the administration. To fans, had Nebraska won a few of those games against Texas that could have gone either way, Texas wouldn't be so evil. I doubt the administration harbors the same feelings. That's why I posted the trust comment above, the administration knows that Texas will do what is best for Texas, not the Big 12 and that's why the administration must be prepared.
LikeLike
@ the comments concerning Mizzou’s pushes for equal revenue sharing being disingenuous…any chance they just really think the conferences that practice equal revenue sharing (ie, Big10, ACC, SEC) are the most stable and profitable and would like to see the Big12 the same way (at least at one point in their lives).
Just spit-balling…I really have no dog in this fight.
LikeLike
@PSU Guy – Missouri is at its highest point its ever been in football and is middle of the pack money wise in the Big 12. They know they will at some point ebb. Equal revenue sharing means the Tigers get roughly the same amout of money even when they suck. Much easier to budget that way.
LikeLike
Osborne hates Texas and the B12 because after it formed he could no longer get away with his poll beauty contest scam. In the B8 Nebraska played a questionable OOC schedule and just had to beat OU to contend for a mythical nat’l title. Blow out little guys and pound their chests. Schedule a mid-level OOC game like ASU (and even that often backfired.) There’s a reason the B8 was nicknamed The Big Overrate.
The formation of the B12 blew up that fraudulent scheme. Not only did they get one or more additional tough games against TX and/or aTm, they also had to go through the conference championship game (which gutless Osborne also opposed.) Having to earn it on the field more instead of just lobbying pollsters was harder than Dr. Tom was used to. Heck, even TT has given them fits. As NE was exposed the program declined. No wonder Osborne is so bitter.
And no, TX would not have done the same if they were in NE’s position. TX has long favored a playoff. We’re not afraid to earn it on the field.
LikeLike
Wow, sometimes its better just to keep quiet than to say something like that and have your ignorance on display for everyone to see. Atleast we know now, thanks for raising your flag.
LikeLike
Not ignorance if I have facts to back it up. Pull out the pre- and post-B12 NE schedules for NE and let’s analyze them. Let’s look at those NE OOC slates. Ask Penn State what they think of Osborne and pollster lobbying. (Though, yes, Mack Brown has been guilty of same. The difference being Mack and Texas want a playoff, which would substantially reduce the need for such lobbying. Still lobbying on the bubble for the final slots, but a much, much higher chance of getting the best team in a field of 8 than a field of two.)
Go for it.
LikeLike
So you are saying playing Wyoming, ULM, UTEP, and UCF is “proving it on the field”? Give me a break…..I generally don’t have a problem with Texas or Texas fans (I work and live amongst many classy UT fans every day) but this is ridiculous….if you want to talk about pre-Big 12 Nebraska played numerous games at Washington in the early and mid ‘90’s not to mention games against UCLA, Cal, West Virginia, Arizona St, Michigan St. If you want to talk post Big 12:
1996: Michigan St, @ Arizona St, Colorado St. (Arizona St went to the rose bowl this year, and Michigan St was a Saban coached team that finished in the upper half of the Big 10)
1997: Akron, Central Florida, @ Washington (Washington was Top 10 at this time with Brock Huard, UCF won 9 games this year including scaring Auburn 10-6)
1998: UAB, Louisiana Tech, @ California, Washington
1999: @ Iowa, Cal, Southern Miss
2000: San Jose St, @ Notre Dame, Iowa
2001: TCU, Notre Dame, Troy, Rice
2002: Arizona St, Troy, Utah St, @ Penn St
2003: Utah St, Penn St, Troy, Southern Miss
2004: W. Illinois, Southern Miss, @ Pittsburgh
2005: Maine, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh
2006: Louisiana Tech, @ USC, Troy
2007: Nevada, USC, @ Wake Forest, Ball St
Should I go on? Look, I’m not saying we played the toughest schedule in the nation year in and year out…..but it is not at all how you are attempting to paint the situation. Wasn’t it Texas who was kept out of the Big 12 Championship game 2 years ago because of a weak schedule? I’m not blasting Texas for scheduling weak opponents every year because that is false (I remember the Ohio St games as excellent OOC games) but at least call it what it is. Neither Nebraska nor Texas are exactly trailblazers in the OOC strength of schedule; but neither are known for intentionally scheduling cupcakes either. (I know about the Utah and Arkansas scheduling issues Texas had the past few years) If you want to get ‘real’….OU has us both beat in that area.
LikeLike
don’t you love it when people illustrate what you’ve been saying about them?
LikeLike
If it’s your intention to suggest that those Nebraska teams of the ’90’s were overrated, you’re sorely mistaken.
The ’93 team that was undefeated going into the Orange Bowl against 11-1 Florida State was presumed to be headed for a total thrashing. That assumption was based on a particularly weak Big 8 that year, other than the Huskers and Colorado. Final score: 18-16, and only decided after a missed NU field goal in the waning seconds. (BTW, I’m a Seminole fan, not Nebraksa, but that program is worthy of my respect.)
In ’94, NU beat #3 Miami in the Orange Bowl, capping an undefeated season. In ’95, NU destroyed EVERYONE, including previously-undefeated Florida of the Almighty SEC. That game made UF’s beating of Ohio State in the ’06 season title game look mild.
In ’96, NU lost two whole games, only one against a Big 12 team, but in ’97 they again went undefeated.
Obviously, NU did more than beat down the little guys. That beat down EVERYONE. Three losses in five years, one of them on a missed field goal.
Now I think Nebraska should have shared the ’94 title with Penn State, but in no way should Nebraska be mistaken as an overrated program.
LikeLike
The ’93 team that was undefeated going into the Orange Bowl against 11-1 Florida State was presumed to be headed for a total thrashing. That assumption was based on a particularly weak Big 8 that year, other than the Huskers and Colorado. Final score: 18-16, and only decided after a missed NU field goal in the waning seconds. (BTW, I’m a Seminole fan, not Nebraska, but that program is worthy of my respect.)
I’m not claiming NE wasn’t good, just often overrated. A massive problem in the pre-BCS days. Yes, Texas and FSU have also benefited at times from that overrating through the years (“Shock the Nation!”)
NE’s 93’s schedule: Home cupcakes of N. TX, TT (pre-Leach mediocrity), Col. St, a 14-13 squeaker at 4-loss UCLA and a 21-20 win at 7-loss KS. UCLA had just 1 winning season in the prior 4 (see what I mean about medium P10 teams being their OOC ‘tough’ games?)
In ’94, NU beat #3 Miami in the Orange Bowl, capping an undefeated season.
Their ’94 marquee win was over a 6-loss UCLA in Lincoln, along with Pacific and Wyoming (42-32.) Road trips to TT and Giants Stadium against 6-loss WV.
In ’95, NU destroyed EVERYONE, including previously-undefeated Florida of the Almighty SEC. That game made UF’s beating of Ohio State in the ’06 season title game look mild.
NE’s star OOC win was at 6-5-1 Mich St, along with home wins against 6-5 ASU, 3-8 WSU, and Pacific. BTW, I was rooting for NE against FL, loved every minute of it. NE may have been the best team in the country that year, but there was no way to know from their schedule.
Again, my initial point is that Osborne played somewhat of a scam schedule and relied on 1 or 2 tough conference wins to put them in a position to play the pollster game. Why college football sucks without a playoff, that we have to resort to these stupid arguments of “Team X beat Y in Z, therefore..”
In ’96, NU lost two whole games, only one against a Big 12 team, but in ’97 they again went undefeated.
1996 beat 6-6 MSU in Lincoln, along with Baylor and Colo St. Lost 19-0 at ASU (though ASU went 11-1.) Lost 37-27 to a 5-loss Texas in the B12 conference championship game.
Gee, if Osborne had got what he wanted and there was no conf champ game, do you think Texas or NE would have been awarded the B12 title? Could NE (then 1-loss instead of 2) have argued its way in the pollster beauty contest into another mythical nat’l title shot?
Hence my point on the real reason Osborne hates the B12 and Texas, they messed up his scam.
1997: Home games against Akron and Central FL, road win over 4-loss WA. Overtime win at 5-loss MO, beat 8-loss OU, 6-loss CO, 5-loss TT, 6-loss KS, 9-loss Baylor, but got a nice win over 11-1* KSU (who had a typical KSU OOC of N. IL, Bowling Green, and Ohio.) Beat 4-loss aTm in the conf champ game. Won MNC by giving TN its second loss.
LikeLike
Sorry, didn’t close my Italians in one section, so here it is corrected:
In ’95, NU destroyed EVERYONE, including previously-undefeated Florida of the Almighty SEC. That game made UF’s beating of Ohio State in the ’06 season title game look mild.
NE’s star OOC win was at 6-5-1 Mich St, along with home wins against 6-5 ASU, 3-8 WSU, and Pacific. BTW, I was rooting for NE against FL, loved every minute of it. NE may have been the best team in the country that year, but there was no way to know from their schedule.
Again, my initial point is that Osborne played somewhat of a scam schedule and relied on 1 or 2 tough conference wins to put them in a position to play the pollster game. Why college football sucks without a playoff, that we have to resort to these stupid arguments of “Team X beat Y in Z, therefore..”
BTW, you can look up old schedules here:
http://www.fanbase.com/NCAA-D-I-FBS
LikeLike
@PN
>>Hence my point on the real reason Osborne hates the B12 and Texas, they messed up his scam.<<
I don't know about scam. Nebraska followed a scheduling pattern that most everyone outside of Bill Snyder did. You mention that all NU had to do was beat OU and be in the title hunt. What were KState's record and ranking those years? How about Colorado?
LikeLike
Scam schedule. Heh.
During exactly one year of Tom Osborne’s tenure (1997) did he ever play less than 2 non-conference games against current BCS schools. And recall, Nebraska wanted to continue the Oklahoma game on an out-of-conference basis the years it wasn’t scheduled. So I’d call it somewhere between ill-informed and ridiculous to say that the Big 12 ruined Osborne’s schedling “scam.”
Osborne’s initial comments were that it was possible for a team “scheduled” to play for a national title could lose that game, especially considering that several conferences (the ACC at the time, the Big East, the Pac-10, and Big-10) did not play an extra game. He was proven right, as twice such a team was eliminated from title contention, and Oklahoma one year could/should have been.
LikeLike
Would UT only agree to join the Big Ten on the condition that Nebraska wasn’t offered an invitation (which might be as much a non-starter to Big Ten presidents as the Longhorn Network)? Or could they co-exist under Delany’s rules?
LikeLike
I don’t think Texas would scheme to keep Nebraska out, but they might scheme to get another school in (Vanderbilt? Missouri? Colorado?)
I don’t think they’d be antagonistic towards Nebraska, but they would definitely want to have a voice in what other schools are a part of their new league.
It’s even possible they’d prefer Nebraska in the conference. The more they care about geography, the more they’d press for several Big 12 members. If they prefer academics, they might ask for more schools on the Eastern side of the Big 10.
LikeLike
I agree on all points.
LikeLike
I agree. I think only Texas and maybe Maryland are in a position to say they’re willing to consider it along with some chosen partners (i.e. A&M or Virginia or whoever).
And from Dodds’ comments I think he’s taking the same approach to expansion that Nebraska is; they’re looking at every possible scenario and seeing where they best fit based on athletics as well as institutional fit/academics.
Obviously, Texas would more prefer to stay in the current Big 12 than Nebraska, but other than that, they’re both looking at whatever the best scenario is.
If Texas thinks the best scenario would be to go to the Big Ten and bring A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers (because Maryland says no), then that’s what’s going to happen, etc.
It’s not as if Texas is going to try to bring along Texas Tech or Baylor; Texas understands what the Big Ten is looking for and if it wants partners to join with it, it’s going to demand ones that would obviously pass the Big Ten’s test.
LikeLike
zeek, i suspect you are right.
my guess is that if texas does indeed go there, anybody else coming in would have to be found agreeable to both texas and the big ten. unlike the pac-10, there are plenty of possibilities, and if either doesn’t want a particular program there, i’m willing to bet it won’t be. right now the nebraska people must be hoping they haven’t been too large pains the last fifteen years. : )
LikeLike
one more thing. let me be the first to tell you that if for ANY reason nebraska doesn’t receive an invitation IT WILL BE ALL TEXAS’ FAULT.
LikeLike
If the SEC loses Vandy, who is the replacement?
The analysis is different than if they were looking to expand to 16, especially if you believe they wouldn’t be able to renegotiate with ESPN when adding 4. So if they are just looking to get back to 12, with no contract change, do they take a school that isn’t a threat on the field or go for a power school?
If TX and aTm go with Vandy to the B16, that could be OU’s best shot at joining the SEC. NE, KS, and MO might be able to get a P14 invite, but OU is questionable, at best.
OTOH, if ESPN is open to renegotiation if an SEC16 brings substantial added value, what about adding a Tornado Quad? NE, KS, OU, TCU, and either MO, UHou, TT, Lou, or WV for the 5th.
LikeLike
To clarify, ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC already have a national footprint. Until the SEC decides to start their own cable channel, which the ESPN contract supposedly is in place of, the advantage of adding new states is much smaller than for the B10+. Hence the star power names of NE, OU, and to a lesser extent WV and TCU are important to draw more eyeballs and ad revenue. More quality content.
LikeLike
If the Texas schools are unavailable, I think the first place the SEC looks is to Virginia Tech or Florida State.
Virginia Tech is a bigger market than Oklahoma and a recognized school. If Virginia goes to the ACC it might be willing to switch.
Getting Florida State would be useful in the long term to make sure the SEC is the primary conference for the state of Florida as its population continues to grow.
Either one of these would slide into Vandy’s spot in the Eastern division without requiring altering the current structure.
If they go to 16 and can’t get the Texas duo, I think they first try and get these 2 schools + 1 North Carolina school (UNC or NCSU). After these schools it’s open whether they would grab Miami, Oklahoma, Missouri, or even Nebraska, Texas Tech, or UHouston.
LikeLike
Yes, I should have mentioned that I think the SEC will not be able to lure away any ACC teams, primarily because of academic reputation. VT, FSU, and Mia all want to be AAU. Being in the ACC is perceived as an advantage in that regard as opposed to the SEC, even if it is a psychological one. The SEC and FL have screwed FSU over several times in their previous pursuit of SEC membership, so my guess is FSU is done with that.
Clem may be the best shot the SEC has at an ACC team. Perhaps VT if VA goes B16, but some up in that neck of the woods have posted that VT long coveted ACC membership and would be unlikely to give it up.
LikeLike
Playoffs – I seriously doubt Vandy leaves the SEC. Also, while a few people on this board believe that CBS/ESPN will stand in the way of SEC expansion, I’m not one of them. Contracts were made to be renegotiated.
Assuming the current Big Ten plan that is the subject of this blog (Maryland, Virginia, Vandy, Texas, and A&M) could happen, then the Big Ten has destabilized, but not killed, both the ACC and the Big Ten. Florida State would probably be the #1 choice for the 12 hole. You could stick FSU in the SEC East, no other restructuring is necessary, and the Big Ten just made the SEC a lot stronger.
Remember, for the SEC, footprint is not the main issue. The SEC would look to national brands for higher ratings. If the SEC expanded to 16, looking at available teams from the destabilized Big XII, ACC, and the always unstable Big East, and using the ESPN BCS era prestige ranking as a guide I would rate the national brands (from an SEC perspective) as follows:
1. Texas (ESPN #8)
2. Florida State (ESPN #6)
3. Texas A&M (not ranked)
4. Oklahoma (ESPN #3)
5. Miami (ESPN #5)
6. VA Tech (ESPN #10)
Fillers that would be decent fits include:
GA Tech (ESPN #24); Clemson; and Oklahoma State.
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/insider/news/story?id=3852027
LikeLike
Contracts can always be renegotiated, but both sides have to agree — so both sides have to believe there will be benefit. Many posters seem to think that ESPN will automatically renegotiate as long as the SEC snaps its fingers. I have yet to see one poster address the fact that ESPN already has the B12 on the cheap — why pay more for something it already has?
If the major B12 schools start streaming for the exits, that is another matter. But a pre-emptive assault on the B12 by the SEC would require new TV contracts to be in place. The success of the SEC is its own challenge as it has raised the bar for any school to enter. TV contracts will have to be raised significantly for expansion to make financial sense.
LikeLike
Pensfan – Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma are worth a lot more to ESPN in the SEC than they are in the Big XII. Texas v. Iowa St. or Texas v. Florida? A&M v. Baylor or A&M v. LSU? Oklahoma v. K-State or Oklahoma v. Alabama? ESPN would shed the dead weight in the Big XII and get more compelling matchups.
If any teams leave the Big XII, their TV contracts are probably voided anyway.
LikeLike
The match ups matter less than the brand value of an enlarged SEC.
What the SEC has done so well is to create a brand of football that creates a halo effect around its games regardless of the match up actually in play.
ESPN would benefit more from a 14 or 16 team SEC than it would from those teams staying in the Big 12 because that creates more SEC games instead of Big 12 games.
LikeLike
The NFL has the best football brand in America. But I’m still not going to watch Detroit vs. St. Louis. Do you think college football fans are going to tune in to Mississippi State v. Kentucky b/c of the halo effect? The SEC’s brand strength may get it a better bowl lineup, but it is only the product of the individual schools that matters when getting viewers.
I think you are mixing in marketing concepts that don’t really apply. We’re not talking Coca-Cola here.
LikeLike
You are cherry-picking the best vs. the worst.
What about Texas v. Texas Tech or Texas v. Mississippi State? How about Oklahoma v. Oklahoma State or Oklahoma v. Kentucky?
Note that ESPN has first dibs in the B12, but gets second choice in the SEC. They won’t get Texas v. Florida or Texas v. Alabama — CBS will.
If the SEC just takes Texas and A&M — then ESPN loses Texas-Oklahoma. That’s a bigger game at present than anything the SEC could offer.
Regardless, the test is the marginal revenue increase across the board against the added cost of rights. If the SEC takes 4 teams, rights fees would have to go up a minimum of 33% for the deal to break even. Also, the SEC has to negotiate a three-way deal. Either ESPN or CBS could low-ball, trying to force the other TV partner to essentially subsidize expansion and a better schedule for the other.
The marginal dollars may make sense and a contract may be possible, but I think the ease of a new deal is overrated.
LikeLike
The ESPN contract with the Big 12 and the SEC are 2 different contracts. ESPN shows a football game or 2 from the Big 12 every week and maybe some basketball games. Many Big 12 games are on Fox regional networks. ESPN has a wide-ranging contract with the SEC that shows most of their football games, plus a lot of other sports for their family of networks. The SEC baseball championship the other day was on ESPN, while the Big 12 championship game was exiled to one of those Fox College Network channels. The addition of some Big 12 schools to the wide-ranging contract adds value to ESPN. In addition, the current Big 12 contract will finish many years before the recent SEC contract, so ESPN’s programming would be more secure for the long term with those names moved to the SEC contract. Finally, if these Big 12 schools form their own network, or leave to join a conference with its own network, ESPN would lose their rights anyway.
Now, I’ve gotten the impression that the new ACC contract is similar to the new SEC contract, so there may be less financial incentive to restructure the contract if some ACC schools are added.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech would probably get the nod over FSU because it would give the SEC inroads in Virginia (and Washington, D.C.), new markets. Without UVa in the ACC, Tech has no inherent loyalty to the conference.
For a 16-team SEC, I could see it taking in Oklahoma and Okie State from the west, Virginia Tech and either West Virginia or N.C. State from the east (and for NCSU, that’s whether or not UNC and Duke wound up in the Big Ten).
LikeLike
A few links to keep you busy:
A preview of some conference meetings out west. Not much new info– good to know the dates, though.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/01/previewing-the-pac-10-wcc-and-wac-meetings/#more-13633
Slive just did a radio interview that will air later in the day. Apparently, the SEC will get increased pay outs from CBS/ESPN if they expand. He can’t talk about specifics because of a confidentiality clause. Per ClayTravisBGID via Twitter.
LikeLike
Anybody seen the following comments from the Cal chancellor (H/T Dr. Saturday)?
http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1089778
Not sure what to make of his comment that “at least one” school under consideration meets Pac-10 academic standards. As I see it, the only real candidates are Utah, Colorado, Texas, and A&M – obviously Tex would qualify there, but I would think Colo would as well. A&M would also seem to be a decent academic fit, but cultural considerations might be a roadblock, and Bill Byrne has indicated that he’s not thrilled about West Coast travel. Utah…probably borderline academically, but maybe ok as a 12th member along with Colo.
LikeLike
Good find. I think these are the money quotes:
Birgeneau confirmed that the chancellors and presidents of the Pac-10 member schools will be holding a conference meeting on June 6 in San Francisco, and said that he would be “surprised if something did not happen that revolutionized college athletics.”
BearTerritory’s sources also said that it would not come as a surprise if the formation of a Pac-10 Network were announced as early as this weekend.
Possibilities:
1) P10 cable network and chancellor hyperbole
2) P10 and B12 partner on a cable network
3) P10 and BTN partnership
4) TX and ? to a P-Whatever
5) aTm to a P-Whatever without TX
6) Agreement among the BCS conferences to allow conf champ games without regard to conf size
LikeLike
The comment seems to be aimed at Colorado in terms of a school meeting the requirements among what they’re looking at…
Then they’re looking for another school to go with Colorado… most likely Utah or A&M.
LikeLike
There is no chance that A&M goes this route with Colorado. None.
LikeLike
I agree; I intended to say that Texas/A&M/Colorado are the only three that fit the “academic qualifications” of the Pac-10 (whatever those are).
Texas and A&M both seem like they’re going to go to the Big Ten or SEC at this point if they go anywhere.
Colorado definitely seems to be the one they’re targeting with the add-on likely to be Utah or BYU or UNLV or one of the others that doesn’t meet the academic qualifications (probably Utah).
LikeLike
Texas and Texas A&M likely only consider the Pac-10 option if it is some type of alliance that would include most / all of the current B12.
LikeLike
I should add a 7th way that the P10 meetings could revolutionize college athletics:
P10 adds CO & Utah. P12 and B12 form a Western Alliance to share a primary cable channel and bundle all their games for a shared TV bid. (Remember that if the B12 forms a cable channel its ESPN contract can be reopened to negotiation.) Now for the kicker, who becomes the B12’s 12th team? How about ND!
Why the B12 might win the Irish:
1 – Go to a 7-game (5-2) conference schedule. Gives ND more scheduling flexibility.
2 – As part of the Western Alliance, P12 and B12 schools agree to schedule at least 1 game per year against each other. USC-ND covers that for ND.
3 – Agree to partner with B10+ to push for 13th game. Gives ND more flexibility, now still has 5 OOC games after conf and USC, room for Navy and 4 more. B10+ could never offer that.
4 – P12 and B12 continue their merit-based revenue splitting based on TV appearances. ND and TX benefit the most, but keeping and bringing them in lifts all the boats in the Alliance.
5 – Alliance channel allows TX, ND, and any other school willing to fund it their own channels, apart from but affiliated with the mother channel.
6 – Could allow ND more TV contract freedom than B10+ would.
7 – ISU, MO, NE, KS, and KSU are still relatively close to S. Bend. OSU and OU are no further than NYC, Providence, or DC. If MO and/or NE leave, Lou and Cin could replace them. So travel wouldn’t be a killer for ND.
8 – Football access to fast growing states and recruiting grounds in TX, AZ, CO, UT, CA, OR, and WA. Similar reasons for why the B10+ is looking south.
9 – Joining the B12 doesn’t mean it has to be forever…
Now I’m not reading any of this in the statements from B12 schools going into their meetings. Maybe TX, ND, and the P10 are in on it and holding things close to the vest, but I doubt it. Just raising a possibility.
And then there’s also the possibility that the Western Alliance could include ND without the Irish actually joining either conference.
I just keep coming back to Swarbrick’s statement that he and TX were seeing eye to eye these days.
LikeLike
Surprisingly, I was right there with you while reading your proposal, playoffsnow. It’s a great plan.
I think the downside is still twofold.
One, it’s five years too late. Something like this would have needed to come about before the Big 10 became a financial juggernaut. Then again, this “seismic shift” of NCAA wouldn’t have come about without the economic downturn and the Big 10 Network to push it to where it is today.
Two, Notre Dame loathes being in a conference and while some Domers would argue that being in the Big 12 would be better than the Big 10 (crazy ones, but they ARE out there), the reality is that Notre Dame would be miffed about playing 7 games against Big 12 foes. A schedule of, let’s say, Nebraska, Kansas St., Kansas, Mizzou, Iowa St, Texas and Texas Tech…with Iowa St. and KSU being YEARLY foes? That’s not going to fly in South Bend.
LikeLike
Here’s what I’d like to know. If the Fox and the BTN offered to overpay for the Pac 10’s TV deal, could they make up that much money forming their own channel in conjunction with the Big 12? If Fox and the BTN offered something ridiculous like a 10-year, $120 million for their TV rights in efforts to turn the BTN into a national cable station and get it on the West Coast and force Texas to reconsider joining the Big Ten (assuming they already turned down the offer by now), would the Pac 10 REALLY turn it down? After splitting the TV revenue 22-24 ways if they join with the Big 12, are they really going to get $12 million each member?
LikeLike
The proximity of schools has never been a selling point for Notre Dame. They have no problem being isolated, thousands of miles away from competition.
If proximity were a big factor, I expect they would join the Big Ten, not the Big 12, which they consider the SEC-lite.
LikeLike
my bet for earth-shaking news from the pac-10 meeting?
they are seriously looking at maybe expanding or possibly linking up with another conference for tv bargaining purposes.
LikeLike
Cal’s chancellor would be “surprised if something did not happen that revolutionized college athletics.”
“Revolutionized” is a drastic word. The PAC10 adding Colorado and Utah doesn’t seem like a revolution to me. Anybody else? The only thing I could see the PAC10 doing that would be truly shocking and revolutionary would be starting a chain event of exodus from the Big 12…bumping the Big 10 up to 16 and the SEC soon after?
It can’t be a TV network between the Big 12 and the PAC10. The Big 12 is too unstable to be entering anything this substantial.
Short of Texas and Texas A/M joining the PAC10 nothing seems to fall in the “revolutionary” category.
LikeLike
A Big 10-Pac 10 partnership / some sort of shared network could be ¨revolutionary.¨
If the Big 10 is really going the way of becoming the conference of public Ivies, a partnership with the West Coast ¨Ivies¨ would make a lot of ideological sense. It would also mean a financial windfall for both conferences, helping fill the BTN´s late night programming and achieving basic cable up and down the West Coast.
Unless Cal´s chancellor is wont to hyperbole, this is the only ¨revolutionary¨ move I see on the table.
LikeLike
@Michael
I agree that a B10/P10 agreement could be the revolutionary item. The BTN covering P10 athletics makes a lot of sense for both parties. I’ve been pushing this possibility for a while on Frank’s blog.
LikeLike
Re “revolutionary move” (Michael)
A Big 10- PAC 10 joint channel would certainly be revolutionary but probably require a lot of analysis re synergies and complex negotiations re how revenue is divided, buy in rights, and so on.
Since the Big 10 is still exploring its expansion options, which may include Texas and other major schools, the most that might reasonably be announced at this stage would seem to be simply an exploration of a joint channel.
Public comments seem to indicate the Pac 10 and Big 12 have been discussing the option of a joint channel. I have no idea how that can be productive given the uncertainty of the membership of the Big 12.
Until the Big 10 moves forward with expansion or until Texas ends up deciding where its conference home will be and the dust settles, it is hard to believe joint Pac 10 – Big 10 channel discussions could be productive.
Perhaps the Pac 10 may announce it is moving forward on its own channel and possibly announce an invitation to Colorado.
LikeLike
Wow, the Pac-10 may be going into overdrive in terms of news over the next couple weeks.
Possible expansion (most likely Colorado + another) and then a Pac-10 Network.
That would set the dominoes in motion for the Big Ten to make a move, so that would probably be for the best.
LikeLike
A thought: what level of collusion do you think the SEC and the Big 10 are taking part in? This isn’t business, where it’s illegal to collude with rival companies– the two power conferences could help each other out by orchestrating their moves together.
Big 10 wins the UT and aTm sweepstakes. Big 10 ‘takes’ Vandy, allows SEC to add another football school. Big 10 and SEC ravage the Big 12, ACC and Big East’s football powers. Fall out:
Big 10 get’s their egg head scenario– Vandy comes easily, less competition for UT/aTm, and less blame for destroying ACC (which is also in its academic interests).
SEC divests Vandy (football dead weight), can pick up a better football school (Miami, FSU, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ok State, West Virginia, etc) and is given reason to expand outside of greed (Big 10 poached Vandy).
Maybe it won’t work out that way, but both have something to gain by working together. Texas/aTm may be too big of a prize, though.
LikeLike
My bet would be that there has been zero collusion between the SEC and the Big 10. I don’t think that JD and Sliva/Silva (whatever) like each other.
LikeLike
Not sure if this angle has been covered much here, so thought I’d throw it out there. In terms of time-frame, there is certainly a chance we’ll hear something this week with the Big 12 meetings. Ulitimately Texas holds the key as they clearly appear to be the #1 target of the Big 10 and Pac 10 and have to make a decision to either join one of those conferences, stay Big 12 or go independent.
However, the other issue that will create a “deadline” of sorts is recruiting. Sure there are many things that go into changing conferences, and many people who would be involved. But football is the money maker, and basketball is invested in heavily as well at most of the key schools who may be on the move. Once the new school year begins and recruiting hits a fever pitch with campus visits, schools will need to have an answer as to where they will be playing in the future. Anyone from Big 12 country being recruited by Nebraska and Missouri is likely to be told by other schools that they’ll be playing all their games in Indiana and Minn instead of Texas or whatever other state they are in. Even kids in Texas will be told all their road games will be far away if Texas leaves the conference. This sort of thing happens all the time, but this is a real big issue for a lot of recruits. They often want games in geographic locations so family and friends can see them. Are you going to Texas or Oklahoma so you can play the other every year in a huge game? Well, no guarantee that game exists if either leaves the Big 12. These are the pitches kids are going to hear from schools that are more secure in exactly where they will be in the future. USC is going to be in the Pac-10, Alabama and LSU are going to be in the SEC, Ohio State and Michigan are going to be in the Big 10.
The pressure from very highly paid coaches, donors, boosters and AD’s to have a resolution in places like Texas and Nebraska is going to be tremendous and I imagine the school will need to make a determination on their future by early fall at the very latest. If the Big 10 or Pac 10 hasn’t reached the point of sending out invites by then, they’ll end up losing candidates that can’t sit around waiting any longer.
LikeLike
Big 12 meeting primer:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/12930/big-12-spring-meetings-a-primer
LikeLike
And with Colorado looking like it may get an invite this weekend to the Pac-10, we could see things start to really heat up in the Big 12.
LikeLike
I don’t read that Pac10 article as indicating expansion is imminent. The indication is that he is probably talking about a Pac 10 network. Pac 10 is still probably on its sometime before the end of the year deadline.
Interesting interview of Ohio St. AD:
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2010/06/big_ten_expansion_would_be_abo.html
Only thing really new is that it says B10 isn’t that different from B12 in its power structure. AD says OSU, UM and PSU basically have veto power on anything significant. It reinforces some comments made here. Reporter asks a question assuming a 16 team expansion and it was fielded like that was clearly the plan. No questions about who was the favorite which seemed to have been part of the ground rules-a quiet period. Expansion seems to be a sure thing even though the AD said the opposite. My interpretation of his comments was that expansion will happen unless the revenue isn’t there. Given the value of a championship game, the B10 could probably invite E. Michigan and come out ahead. Also made the comment that the admissions department would be all over any new state recruiting non-athlete students, supporting the significance of the demographic issue.
LikeLike
Nice article. Clearly that guy gets it. The academic side. The revenue sharing model. The power of cohesion. The idea that the conference is as strong as the weakest link, and its in everyone’s interest to strengthen the weaker teams. Very impressive for an AD, IMO.
I didn’t read the article like you, though. To me he’s not at all saying the B10 is structured like the B12. In fact, the opposite. He’s saying the other ways of running a conference don’t work as well as a shared model such as the B10.
He also did not say that OSU, UM or PSU have veto power. He said that if OSU had some sort of objection to expansion, it likely wouldn’t be just OSU with the issue. The concern would likely be shared by PSU, UM or some other school. That’s quite a different thing than saying OSU has veto power.
LikeLike
I read his interview as saying that the Big Ten won’t do anything that’s not in the best interest of the Big Ten and that it would match what’s in the best interest of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State.
I don’t really see any scenario where expansion looks like the Penn State expansion in the early 90s. That was a fiasco by any definition.
The Big Ten is probably the most centralized in terms of Delany and the Big Ten office running things. Delany pretty much totally controls the Big Ten Network; it’s even refered to as “his baby” in some articles.
I’d say the power structure works because Delany will always do what’s in the interest of all the schools, and Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State are willing to share the pie equally because they have so many revenue sources and don’t want to have any distant stragglers in the Big Ten in terms of athletic departments/revenue.
One other thing, Penn State and Ohio State/Michigan may be coming at this from different angles. Penn State has always wanted another eastern partner (as stated by JoePa and a former president), so we’ll see how that ends up working out in terms of balancing the expansion. I see Penn State wanting at least 1 eastern team in any expansion scenario, whereas Ohio State won’t make any kind of demand like that.
Ohio State may make a demand that Texas or Notre dame is included or we roll back the expansion talk if they don’t see expansion being worth the $.
LikeLike
Careful not to infer to far into Smith’s comments. I think what he said can be more easily quantified as OSU/UM/PSU’s opinions carrying a lot of weight in the conference since they’re the biggest names (in athletics at least). None individually, however, would hold sole veto power. The PSU-to-BigTen vote tally confirms that at least, where OSU voted for and Michigan against.
LikeLike
that is a very nice interview. he is very impressive. thanks for the link.
loud and clear, it’s right there for you guys. the academic push. over and again from these guys we are hearing this.
someday soon, goin’ to pay attention to them, someday soon.
LikeLike
Glenn,
you’ve certainly made your preference for an “academic Expansion” clear.
Is that your prediction and/or just your personal preference? I still have a hard time seeing your slant working financially.
Just curious, what’s your idea of a good football (or other sport)game? Are you going to be watching Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt, or maybe Virginia-Maryland, or one of the traditional BT powers beat up on these guys in your new BT? Will many others will line up to watch this with you?
Seems to me if this was purely “what the presidents want” in 100% terms of pure academic excellence, Jim D wouldn’t be working this, since he’s only running the sports/TV side of the enterprise–unless he’s some sort of front man for the academic driven expansion your posts seem to be advocating.
Sorry, just doesn’t add up. My PREFERENCE is for a good academic school with a strong athletic product to watch. My PREDICTION is some compromise of the two.
Full disclosure: native Nebraskan, attended Nebraska, living in a Chicago.
Would be curious where your bias comes from as well.
Keep posting, contributes to the best offseason in years!
LikeLike
ChicagoRed
I have a hard time myself seeing Vanderbilt get an invite over Nebraska unless the exact scenario in this post is at stake.
I.E. Texas/A&M and Maryland/Virginia say they want to come, and Notre Dame says no. Then they negotiate on Vanderbilt as a compromise and centrally located school that location-wise helps all 4 of the other expansion candidates.
This scenario is so remote though.
In any other scenario you’re looking at Nebraska as one of the top 3 expansion candidates right behind Texas and Notre Dame.
I don’t think any of us thinks that absent some kind of scenario that requires compromises, that we’re not going to take the best all around fits, of which Nebraska is certainly one of the top and one of the most willing.
LikeLike
sorry, red. just happened onto this.
i do definitely see some sort of academic/research bias in the big ten expansion. one reason is that texas is such a big fish in this, and texas has never made a secret of its desire to be known as an absolute top school nationally.
the mechanism is this: texas wants to join the big ten but only if they desire to move the conference into a whole new concept of academic/research excellence. adding texas’ athletic and academic/research prowess — and that of tamu which is substantial in its own right if it ever gets straightened around — is worth driving the expansion in big ten eyes. hence we get all kinds of hints–including the recent inklings from ohio state’s a.d. that academia is going to be a huge sledgehammer in this.
i thought this early on, but there were so many misleading teasers, including deloss pooh-poohing everything, that this concept lost a lot of luster. darn near everything recently has been pointing this way, and my early suspicion has assumed huge proportion.
i think they are going to go heavy that way and are patting down the grass to make it less of a shock to those who think athletics should rule everything.
LikeLike
missed a couple of questions.
my interests aren’t at all important.
not sure i earned one, but discovered that texas was willing to give me a diploma if i would simply go away.
[side matter. this little input postage stamp on its side is hard to use. i find myself getting lost in what i’ve said. wonder if anyone is having similar issues.]
LikeLike
Everything said in this interview gives credence to whomever Frank´s sources are. A five team expansion of UT, aTm, Vandy, Maryland and UVa could certainly fit within the context and criteria laid out.
LikeLike
Would Penn State consider Maryland and Virginia sufficiently “eastern” to meet its criteria? It probably would, although when this all began neither was believed to be on the Big Ten radar, fruit hanging too high and all that.
LikeLike
Would Penn State consider Maryland and Virginia sufficiently “eastern” to meet its criteria?
Both schools are closer to State College than Rutgers, MD closer than Syr.
Though I suspect Joe Pa would like a game in the NJ recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
That’s true enough, but JoePa’s stated he won’t push for anyone. He just wants some eastern member(s). Yes, he views aiming at the New Jersey/New York markets as a good idea, but he’s said he’s going to leave that to Delaney’s office to decide if its worth pursuing those markets.
And from the comments I’ve seen from the Penn State alums on this board, I think all of them would consider just Maryland alone as sufficient to complement Penn State on the eastern front if the Big Ten needed to go 4 in the west for Texas.
I think they just want to make sure that the conference doesn’t go too far west so that Penn state is left as the only eastern school out there; i.e. 1 school in the east is fine.
LikeLike
All three schools are about the same driving distance.
MD — 190m
RU — 247
UVa — 300
All will be seen as ‘Eastern’ I think, and in that sense PSU should be happy. Playoffs Now makes the point that NJ recruiting grounds are richer, which is probably true, but I’d guess that MD+Va is probably a pretty good area as well. It’s not as if PSU recruiting efforts are absent in the NJ area. Exposure to new grounds might be more valuable — I really don’t know if having a game in the area makes that much difference. Perhaps others with a better feel for the relative value of playing in a recruiting area can chime in. One advantage of the BTN is the credible claim to recruits (from anywhere) that all of their games will be available to friends and family.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that the Big 10 would welcome Md and Va. Problem is, they ain’t coming. Next.
LikeLike
Agreed. The hints about an impending P10 Network actually tell us more than the expansion info, as the short timeframe would pretty much rule out any meaningful participation by the B12 in the TV venture – no one on the TV side is making any deal with the B12 without knowing what the final composition of the league will look like, and right now even Beebe doesn’t know who’s “on the plane.” If the P10 TV markets are no longer accessible to the B12 by way of alliance or joint venture, that cuts off one of the main avenues for future B12 revenue growth and thus further destabilizes the conference.
Re: P10 expansion, the B12 only has 3 logical replacement candidates as it is – BYU, Utah, and NM (Arkansas, like Larry Bird, is not walking through that door). If Utah goes P10 with Colo, that leaves 2, and with Neb apparently out the door there’s no margin for error. Suddenly a Colo/Neb/Mizz move would have the B12 looking at the TCUs and Houstons of the world – smallish fanbases in markets already controlled by the B12 – or distant schools like Memphis and USF that would seem to be a strange fit. If the chancellor is right (obviously a big if), the chances of UT/A&M leaving just went up.
LikeLike
I think the conventional wisdom is that if the three North teams leave and if Utah/BYU are off the table, the Big 12 will go after new markets. Houston and TCU aren’t on the table if the Big 12 retains its Texas schools. Memphis, Cincy and Louisville are logical market plays.
LikeLike
If Colorado leaves, Colorado State becomes one of the main candidates.
LikeLike
Colorado State and their 23K a game attendance in the Big 12? Not a chance. Baylor draws 36K, and the TX legislature had to put a gun to UT and TAMU’s heads to get them in. Iowa State is second last in the BigXII in attendance last season with 46k.. Everyone else is over 50k.
Colorado State is lucky they’re in the MWC and not the WAC, let alone the B12. CSU will not be considered for membership.
LikeLike
josh, times have changed. when the b12 formed, it was a super-conference. what will be left after this round will not be. no comparison to the ’90’s issues will be appropriate.
not saying colo st is right for the b12, just saying things need to be looked at with fresh eyes.
LikeLike
@Glenn
I don’t think UT and TAMU are ever going to be willing to subsidize CSU. And if the B12 becomes weak enough to want CSU (i.e. UT and TAMU leave) then the MWC becomes a better and stronger conference than the B12 and CSU would have no desire to leave.
Air Force would make more sense to the B12 than CSU would. They’ve got more fans in Colorado and more of a national footprint.
LikeLike
Unless the Big 12 disbands, I don’t see any way the Big 12 loses its BCS automatic bid. That ensures it will be a more desirable football conference than the MWC.
As others have said in other areas, they will invite teams to fill the gaps. TCU, BYU, UNLV, Houston, Fresno State, New Mexico, and maybe some Big East schools would all be considered if the Big 12 gets hit.
LikeLike
@ HH
Colorado State? Based on past comments by those who know the Denver area better than I, CSU has very little impact or visibility in the Denver market – falls behind Broncos/Avs/Nuggets/Rockies/CU,maybe even Neb and/or BYU. Very small home market, and a second-tier athletic program even in the Mtn West. I suppose the B12 situation could get dire enough to make CSU attractive, but at that point the power teams would be long gone anyway.
LikeLike
I have not seen anything to indicate this to be true, other than the normal speculation that goes on regarding this topic. Have you read somthing more specific to indicate Colorado in particular would get an invite?
LikeLike
That was meant to follow the post from Zeek, but works here.
Also, the Big 12 can look in many directions for replacents. I think Memphis and Louisville would be considered strongly, but have no idea if they’d have mutual interest.
LikeLike
I think the recent Colorado scare comes out of comments by a Cal official:
http://cal.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1089778
LikeLike
I had taken his comments to indicat they would announce their TV network details at that meeting. I also think it’s sorta odd/funny to say something like: Pac-10 is seriously considering “a couple of schools, at least one of which meets the academic standards of the rest of the Pac-10.”
Does that mean they are actually looking at schools that don’t meet the PAC-10 Academic standards? Perhaps Texas Tech and UNVL should get ready for some PAC-10 Madness!!!!
LikeLike
Guido, I’d imagine that the only three schools they consider as meeting their academic standards are Texas/A&M/Colorado. But they are also considering schools like Utah, maybe BYU, UNLV, etc.
The Pac-10 will likely bring in a pair of schools if it does act, the most obvious being Colorado-Utah, etc.
LikeLike
@ Gopher/Guido
You’re right that Memphis, Cincy, and L’ville are probably the next best choices beyond BYU/Utah/NM, but I think the larger point is that if the B12 has to dip down into that tier, UT and A&M are likely headed for the exits. Utah and NM are state flagship schools in booming regions, and BYU has both a growing home market (which I understand from earlier posts that it dominates) and a strong regional following across the western US. Although none are exactly Texas, these are the kinds of schools with whom UT/A&M could plausibly work long-term. Compare with Memphis-Cincy-L’ville, basketball-focused commuter schools in older markets that they may not even be able to deliver – I know that Ohio St has a strong Cincy presence, and I suspect that Memphis has its share of Tenn/Ark/Ole Miss fans. It’s nothing against those schools, which obviously have strong b-ball programs and have a lot to offer on a certain level, just that if I’m Texas, I’m looking to partner with other large state schools that dominate their markets.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think that as Texas goes, so goes the Big 12. Cincy/Memphis/Louisville aren’t ideal candidates, but there isn’t much left in the mid-continent/midwest after BYU/Utah/UMN. Their only option for survival is to steal from the Big East and non-AQ leagues.
LikeLike
Actually NM is small and one of the slower growth western states. They just reached 2 million people and are adding about 20K per year. Slightly larger than NE. Idaho is adding more at 25K per year. NV already is 30% bigger and on average has added 3.5 times as many people per year as NM. Lou official TV market is slightly smaller, but probably pulls as big a draw across KY and southern IN. And Cincy-Dayton market alone is over 3 million.
NM could indeed be a candidate, but I’d be surprised if they are chosen over BYU, CSU, Cincy, or Lou if CO leaves.
LikeLike
PN!, I think we can agree that BYU is easily the best candidate out of these choices, but I’d take NM next. CSU and Cincy have some of the same long-term problems – secondary schools within their states that fall way down in the local sports pecking order and thus arguably won’t deliver much of their own home markets. My sense is that Lou b-ball does grab a significant share of the Lou market, and I’ll accept your numbers re: markets. Let’s concede that none of these programs move the football needle nationally – if my choices are a flagship school from a neighboring state (w/ no local pro sports) or a secondary school from four states over, I’ll take the neighbor, esp. when demographic trends favor that option.
This is just my hunch, but I think NM has unrealized football potential. Reminds me of Mizzou’s situation 10 years ago – it’s a mystery why it has always been so horrendous, as it should have the resources to be at least decent. There aren’t as many HS players in NM as in MO, but there have been a few stars (Urlacher, current OU QB Landry Jones) and everyone in the region gets most of their players from Texas anyway, incl. Mizzou. With the right coach and a little investment in the program, there’s no reason that NM couldn’t at least be Texas Tech.
LikeLike
This is from Dodds in the looby today.
Asked directly about criticism of Missouri and Nebraska within the Big 12, Dodds denied either school was being disloyal.
“Everybody stays ready,” said Dodds, the head of the Big 12‘s most successful and powerful athletic program. “Everybody figures out what’s best for them and get options.”
That includes Texas, Dodds said.
“We’re watching what’s happening with the Big Ten, probably to a lesser degree to the Southeast Conference,” Dodds said. “If the landscape is going to change, we’re going to be a part of it and be a viable part of it. Texas will come out of it in good shape.”
LikeLike
Interesting that he mentioned the Big Ten and SEC but not the Pac10. Probably doesn’t mean anything, but who knows.
LikeLike
that is very interesting. this is not usual fare for him.
you have to wonder if he meant to say pac-10 instead of southeast conference, but maybe not. i wonder if the word out west is conference buddy up for tv or nothing and that texas’ continuance in the big 12 isn’t going to work?
and maybe dodds is letting it be known that the big ten is really looking good right now. even if there is zero interest in the sec (and i doubt it would be that low) i think he needs to say something just for face value.
but no mention whatever of the pac-10. big surprise.
LikeLike
Linky:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/01/1984924/texas-athletic-director-says-its.html
LikeLike
The money quote here is the last one:
“We’re watching what’s happening with the Big Ten, probably to a lesser degree to the Southeast Conference,” Dodds said. “If the landscape is going to change, we’re going to be a part of it and be a viable part of it. Texas will come out of it in good shape.”
This is the first time I´m aware of in which Texas has explicitly mentioned the Big 10. Maybe Dodds was just acknowledging the fact that SEC expansion is more reactionary, but it´s very interesting to hear him say Big 10 expansion is foremost on his mind.
We´ll have to see, but my guess is that by the end of these meetings Texas to the Big 10 becomes a mainstream rumor.
LikeLike
Not much has changed, back in 1992: ‘Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds says only that the long-range future of college football is the superconference—perhaps 40 of the biggest, wealthiest schools forming a handful of alliances, with the rest dropping down or dropping the sport. “The world is going to dictate where Texas goes,” he says. “The marketplace will dictate it.”‘
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1004498/3/index.htm
Most of us see the future as belonging to 4 superconferences of 12-16 teams: ACC, Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC. If Dodds thinks that the future he pondered in 1992 is coming to pass in merely a slightly different form, there’s no way he won’t make sure that Texas has a seat at the table where TPTB at Texas want them to have a seat.
LikeLike
And saying “Southeast Conference” (conjuring up “Southwest Conference”) instead of its correct title of “Southeastern Conference”…well, that can’t make Mike Slive very happy.
I sense UT’s top priority is now the Big Ten, especially since it appears A&M won’t go in tandem to the Pac-10 and I doubt Texas wants to partner with Colorado (which may force the Pac-10 to accept Utah as the Buffaloes’ partner, especially since Brigham Young is a non-starter). Now, Dodds needs to get the best deal he can with Delany, even if UT has to sacrifice its long-desired Longhorn Network to do it.
LikeLike
i’ve thought that for a while, vincent, and have said so numerously. i don’t think the noise about pursuing the network has been just noise. i think the interest is genuine. but the possibility of joining an existing winner–if the situation is a good one–must be tempting.
i think texas would really prefer to stay in the big 12, but it would need to become much more like the big ten and there just isn’t going to happen.
LikeLike
Dodds statement is carefully crafted to be about as vanilla as it can be. You can interpret it to suit any preconception you might possess.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
KU AD, Perkins, had an impromptu Q&A with the media. A lot of it is concerning the recent black eyes at KU, but there are some interesting quotes regarding expansion:
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2010/jun/01/ku-ad-perkins-speaks-reporters-prior-big-12-meetin/
This is the first time anyone at KU has said they’d listen to other conferences– it’s a change from his circle the wagons stance.
More is expected to come out later today, but here are some paraphrased notes from someone at the event:
Asked about realignment… “Unfortunately I’ve had this experience before, back when I was in the Big East. If I said I wasn’t worried, I’d be a fool. This is serious, serious, serious stuff.”
Asked about the timing of a possible realignment… “This is not going to happen tomorrow. This is one year or two years away. It’s important that we administrators stay focused on this. This is serious stuff.”
Asked about KU’s position in the Big 12…. “We’re in the perfect footprint, this is the best place for us to be.”
Asked about what the Big 12 Commissioner is doing… “I think Dan Bebe is out exploring all possibilities. I have such high respect for him. I think he’s doing a fabulous job and is keeping everyone informed as to what is going on. He’s also doing things behind the scenes, though I don’t know what they are.”
Regarding the time Lew has spent thinking about possible expansion… “I’ve spent a lot of time on this, though not as much as I would like. The future of Kansas and 200 other universities is expansion and affiliations. When you talk to Dan (Bebe) and DeLoss Dodds, and Mike Alden, this is where they are spending their time and should be.”
Someone is jumping ship, and I have a feeling there will be a lot of leaks from the meetings this week.
LikeLike
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/archives/06-01-2010.html
A few new quotes:
“Right now, I think there are so many things out there and I have so much respect for Tom Osborne … and every athletic director in our conference,” Perkins said. “And I think they have to do everything they possibly can to put themselves in a position so that their institution is in the right place at the right time. … At the end of the day the most important thing for the University of Kansas and college athletics is expansion.”
“If I said I wasn’t worried, I would be a fool,” Pekins said. “I am worried every day about what’s going to happen. Not only at Kansas or the Big 12, but the Pac-10, the Big Ten. This is serious, serious stuff.”
Perkins said he thinks Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe is doing “everything humanly possible to make sure this handled the right way.”
Said Perkins: “One of the things that I think some people have not thought about … is that the Big Ten has been in business for 100 years, the Pac-10 for 100 years. If you really analyze us, we’re teenagers, the Big 12. We’ve only been in existence for 15 years. We’re teenagers. We’re just young kids. This is me saying it, not anybody else. I want to grow old with my siblings.”
Beebe is going to be addressing the media in a few hours– stay tuned.
LikeLike
Perkins impromptu presser:
http://www2.kusports.com/podcasts/press_conferences_postgame_interviews/2010/jun/01/lew-perkins-meets-media-big-12-meetings/
Expansion talk starts at 4:00 mark.
LikeLike
“serious, serious, serious stuff” means he knows something is up affecting Kansas if not the B12. He also asked the reporter if the reporter knew whether Kansas had been contacted. Further he mentioned that all the AD’s talk & know each other intimating that they are all talking to each other from different conferences. Hate to see those phone bills.
LikeLike
200 Institutions in play? That sounds seismic to me! That would be all 119 FBS plus a lot of basketball schools playing musical chairs! What is going on here? Maybe TV & cheaper air travel have opened a crack in the dam but what will the new conference paradigm be?
LikeLike
Interesting comment from Dodds.
Some great posts about the academic side of this scenario. I really do see something like this playing out.
The interesting thing about these different rumors is it looks like the Big X is trying to tread lightly, or as lightly as possible. If they take a Texas, TAMU, Rutgers, Vande and Maryland they essentially only take one from each conference except the Big XII. Those other conferences can add a team and survive to fight another day. The Big XII would essentially go back to the Big 8 but with a Texas exposure.
LikeLike
pete, the big ten IS only taking one from the big 12. it just happens to be a twisted pair.
LikeLike
In that scenario, the Big 12 probably woos Louisville and Cincinnati from the Big East. Neither school is that far from Ames, Columbia and other towns, bring in new markets and have heartland experience from having been in the MIssouri Valley Conference back in the day. The Big 12 would be weakened without A&M and UT, but would still be stronger and wealthier than the Big East.
LikeLike
Someone smuggled out a couple of slides from today’s power point on the B12’s future:
http://tinyurl.com/39cbebs
LikeLike
http://tinyurl.com/2wdhqff
LikeLike
that hole is amazingly close to circular. also interesting that it occurred at an intersection. sewage or storm drain problems?
LikeLike
Good point, that may explain it.
LikeLike
if that is what it is, i’d hate to have to drive in that town. lots of intersections and you never know when you drive into one, if the weight of your car is going to spring the thing.
LikeLike
The sinkhole was weeks/months/years in the making. Floodwaters from a tropical storm finally caused it to collapse.
Read this for more info:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100601-sinkhole-in-guatemala-2010-world-science/
LikeLike
the nat’l geo article compares it to another one in the same city several years. interesting that both holes are almost perfectly circular and both are 30 stories deep. that can’t be coincidence.
they also say this new one may not be through growing.
article says usually these things are filled in but these are so large they aren’t sure what to do.
assuming it doesn’t get a lot bigger, why can’t they just bridge over it?
LikeLike
Well, the immediate cause was Tropical Storm Agatha. But they did say that the drainage system under the street helped cause it.
Another picture of the thing here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/latin_america/10202065.stm
LikeLike
In related news, Beebe’s boarding pass deadline for who is on the plane is next April:
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/tiger-tracker/tiger-tracker/2010/06/beebe-says-april-tv-negotiations-a-key-date-for-big-12-future/
Hoo boy, the defection candidates are sweating now.
LikeLike
LOL. All the bluster, saber rattling, and big talk about not keeling to the Big Ten’s timeline only to provide a deadline of… entirely in the Big Ten’s timeline. Sounds like maybe he got the word from some of the universities to shove it in response to his ultimatum claims.
LikeLike
When that plane is ready for takeoff, Beebe can probably count on ISU, KSU, KU, TTech and Baylor on the passenger list, though Missouri may also be left behind. Expect Nebr, UT and A&M to be Big Ten-bound, OU and Okie State going to the SEC and CU headed west to the Pac-10.
LikeLike
More:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-big-12-meetings,0,5812386.story
LikeLike
@ Vincent
And yes, I’d agree that the big fizzle sounds emanating from Beebe would be a positive indication that the Texas schools are in play, or at minimum keeping their options open until the picture clears a bit.
LikeLike
My thoughts are the same as yours.
If Texas was 100% committed to the Big 12 and had made that known to Beebe, the deadline would have been August 2010, as in before this calendar school year/football season gets started.
Enough schools have told him that they want to keep their options open that tightening the penalties, etc. likely would not pass right now is what all of this seems to imply.
Oh and one other thing, that fits squarely at the end of the Big Ten’s time frame for expansion which is Dec. 2010 – May 2011.
Thus, it looks as if Beebe is going to give both the Pac-10 and Big Ten all the time they need in some sense.
LikeLike
The KC Star weighs in:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/01/1984924/texas-athletic-director-says-its.html
Looks like they’re trying to keep a tight lid on this one– no public statements about meeting specifics. Everyone quoted after that meeting seems so defeated about the viability of the Big 12. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that meeting.
LikeLike
‘member schools might be telling me that those doors have to remain open for a lot longer time than I’m comfortable with.’
there you go.
LikeLike
Yikes:
http://cjonline.com/sports/football/2010-06-01/big_12_ads_talk_expansion
“I’m a glass-half-full guy,” he said. “Even if there’s a decision that we can’t compel people by a certain date to close the door, I still feel the conclusion of institutions that are considering other possibilities is going to be that this is the best place for them.”
Sounds like the AD’s pretty much said ‘eff your time table– we’re going to do what’s best for our school, not the Big 12’. Beebe’s hopeful that entry fees and exit fees will keep members in the fold.
LikeLike
One of the more sobering takes on the situation courtesy of Shatel: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100601/SPORTS/706019855
LikeLike
Exit penalties are Industrial age dinosaurs coincidentally proudly supported by the BEast of the union heavy northeast area. The rest of the country has realized that positive rewards for performance far exceed the scarcity mentality “do nothing” to improve yourself punishment era. I think a lot of schools will be balking at any exit penalties just like you would if your job had an exit penalty. How fair is that taking money from a struggling athletic department because they are seeking a better strategic institutional fit?
LikeLike
Exit penalties exist b/c conferences have contracts with TV providers, corporate sponsors, bowls, etc. The conferences and their schools voluntarily enter into these agreements. Departure from a conference entails breaking said contract by a member school.
Perhaps you think contracts are quaint anachronisms. They are actually part of the foundation of a well-functioning capitalist system. To equate the relationship between individuals/employers with the contractual relationship between organizations is foolish. If you sign a consulting contract with a corporation, you could not simply walk away without fulfilling the terms scot free.
In short, your argument is simplistic and reflects a lack of the most basic understanding of economics and capitalism.
LikeLike
New Texas-centric angle on the Big 12 meetings from the KC Star:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/01/1986212/texas-can-go-anywhere-but-its.html
No real news, but I bet Hopkins has something to say about it. Mellinger is saying that the Big 12 has been good to Texas, and should remember its roots. If I were Texas, that’d be all the more reason to strike while the iron is hot.
LikeLike
well, there are a few things we can glean from the article.
1) texas is feminine.
2) while nebraska and mizzou are prudent to look at their options, texas is incredibly greedy to do so.
3) if texas were not so greedy, the big 12 would be great.
4) if it were not for the big 12, texas would be nothing.
did i miss anything?
LikeLike
ps: what is that blue square in the pic of dodds?
LikeLike
I think they blacked out (or blued out) whatever was on the godzillatron.
LikeLike
It was probably nothing. Probably a screenshot of the Big 10’s official offer to Texas, or something like that, was on Godzillatron.
LikeLike
heh.
LikeLike
No, Glenn said all that needs to be said about that joke of a column.
LikeLike
thanks, hh. meant only to augment.
LikeLike
Strange things afoot at the Circle K!
LikeLike
http://omaha.com/article/20100601/SPORTS/706019855/-1#shatel-big-12-airliner-could-be-headed-for-turbulence
>>
Later, Kansas Athletic Director Lew Perkins answered a question about whether KU would call the Big Ten by saying, “Let me ask you a question: How do you know the Big Ten hasn’t called us?”
<>
DeLoss Dodds told the Kansas City Star that NU and MU were not being disloyal to the Big 12 for listening to other offers. In fact, Texas planned to listen, too. He added that if the college landscape changes, Texas “will be a viable part of it.”
<>
Here’s something else we learned on Tuesday: There’s nothing the Big 12 can do this week to keep MU or NU — or certainly Texas — if the Big Ten Lottery people knock on their door.
<<
LikeLike
More:
http://omaha.com/article/20100601/SPORTS/706019858/-1#barfknecht-frank-talk-from-jayhawk-a-d-about-conference-expansion
>>
The most important thing for the University of Kansas and for college athletics is expansion,” he said. “That’s it.
“If I said I wasn’t worried, I’d be a fool. I am worried every day — not only about Kansas and the Big 12, but for the Pac-10, the Big Ten. … This is serious, serious, serious stuff.”
Thank you, Lew, for someone finally saying this out loud. We all know this is true. It’s refreshing to hear it plainly addressed.
When asked about KU’s positioning for the future, Perkins said: “I am concerned.”
He added that Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, Nebraska A.D. Tom Osborne, Texas A.D. DeLoss Dodds and Missouri A.D. Mike Alden are spending “all their time” on this.
“And they should,” Perkins said, “because that is the most important thing.”
<<
LikeLike
That’s interesting how Nebraska, Texas, and Missouri’s AD’s are listed specifically as “spending all their time” on this. Obviously, we knew about Missouri and Nebraska’s posturing but to have TEXAS thrown in this list makes you go HMMMMM. Also of interest, no mention of Texas A/M’s athletic director. I know that there hasn’t been as much smoke around Texas A/M and maybe that’s for good reason. Maybe their move won’t come until later?
Any Aggie fans hear anything lately?
LikeLike
I sense A&M is being reactive out of necessity. It has no interest in the Pac-10 (and the feeling is probably reciprocal), though if Texas did go west A&M could then head to the SEC (something UT likely has no interest in). The only new conference it would join forces with UT would be the Big Ten. Texas is driving the train; A&M is merely mulling over which railroad it wants to board. (Meanwhile, Nebraska, and especially Missouri, are desperately seeking to flag down the Big Ten express, although neither may have the academic fare to get on board.)
LikeLike
Bill Byrne rarely airs his laundry in the media so not hearing sound bites from him isn’t surprising. A&M won’t act first and in fact does not want to act first. Let Mizzu, CU or NU cause the break up and catch the media backlash and then pursue the best option available. This is true especially if that option differs from Texas.
LikeLike
So Dodds, Osborne, and Alden are spending all of their time on expansion. I wonder if that gives us a hint. KU inferrig that they’ve been called. 5 Team Big 12 raid? (NU, KU, MU, UT, TAMU)
LikeLike
Don’t see that happening any more than a five-team eastern expansion. Penn State would vote against it for sure, and I could see Ohio State and at least two of the Michigan and Indiana schools being cool to the concept.
LikeLike
i don’t think ku is implying that they have been called. i think they are just saying don’t make assumptions. you know what ‘assumptions’ are. what we make all day here.
mike, do you mind if i ask where you went to school?
LikeLike
Not at all, I am a proud graduate of Nebraska. I don’t hate Texas and I don’t think they run the Big 12 (except for blocking the Big 12 network, which I don’t blame them for doing either).
By the way, my favorite football road trip is to Austin.
LikeLike
thanks, mike. nebraska was historically one of my faves. i date back to devaney and loved his great old teams and those of bear and darrell and joe and others who haven’t coached in decades. huh? joe is still coaching? get out of here!
my disgust with what nebraska has become is palpable. i want nebraska far, far away from us for both our sakes.
LikeLike
I wonder if you would feel different if both were in a conference that is run differently. Right now the Big 12 is run as twelve separate schools doing what’s best for themselves. That’s why I don’t blame Texas for doing what is best for Texas (neither does the NU administration) nor do I blame Nebraska for doing the same. In a conference that is run for the benefit of all (like the Big Ten) I would be willing to bet a lot of the interschool complaining would go away. I will be the first to admit, Nebraska is one of the schools creating the environment (along with UT, OU, and TAMU) but the composition of the Big 12 (4 big money, 4 med money, 4 small money) almost necessitates it.
LikeLike
interesting what you say, mike.
i have a very hard time seeing us get along with people who think a game should end with one second on the clock if it benefits them. not even sooners think that way.
LikeLike
I haven’t argued that it wasn’t the right call. Now most Nebraska fans have, but NU fans haven’t cornered the market on whining. Everyone is guilty.
LikeLike
@Mike:
Agreed. In a close football game, which the Big12 CCG certainly was, there’s always going to be whining from the losing team’s fans. Just the way it is. Miami fans still cling to the idea that there wasn’t pass interference in the ’03 NCG, for example, and no amount of video/photo/testimonial evidence will convince some otherwise. OSU fans still call their 07 loss to Illinois as BS.
LikeLike
fans? i’m not talking about fans. i’m talking about dr tom (maybe still) and the flying pelinis.
LikeLike
If there’s a 5-team expansion, it’s almost certain that one of the schools will be an eastern partner for Penn State, probably Rutgers (with an outside chance for either Maryland or Pitt).
LikeLike
PSU would be against it, and the other schools would be setting up a potental plains votong block against them. I would be somewhat concerned about that even in the event of a TZ/A&M/Mo/Neb/RU expansion.
Also, what is the possibility that TX could go to the Big 10, but A&M jump to the SEC for the better cultural fit (to be replaced by KU?)?
LikeLike
Or perhaps, given the emphasis on academics/research, Tx/Neb/Mo/RU/Pitt (with A&M in the SEC)?
LikeLike
I don’t see KU getting the call. I’m sure there have been feelers from the Big 10, but it is most likely due dilligence. Perkins seems to have looked into it and is more interested in the Big 12. This confirms the insider info from the Spartan blog of Kansas’ disinterest a few weeks back.
The Big 10 isn’t going to invite 5 Big 12 teams, because it creates a common block of teams within their conference. They’re looking for a situation where the viability of the conference isn’t threatened. Just look at how much unity having two cultures (Big 8, SWC) has gotten the Big 12. Adding a large block of teams also shifts the influence of power away from the original member institutions–it’s better to add individuals from multiple conferences.
LikeLike
@Gopher – If the Big Ten talked to KU and KU said they were not interested than the administration at KU is flat negligent.
LikeLike
Or the buy in and exit fees didn’t make it worth while. Perkins has said that there would be entry fees for an equity play in the Big 10.
LikeLike
Gopher86, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I can easily see the buy in for a school like Missouri (or Kansas) to be formatted in such a way that it has to be paid over 10-20 years.
The Big Ten isn’t going to do anything for any school that doesn’t make that school a winner on day one.
Sure it would take 10-20 years to get to the full share, but a small slice off the top for 10-20 years is nothing.
We’re talking about a school taking home maybe $20M instead of $22M for that time frame, etc.
Also, we could offer to make it easy for them to complete the buy in at a time when the economy is better (say in a few years), and they could fundraise to finish it off quickly…
LikeLike
@zeek- I’d be more than willing to show why it might not be worthwhile, but I’m uncertain what a share of the Big 10 network is worth. It seems to me, it’d be worth a multiple of present earnings taken out a few years(5-10).
I’ll take a crack at it without an equity factor– I realize there are some big assumptions here, so feel free to poke holes.
Let’s take a look at a scenario where the Big 12 gets a contract a bit better than the ACC’s, but not as good as the SEC’s ($15mm/yr) in 2016 and the Big 10 stays at $22mm per year:
Your exit penalties would be 80% for a one year notice and 50% for two years. The average Big 12 team gets about $9mm. This means that your cash flows would be $1.8mm for one year or $4.5mm for two years.
One year notice scenario Cashflows, 2010 – 2025:
1.8, 22, 22, 22, etc.
Two year notice scenario Cashflows, 2010 – 2025:
4.5, 4.5, 22, 22, etc.
Staying put scenario Cashflows, 2010 – 2025:
9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 15, 15, 15, etc.
If you net present value them back at 5% interest, you get these results:
1 year notice: $219.2mm
2 year notice: $205.9mm
Stay put: $132.1mm
Using these quick assumptions, a Big 10 spot would have to be worth under $87.1mm to make the jump worthwhile. I’m of the opinion that a stake is worth much more at this point.
I know this was a quick calculation, but you can see what I’m driving at. Depending on what the Big 10 asks for an equity share, the extra cash flows may not be worth it.
LikeLike
Alignment w/16 gets messy if you don’t have an even number of eastern teams. You have to split Indiana schools or Illinois schools. I know that would be objectionable to the Indiana schools. I don’t know how IL and NW feel.
LikeLike
IMHO, alignment won’t matter except perhaps as a tie-breaker way down the list. If the best combination of schools academically and fiscally is an odd fit with complicated rivalries, they can always just make a new division alignment every year. I could be wrong, but get the impression that while the NCAA requires having two divisions and playing every team in that division if you want to have a conf champ game, it doesn’t preclude changing the division makeup every year. So if worst comes to worst the conference can simply plug in the required annual rivalries, then use computers to schedule out the rest of X number of seasons and then find the best division setup for each year.
Not easy or optimum, but doable.
LikeLike
I thought these were some fun attendance figures. In 1999, Texas played Rutgers in Piscataway at Rutgers Stadium. Rutgers was 0-1 and on their way to a 1-10 season (technically 2-9 since Cal was later found to use ineligible players). Texas was 1-1 and on their way to a 9-5 season.
Capacity: 41,500
Attendance: 41,511 (Texas game)
Attendance: 22,735 (avg. of 5 other home games)
LikeLike
This was before the Schiano era.
LikeLike
That’s what makes it interesting to me. It was also before Mack Brown really got Texas on a roll. Texas sold out a stadium in New Jersey that normally only filled to 55% capacity, despite having legit regional fare like Va Tech (played for NC), Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and Navy.
LikeLike
Your numbers do show the enduring value of the Texas brand.
My point is that Schiano has really built something at Rutgers. RU last year had 2 of 5 games sell out in its newly-expanded stadium (52K seats), and crowds around 50K for the other 3 games, including Texas Southern(!). If there were to be regular visits from UT, Michigan, tOSU and PSU, the question for RU would be whether it could pile another 10-15K seats onto Rutgers Stadium, or whether those games should be played at the New Meadowlands to max ticket revenue.
LikeLike
Looking at Rutgers attendance figures over the past decade or so, it definitely seems like an “if you build it, they will come” program. I hope they would play all the games in Piscataway, even if it does not maximize revenue. That’s the best way to continue building momentum for Rutgers football.
LikeLike
I just ran across a geat blog that examines sports media. Below is the page that details many of the conference TV contracts.
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Matt Sarz has great info about college sports TV issues – I know that he’s a reader here and I follow both his blog and Twitter feed.
LikeLike
So, Frank, any sneak peak of your next post?
LikeLike
yeah, this post is getting long in tooth.
LikeLike
Boise St. to the MWC on Monday?
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15207026
LikeLike
@Frank
Once you reach 600 or so comments, this thing is just too unwieldy. I know you might not have a new blog ready but maybe you can just start a new blank blog anyway? No one is commenting on your last blog anymore b/c all the conversation is here. In the same way, maybe you can just add new “commenting” blogs every two or three days for the most recent news info…shed the pork from last week. Love the blog like crazy…just frustrated.
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind – I hear you – I’m continually amazed and humbled at the number of comments coming in. Last week was a bit crazy, so I’ll be putting up a new post within the next day or two with how I see things at this point.
LikeLike
Have you looked at a new blogging platform at all, given the growth you’ve experienced? I know the platform at SBNation would be good for this — the ability to instantly identify new comments, even on giant threads, is very helpful. Not saying that SBNation would necessarily be right for you, given your interests beyond mere realignment, but it’s a good example of better platforms out there.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Yes, I’ve looked into a new blogging platform. There are a few options that have been presented to me – I’ve been hoping to make a decision on that but I’ve been crunched for time.
LikeLike
LOL – Yeah Frank – c’mon already, where is the next article?!?
Actually Frank, I love this site as it is easily where I find all the most centralized scoops / theories / hypotheses / dissertations / etc on expansion, and I appreciate your efforts and those of the posters.
I know this site is more BigTenCentric
for obvious reasons – as a Pac guy, I wish there was somewhere comprable w/ Pac info. I know the history and unanimous vote arguments are against the P10, but I honestly believe that Scott and the Pac will actually be as aggressive as they can be with the new leadership team they have put in place.
Now c’mon already….write the next article:)!
LikeLike
Reading an Austin American-Statesman chat this morning with long-time lead sports columnist Kirk Bohls (the main “UT” columnist out there, though I take most things he writes with a huge grain of salt). Relevant excerpts:
Q: What will happen to Texas if the big 10 take mizou & neb???
Bohls: Texas will join the Pac 10.
Q: What happens after 12 months? Big 12 doesn’t look like Big 12 in the longer term–DeLoss seems ready to pre-empt Nebraska and Missouri–what will he do
Bohls: I bet Texas’ hand will be forced even though it likes the status quo. [HH Note: Exactly what I’ve been arguing.]
Q: What about sec??? I see that happening!!
Bohls: Texas doesn’t want the SEC. I think the SEC scares Texas with its dominant teams, uh “occasional” bending of rules and lack of academic prestige for some of the lesser schools.
Q: Would OU follow Texas to another conference if it comes to that? What about aTm and OSU?
Bohls: OU would want to. A&M is joined at the hip with Texas.
Q: Why do Texas and A&M have to be a package deal. Is this something that is contractually binding or is it politics? I would think this would limit the offers to Texas.
Bohls: It is all legislative-driven. Remember the formation of the Big 12? This will not limit Texas in any way. The state’s population drives this.
Chat is here: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/06/02/bohls_golden_ch_5.html?cxntcid=breaking_news
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – I’ve read his columns before and he definitely hates the idea of Texas being in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
He’s also very inconsistent. The last I read of him on the subject, he seemed to imply that Texas would stick it out in the Big XII despite defections, and if Texas were forced to move, it’d be to the SEC.
LikeLike
the only vanity that describes kirk is the weather kind.
LikeLike
i don’t know how many old horns around here remember lou maysel. lou was great, and i never read kirk that i don’t miss lou.
LikeLike
Nice to see Bohls and some of the other sports writers in Texas start to get off their lazy asses regarding expansion. The Houston Chronicle’s Richard Justice (former Longhorn, current a-hole) was on Tim Brando’s show today. Said a big TX booster told him basically that the B12 just couldn’t provide anywhere close to the money needed in the upcoming shakeup, so perhaps they might head to the B10+ or a ‘P10 South.’ Which is funny because for months readers had written his blog explaining why moving was a real possibility for TX and the B10+ an option, yet he’d always respond in his know-it-all way that it wasn’t going to happen, the B10+ was never an option, and if they did move it would probably be to the SEC or maybe the P10. Because, ya know, he KNOWS people, so he’d be the first to know… So 6 months later he’s suddenly singing a new tune, with some concern in his voice. Finally figured out that SEC academics might be a stumbling block.
Most of the TX sports media will be the first to know, after the news conference. Lazy hacks that simply report the consensus of their drinking buddies (themselves) and the occasional perfunctory call to an AD’s assistant. Then again, the entire supposed media is that way these days.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. As I was reading it I was thinking this sounds exactly like the sports media in my hometown and just about every other town I’ve ever read or heard on the radio. I’ve got to give them credit though, they manage to get paid to do barely do any work or every say anything useful!
LikeLike
Q: What will happen to Texas if the big 10 take mizou & neb???
Bohls: Texas will join the Pac 10.
Interesting. I know we’re talking about one columnist on a chat, and the Texas contingent here doesn’t necessarily put a lot of faith in him…but…that could be taken as a threat floated that if the Big Ten doesn’t keep their hands off those two schools so Texas can keep them in their orbit for a better Longhorn Network payday, Texas will ultimately go elsewhere and deny the Big Ten one of their two most desired prizes, Notre Dame being the other. What’s the Texas fan take on that?
LikeLike
Unlikely because the Big Ten won’t expand if Texas floats that kind of statement. Note what Dodds said; they’d be the ones to finish expansion if they have to be those ones.
LikeLike
I just want to clarify that the Big Ten isn’t going to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do, whether it’s Notre Dame, Texas, or Maryland.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree about forcing Notre Dame. Delaney could explain that they’re taking Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt. That would definitely be a “brains or signature on this contract” moment for Swarbrick.
LikeLike
So which is unlikely? That Texas would go to the Pac 10 or that the payoff that getting Texas represents could effectively take two schools hostage, thereby “finishing” expansion talk?
LikeLike
I don’t see how Texas enters the Pac-10. From what Dodds has said to what the Memphis AD said all those months ago about Texas’ interest. It just isn’t there this time.
The biggest money is in the Big Ten or SEC and the biggest academic prestige is in the Big Ten. Yes there’s an independence/network factor, but it’s not overriding; everyone including Texas has a price.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
I don’t recall seeing you so pessimistic about UT’s chances of entering the Pac 10.
LikeLike
What if Texas believes the biggest money is in their LSN? Or they believe they can eventually get the money close enough to make it worthwhile with the addition of all the other factors discussed which favor them staying put in a Big 12 as currently constituted? Schedule, recruiting, say so, rivalries, proximity, their student-athletes better served by being in class and not greatly increasing their time on planes, etc., etc.? I wouldn’t underestimate the Texas desire to remain the kingfish as opposed to accepting being one of 12, 14, or 16. The financial advantages of the Big Ten on both the academic and athletic fronts are huge and well understood, and the sky is the limit if Texas merely signs on the dotted line. And yet, they are the very home of mixed signals. They have the same requirement as everyone else has to get this right for themselves, but finding what is right for Texas may be as thorny an issue as the Big Ten’s long, on-again, off-again wooing of Notre Dame.
LikeLike
@eapg:
I wouldn’t take it as a threat being floated by Texas through Bohls. I’ve never viewed Bohls as being the one through which such leaks would be sent. And even if that were the case, keep in mind that he said this in a chat rather than in a column.
Why that quick Q&A interests me, though, is that it reflects an evolution in thinking from those who follow UT but might not be following the intricacies of realignment. A couple of months ago, I think most followers of UT would have assumed that UT didn’t really need to worry about everything else going on around it. Now, those like Bohls (and I see this as well on BON) are being to become more aware, and they are more open to the realistic possibility that Texas can/will wind up in a new conference.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t think that Dodds would use Bohls in that way, either. Maybe just a possibility that Bohls has heard through the grapevine. It’s only one possible interpretation, but it could be valid. If Nebraska and Missouri go here, Texas goes elsewhere. Food for thought for Delany.
LikeLike
Q: Would OU follow Texas to another conference if it comes to that? What about aTm and OSU?
Bohls: OU would want to. A&M is joined at the hip with Texas.
Q: Why do Texas and A&M have to be a package deal. Is this something that is contractually binding or is it politics? I would think this would limit the offers to Texas.
Bohls: It is all legislative-driven. Remember the formation of the Big 12? This will not limit Texas in any way. The state’s population drives this.
He is pretty misinformed here on two points. A&M isn’t tied to the hip of Texas nor is Texas tied to the hip of A&M. It’s amazing how the inside word at A&M is the program is actively trying to find a home different from Texas, yet very few in the Texas media have yet to comprehend it is a real option. Second, the perceived linkage is not legislative driven. Nobody will stop the two from going to different conferences since both programs will continue to complete on the field/court/diamond/etc…
LikeLike
Not too enthused about Bohls either. The Houston sportswriters are mainly focused on pro sports and don’t seem too knowledgable or interested in college sports.
Any reporter who thinks UT will join the SEC has no understanding of UT’s administration. Amazing how many writers out there think UT will end up in SEC.
The Texas reporters all missed the formation of the B12. There were stories of OU and OSU or Memphis or Tulane joining the SWC. Also of UT or A&M looking at P10 and SEC. B12 really didn’t get any discussion. Not sure how much was weak reporting, or backroom legislative arm-twisting at the last minute or Dodds & UT & A&M keeping quiet. The 4 left behind were caught totally flat-footed. Their presidents were all stunned the day the B12 was announced. Given some of the discussions within the SWC they shouldn’t have been, but it just didn’t occur to them that the 80 year old conference could dissappear.
Reporters really didn’t catch on to CUSA either. They were talking about UH being short-sighted and having no place to go without asking why they turned down the WAC. Then suddenly the CUSA was announced.
The place to get leaks is from the big boosters. Presidents aren’t going to tell them, “No comment.”
LikeLike
I only see one realistic scenario where Texas enters the SEC but it requires the Big Ten to go to 16 and grab Notre Dame but not Texas, which seems fairly unlikely. Some kind of scenario where the Big Ten goes to 15 with Neb/Mizz/Rut/ND and offers the 16th to Texas, and Texas says no.
Either way, that scenario seems to mostly be off the table since a lot of us don’t really see any urgent need for Notre Dame to move first to the Big Ten.
The Big Ten will know whether Texas is coming before it makes any offers in my mind, so I don’t really see Texas going anywhere other than the Big Ten or staying in the Big 12 because I don’t think the Big Ten would do anything to force Texas into the SEC or Pac-10 as I said above…
LikeLike
Interesting comment here:
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/191974?eref=sircrc
Scroll down to comment #14 — I don’t see how to directly link to individual comments.
I normally don’t give too much credence to facts alleged to be true in message-board comments, but the specificity in this one, which is also a generally well-written comment, intrigues me:
“Texas has spent hundreds of thousands of $$ researching and developing their own TV network. They’ve partnered with IMG Worldwide to negotiate distribution on digital media outlets in Texas and bordering states (the last I heard it was Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T).
“Currently ABC and Fox (FSN) have rights deals for Big 12 games. Fox sometimes sublicenses those rights to ESPN and Versus. ABC and Fox will want to keep the most competitive matchups on their networks so … offering ABC, Fox (or whoever) an equity share in the Longhorn Sports Network is probably an incentive being used to negotiate a deal this complicated.
“This is relevant because … Texas is not about to walk away from all this just to line ’em up and play in the SEC. It’s much more complicated than that.”
That’s the first I’ve seen someone allege specifics about who Texas might be partnering with to market the LSN. Again, I have no idea who that poster is, but it passes my internal BS detector at first whiff…
LikeLike
@ Hopkins
Why would Texas have to abandon their network plans to go to the SEC? Other than the gordian knot of who owns what rights to what games on what day this week, I thought it was clearly permissable due to the fact that the SEC already allows it with member schools?
LikeLike
My guess is that, since the general discussion of the thread was about Texas possibly moving to the SEC, and the usual uninformed commenters were making arguments based on how many additional football games Texas might or might not lose, the author of the comment I cited was trying to distinguish those arguments from the bigger picture of revenue, etc. I don’t think he was trying to say that the SEC was a non-starter because an LSN wouldn’t be allowed.
LikeLike
The thinking likely is that they can get more of their games on a Longhorn Network in the Big 12. Yeah the SEC will let them have their network no questions asked, but they are never (or hardly ever) going to be able to show a live football game on it. Texas’ idea of their own network is significantly different than what the SEC’s is.
@Hopkins,
I always assumed Texas was going to “back-door” it so to speak with FSN so that they are effectively subleasing games from them the same way Versus or ESPN does. Give them an equity stake in the network, much like the BTN to help set everything up and “help the process” in getting the game inventory. That way you completely avoid a Big 12 vote.
LikeLike
Nostradamus – If UTx joined the SEC and the existing conditions in SEC contracts were not altered (other than the money), UTx would probably have control of its three rent-a-win games. I doubt UTx would offer those games on the LSN anyway, when they could offer those games on pay-per-view at $40 per household.
As a member of the SEC, UTx would have control of football re-broadcasts (that’s a big deal in the South, and even the Southwest), some basketball games, and most non-revenue sports, including baseball.
LikeLike
Alan:
I’m not sure how many additional OOC games wouldn’t be picked up by an SEC contract than aren’t currently picked up by the Big XII contract, but, for the last decade, Texas has never had more than one game not picked up by its conference broadcast partners. I can’t imagine it would be too much different moving to the SEC.
Even if this increased for two, if not three in the rare years, games not picked up by conference broadcast partners, I have to imagine that any such games would wind up on the LSN if it existed rather than on PPV. Wouldn’t offering at least the occasional rent-a-game live be the best way to build a subscriber base?
LikeLike
Hopkins – In the SEC, UTx would have that choice between pay-per-view and LSN for whatever number of rent-a-win games not picked up by CBS/ESPN/SECTV.
UTx would not have have that choice in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This is why I wonder how much value there is in a single school network. You don’t get the prime games. Coaches shows don’t make vast amounts of money. Will volleyball and baseball? I think you need a bigger inventory than one school can provide. Maybe LSN is not an actual channel but would provide programming to something like a FoxSports Southwest during certain time frames.
LikeLike
The R&D investment into the LSN won’t be a hold-up, but the potential payoff of the LSN could be.
LikeLike
Regarding SEC contracts-they’re flexible:
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/02/mike_slive_on_sec_expansion_contract_terms_matter/
LikeLike
One basic question I just had. I’m sure it’s been discussed before, but I can’t recall if it had enough.
I get the basic argument that Texas wouldn’t be permitted to launch and/or keep the LSN if it joined the Big 10, even in a “win/win” scenario I proposed a couple of weeks ago in which the two networks would be jointly marketed in Texas.
But what of Notre Dame, if the Irish were convinced to join the Big 10. Would Notre Dame be permitted to keep its unique relationship with NBC? If so, what distinguishes the special treatment of that would-be member from what would be perceived as special treatment of Texas?
Again, just curious. I’ve always assumed that Notre Dame would be allowed to keep its NBC contract and that it would be no big deal until I realized the inconsistency with with probable treatment of the LSN.
LikeLike
The discussion here was that ND would have to buy out its NBC contract.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Although, having the rare opportunity to address an issue on this blog from a position of neutrality, I think it would be quite foolish, to say the least, for the Big 10 not to invite ND if the only issue on the table were the NBC contract.
LikeLike
Ironically, I think the NBC contract is the easiest provision to work over.
Getting Notre Dame to the altar seems to be the hardest part.
LikeLike
I don’t know how long the NBC-ND contract is, but The Big Ten could just let the contract continue until it runs out, so long as the money from NBC goes to The Big Ten as part of the shared funds, and not to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I think any team keeping a separate deal with an outside network would be completely at odds with the entire financial concept that is the Big Ten. I think that would be a non-starter for either ND or Texas.
LikeLike
Except that a month or two ago there was an article here where Delany and someone from a conference school (PSU?) talked about individual schools wanting more ways to raise revenue independently and how that was a good idea. I remember posting a heavy sarcastic post about it because it went so counter to the constant “From each according to his means to each according to his needs” mantra floated about B10+ revenue sharing philosophy.
I still think an in-state Bevo-D channel affiliated with the BTN is still on the table. Perhaps on the sports tier while BTN is the basic channel, and each school that wants to invest in one can get their own affiliate channel. Might explain ND’s comments that TX and ND are on the same page regarding expansion issues.
LikeLike
If they decided television revenue was the way to go, perhaps they would figure out a way to allow for local syndication, similar to what the SEC current has going (per Alan).
Who knows I guess, but the NBC/LSN argument certainly feels counter to what the conference has been about up to this point. But, then again, I could see Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State looking at it and wondering if they could pull it off as well. I’m sure OSU probably could in Ohio. My kneejerk reaction is, however, if every school can negotiate their own little channel or broadcast package, then what’s the point of BTN? Just for those who likely can’t like Indiana and Northwestern?
LikeLike
Depending upon the specifics of such a deal, I personally think that would compromise the very thing that made the Big Ten strong in the first place.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
To be honest, with regard to NBC, the only concession I could see the Big Ten giving Notre Dame is to say “go ahead and finish out your current contract” (which I believe runs through 2015, but I could be wrong). I can’t see the Big Ten allowing them to just continue the NBC contract forever however, much like I can’t see them being ok with Texas starting the LSN. I just think those would be too big of concessions.
LikeLike
@Manifesto (OhioSt.) – I agree that the completion of the NBC contract for ND is the main concession that I could see the Big Ten granting. Otherwise, I don’t see how a Longhorn Sports Network could co-exist with the Big Ten Network – the main financial argument for both Texas and the Big Ten is for the BTN to get onto basic cable in the state of Texas and the formation of the LSN would drastically detract from that. At the end of the day, I believe that the LSN will be used as a theoretical negotiating/leveraging point in negotiations (similar to how the SEC used to threat of creating a network to get ESPN to overpay for its TV rights) as opposed to ever actually coming to fruition. The main item that the Big Ten can grant is immediate vesting of an ownership share in the BTN, which is substantial if/when the BTN approaches $1 billion in value. That number isn’t off-base – the YES Network is now worth more than the New York Yankees franchise itself.
LikeLike
Remember, Fox (which owns 49% of the BTN, and will get a big boost with an expansion) could also be in these negotiations. They could agree to buy out the LSN and perhaps transfer some of its shares to new schools, lessening the need for any ‘buy in’.
LikeLike
I think you’ve brought up one of the most underrated points about Big Ten expansion or any other expansion.
The networks are paying incredibly close attention and are likely to be willing to pay up for the chance of adding Texas to a stronger conference in terms of $/revenue synergy.
I could easily see the Big Ten working out a deal where Fox gives up another chunk of the network as a way to grease the expansion process.
I’d imagine that <40% of a Big Ten network with Texas/A&M/Nebraska is worth as much as 49% of the current Big Ten network, so your point is right on.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t it already be worth over $1bn?
Even if we assume the Big Ten Network is a very mature corporation with a P/E of say 7-8 (which is rather low but assumes relatively slow growth now since the footprint is established), the Network paid out around 6.5M per school or 70M+ total to the Big Ten schools.
Considering that Fox took 49% of the total, that means the Big Ten Network’s profit was $140M+.
At a conservative P/E of 7, that’s already a $1bn company.
Note that’s the P/E of a very slow large media conglomerate (such as a News Corp) which is very slow growth. Obviously this is all back of the hand stuff, but the Big Ten school’s stakes should already be worth around $45M+ each…
LikeLike
Yes, the BTN has already been valued at approximately $1.0 billion. I’ve see estimates that $2.0 billion could be reached by 2020, and that was before expansion discussions started.
LikeLike
I could easily see a compromise between the BTN and LSN. What would happen is that, in name, there would be no LSN, but Texas would have the ability to air games that preempt regularly scheduled BTN broadcasts. For example, say a relatively big Wisconsin-Purdue men’s basketball game is scheduled for primetime broadcast on BTN, but there is a Texas-Minnesota women’s basketball game scheduled for the same time. Instead on being forced to miss the women’s game, Texas BTN stations could preempt the men’s game and instead show the UT game.
As posited in another comment in this thread, each school could have the ability to preempt a certain amount of programming each year on their “local BTN” station. It would be a good compromise not just for Texas, but any school that desires to air more of its own games. I suppose it could even be arranged that these preempted games would be produced by the university in question rather than the BTN, and the school would be able to keep any ad revenue generated by the game. I think it would be necessary to limit the amount of preempting each year so that the Big Ten was the focus rather than the individual school, but I think each party could be satisfied with such an arrangement.
I don’t know what the logistics would be on this, but it certainly seems doable from a technical standpoint.
LikeLike
This kind of “university produced” product would be very expensive. So here’s the next question. Who pays for it?
If the Big 10 Network is on basic cable in Texas, there is theoretically nothing to be gained (by Texas schools or the Big 10) by throwing a special, daily UT or aTm game on the channel. If there is nothing to be gained, why pay for it?
I think a plausible scenario might look like this. If the Big 10 can land it’s dream scenario– let’s say Texas, aTm, Nebraska, ND, and Rutgers–they will be making a ridiculous amount of money in all of their target markets and will make some side money throughout the rest of the country as well. However, with BTN broadcasting spread out over 16 schools now (and what, like 20 sports?!?!), the individual flavor of the channel will become awfully diluted. There will be great product on the channel, but if you are some kid living in East Lansing, you’re not going to get to see much MSU stuff on your BTN channel.
And THAT is where individualization can come in. The BTN can create BTN2 (I’m not joking) that is state/region specific. It would never make it to basic cable, but it would be another revenue stream for the league.
BTN2 focusing on…
PSU/Rutgers/ND would be strong on eastern markets.
OSU/UM/MSU for Michigan and Ohio.
The six Great Lakes schools could join up.
Iowa and Nebraska could partner.
Texas and aTm obviously would be huge.
LikeLike
I’ve never laughed at the thought of the “BTN2” channel.
Personally, I’ve always thought it would come in the form of a “Pac/Big” alliance where the Big10 covers the midwest, midatlantic, & north east and Pac covers the western half of the US (creating as much of a “national” channel as humanly possible), but in the end if you add enough schools and invest in the proper infrastructure, you could easily make a BTNL (BigTenNetworkLocal).
LikeLike
The strongest cable networks have always developed second channels (or more), so a BTN2 is far from unthinkable. There are already the football-overflow channels. And I would not be surprised at all at BTN buying the rights to a complementary product such as a late Saturday-night Pac 10 football game of the week. It could set up a lineup like this:
7 pm — Big 10 prime time game
10 pm — Road to the Rose Bowl post-game show, wrapping up the Big 10’s weekend
10:30 pm — Road to the Rose Bowl pre-game show, with highlights of Pac 10 games and previewing the upcoming nightcap on BTN
11 pm — Pac 10 game of the week
LikeLike
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700036963/Expansion-talks-expected-to-dominate-Pac-10-meetings.html?pg=1
>>
The [BYU] Cougars are not under consideration, according to sources, for three reasons: The secular institutions in the Pac-10 are wary of aligning with a church-affiliated school; BYU isn’t viewed as a good fit academically because it’s not a major research institution; and for religious reasons, the Cougars don’t play on Sundays, which restricts scheduling options.
And it makes no sense for the Pac-10 to invite two schools (Utah and Brigham Young) from the same television market.
“They are not expecting, in any way, to end up in the Pac-10,” said a source close to BYU officials…
The Pac-10 would love to have Texas, which generates more revenue ($130 million annually) than any other athletic department in the nation.
But at this point, Texas has no reason to leave the Big 12, where the revenue-distribution model is largely based on football success and TV appearances—criteria that favor the Longhorns. (In the Pac-10, the revenue is split equally among the 10 schools.)
<<
LikeLike
“Each Pac-10 school receives $8 million to $10 million annually.”
“(In the Pac-10, the revenue is split equally among the 10 schools.)”
A bit contradictory?
LikeLike
@m (Ag) — You’re correct in pointing out that’s wrong. The Pac-10 has unequal revenue sharing similar to the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Mike – That confirms what I’ve been thinking about BYU for quite awhile.
Another CAA client besides the Pac-10: LeBron James. The sports world can be completely altered on numerous levels this summer from some cubicles in LA.
LikeLike
Osborne:
>>
As for all the Big Ten speculation, Osborne said: “It’s important to understand that I don’t think the Big Ten knows what they’re going to do. They may add one, they may add three, they may add five. So we have no indication right now about what’s going to happen. And we like the Big 12. We’re not looking to leave.”
Osborne said he hoped a solution would come “before too long.”
…
Does Osborne think the league will remain intact?
“I don’t know,” Osborne said. “I think there’s a very good chance it will. We like the Big 12, but as I said, I don’t have a vote. We”ll talk tomorrow. Presidents will be here. The presidents probably will make some decision by Friday I would think. It may be yes, no, or somewhere in between.”
By Friday, Osborne said he expects ” there will be a pretty serious discussion about where people stand.”
As for Nebraska’s general feeling about the Big 12, Osborne pointed out that “we’re not mad at anybody.”
Concerned about a shift of gravity in the league?
“I made that comment one time and probably shouldn’t have said it, but just the idea when the conference office moved to Dallas, and now you do see some push to have the (championship) game played in Dallas for three years, and then there’s a pretty good possibility it may stay there, I don’t know,” Osborne said. “But those are not things that are major problems for Nebraska.”
<<
LikeLike
Source: http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/osborne_speaks_at_big_12_meetings.html
LikeLike
Loved this one from the article’s comments:
Posted by: Otis Glebe for Mayor on June 2, 2010 1:25PM CST
Tom is giving the papal hand jesture. That tells me alot
LikeLike
[b]”The presidents probably will make some decision by Friday I would think.” [/b]
What was that in reference to?
LikeLike
It’s a clear as mud. Maybe Beebe is still pushing for higher exit fees?
LikeLike
Beebe presented expansion targets at today’s meeting?
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22721/big-12-expansion-is-an-end-in-sight
‘”Ninety percent of the effort is to keep it all together, and to convey a case to do so,” Beebe said. “But we do have a significant effort going into contingency plans that we’re trying to carry out internally.”
Though that research is being conducted by conference officials, Beebe said he shared generic findings about possible prospects with member institutions to gauge their reactions.
“I think that gets pretty problematic if you want to say, ‘OK, if two of you go, then let’s talk about what we’re going to go here. If three of you go — ‘ That’s not something that I think we can fully explore with the membership,” Beebe said. “But we are prepared internally with an analysis of a number of different directions we can go, depending on what happens.” ‘
LikeLike
Texas A&M AD breaks his silence:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13028/ams-byrne-ads-are-mercenary
Nothing much to chew on here. He made very general comments.
David Ubben, of ESPN’s Big 12 blog, has been on the ball during these meetings, BTW.
LikeLike
Again, I understand that Texas and Texas A/M aren’t attached at the hip. I understand that each wants what’s best for itself…
…but I can’t imagine them going in separate directions. I know that OOC games can always be scheduled…but it seems so much simpler for them to go together. Three reasons…
1. What is “best” for one is best for the other. I can’t buy the logic that the SEC would be better (academically, culturally, financially) for Texas AM but not Texas. Nor that the Big 10 would be better for Texas but not aTm.
2. I cannot imagine a conference NOT wanting both of them to join. In this new age (seemingly just around the corner) of 14 or 16 team conferences, everyone has spots for two teams.
3. The two of them together–in whatever vehicle for TV sports is created–will dominate the state’s TV deals. Apart, Texas will do great and aTm will do fine…but together they will DOMINATE.
LikeLike
I agree with all of your points.
A&M and Texas are the best possible package deal out there.
Why any conference wouldn’t chase both at the very top of its list is beyond me.
Sure we only see Texas mentioned in news articles about the Big Ten, but I can’t believe that Delany doesn’t consider A&M as a lock if Texas is targeted.
The synergy of bringing their rivalry into any league and twice as many teams a game in Texas (for recruiting/TV/etc.) every year is too much to miss.
And in terms of academics A&M is second to no one in the expansion mix and is comparable to UT as a draw.
LikeLike
A little more candid take on today’s post-meeting presser for the Big 12 meetings. Nothing really knew other then the impression that Oklahoma is really fighting to keep the band together. I find it interesting that we still have heard a peep from Bohn (Colorado’s AD) yet at the meetings.
http://ht.ly/1TfIc
LikeLike
Say whatever you will about expansion, but Beebe has kept the processing even more intriguing than it would be otherwise without his constant metaphors:
Castiglione unloaded what was easily the quote of the week. Asked by a TV reporter if he’s climbed aboard Beebe’s figurative Big 12 airplane, Castiglione cracked a smile and said, “We’re not at the airport yet. We might be in the shuttle van.” (A crowd of reporters collectively beamed as our recorders mopped up the manna from Heaven.)
Missouri’s Mike Alden was asked the same question by the same reporter: Are you on or off the plane? Not surprisingly, Alden didn’t crack.
“Well, I didn’t hear the commissioner say any of that to any of us,” he said. “Missouri’s a proud member of the Big 12, and we have been for quite some time. And we look forward to the future. So, I don’t think that’s really a question or issue that’s been brought to our personal attention because we’re pretty proud members of the Big 12. And I think we’ve shown that over the course of several years.”
At this point, I’m convinced that Jack Bauer could crash these meetings, waterboard Alden with a fire hose and we’d still hear how Missouri’s a proud member of the Big 12. This Tiger has no cracks in his fur these days.
LikeLike
Third-hand rumor: Kansas & Colorado to Pac 10.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=437414
LikeLike
That would be the dream scenario for a Big Ten or SEC looking at Texas/A&M.
But Kansas to the Pac-10? That would be revolutionary alright, but in the wrong ways.
While Kansas makes more sense than Utah academically (AAU) and possibly in a sporting sense as well, it’s just really hard to see that one happening.
LikeLike
Maybe. Bear with me, but it depends on whether or not Utah delivers the biggest bang for the buck in their market. They might not.
It’s only the opinion of one guy I knew who moved to SLC, but of the two schools (including BYU), Utah is the more secular, relatively speaking, in a state overwhelmingly, fastidiously, LDS. Utah is also a recent newcomer to athletic relevance. BYU may be off the table for any number of conferences, but that doesn’t mean they don’t hold the hearts and minds of the majority of Salt Lake City and a huge swath of the mountain west. I know, sounds weird, since the University of Utah is in SLC. Take it for what it’s worth, one guy’s opinion. Without proprietary information I’m certain Nielsen doesn’t give away for free, I can’t substantiate it.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting point of view. And certainly one that may be relevant; we’ve had similar discussion on the pull of a Syracuse or Rutgers on the NY/NJ area.
I mean, I can see Kansas making more sense than Utah in terms of sports/TV pull since it does dominate its state and academics since it is AAU.
It does seem like an out of left field choice, but I do agree with you that if there is a question of Utah’s pull on Utah, then Kansas may get the invite instead because Kansas is a more known quantity in terms of TV pull and academics than Utah.
LikeLike
I guess I’m just thinking out loud, but I could see this happening if the Pac-10 went to 16, but at just 12, it’d be tough. Since the Pac 10’s choices are limited they could be proactive and poach the 3 from the Big XII. If they took Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah from MWC, they could then make a play for A&M and eventually Texas. The pods could look like this.
Mountains/Plains
——–
Colorado
Kansas
Nebraska
Utah
Sun Belt
——–
Arizona
Arizona State
Texas
Texas A&M
California
——–
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Northwest
——–
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Now that’s a fairly strong conference that brings Texas into the fold while at the same time ensuring they have some familiar schools around them to lessen the burden on their non-revenue sports.
I have a hard time believing the Pac-10 could pull this off. Having to get unanimous consent on new members makes expansion to 12 extremely difficult, so getting to 16 is just about impossible.
LikeLike
The bottom line is, due to geography and academics, the Pac10 has limited options. After Tex/TAM/ND as the dream candidates, all youve got left is Utah and the B12 schools (Col, Neb, Miz, Kans). I don’t see anybody else fitting their bill.
LikeLike
I think your analysis is 100% correct.
LikeLike
Sorry, regarding Utah, I should have said “I think eapg’s analysis is 100% correct.”
LikeLike
As a KU homer, I’d be all over that. What most likely happened is that the ESPN talking heads heard Kansas was in play (implicitly, based on Perkins’ comments) and decided to run with something. I’ll believe it when I see it.
LikeLike
Kansas and Colorado to the Pac 10 would be the end of the Big 12, and there´s the possibility of hearing something definite over the next couple weeks.
Let´s indulge this rumor a bit and play it out:
1) KU and CU to the Pac 10
2) UT, A&M and Nebraska to the Big 10
3) Oklahoma, OSU and Missouri to the SEC? Would the SEC want Missouri?
LikeLike
Simple answer to that is no Michael unless the ACC teams tell the SEC a flat out no.
I’d have to think that the top SEC choices are
1) Texas
2) Texas A&M (and Texas Tech as a third if Texas/A&M come)
3) Florida State
4) Clemson
5) Oklahoma
6) Virginia Tech
7) Miami
8 and 9) West Virginia/Missouri
That tells you that if the ACC schools actually manage to stick together (which seems likely since most of them care that the conference has so many highly ranked US News schools as well as its new big $ TV contract), that the SEC’s expansion list shrinks considerably.
It’s far easier for the Big Ten to pull Nebraska in than for the SEC to pull in Florida State or Clemson in my opinion, so Texas is far more important to both conferences than meets the eye.
It’s hard to see the SEC expanding if it can’t get Florida State/Clemson or Texas/A&M, etc.
I guess they could take Oklahoma and Texas Tech or West Virginia but that’s really hard to see as being worth expanding for…
LikeLike
I know that OU comes in low on the demographics scale but the fact remains that they are a top 10 all-time football program. There are only a handful of teams nationally that garner primetime interest with their football team. ESPN would be more interested in OU than Clemson.
Another positive regarding OU, they are geographically close to Texas. If the SEC fails to get Texas and/or Texas AM, they can still snag Texas Tech and OU and have a significant presence in Texas. That’s huge for future TV and recruiting.
I think the SEC’s top choices are all from the Big 12 south…in this order.
Texas
aTm
OU
Tech
Once the cream of the crop is easily taken from the SEC, then you can dogfight to get FSU, Clemson, VTech, WVU, Mizzou, etc.
LikeLike
FSU though is worth more than any on that list except Texas.
You take FSU for the same reason that you take A&M with Texas or even take A&M alone. FSU is by far the second biggest draw in Florida (closer to UF than A&M is to UT probably) and is even more of a national program than A&M.
While those 4 make sense together, I’m not entirely sure they’d go that route.
If you take Texas/Texas A&M/TTU, why not take FSU as the 4th over Oklahoma? Consolidating Florida with another national program is more important than Oklahoma.
Obviously, they’re close though, and yeah I’d give the edge to Oklahoma over Clemson in all likelihood.
LikeLike
But does Florida want FSU along? I think OK is the obvious #3 choice (after Tex and TAM). Then I can see FSU or Miami. Then WV, Va Tech, Texas Tech . . .
LikeLike
Also, perhaps Ok St could enter the SEC on Okl’s coattails?
LikeLike
From what I’ve read and heard, UF has no problem with FSU joining the SEC. Same goes for USCe/Clemson and UGA/GA Tech. They all have annual series in just about every sport, so if any of those schools joined the SEC, the in-state counterpart just got more scheduling freedom. In fact, during the round of SEC expansion in the 90s, UF & UGA were pushing for FSU & GA Tech, respectively.
LikeLike
That’s why I think this domino theory is as accurate as the Vietnam domino theory. That domino stopped with Cambodia and Laos. The SEC just doesn’t have many options. And I don’t think FSU/Miami/GT/Clemson add enough to make it a + financially (when you already have FL/UGA/S.Carolina).
If the B10 goes to 16, there will be significant change, but there’s a good chance there is no mass destruction. The SEC may be stuck at 12. For the game theorists, if the B10 takes UVA and UNC, that opens the door for the SEC to take VT and NCSU who add a lot of TV sets and could be paired with OU/OSU, possibly with FSU involved. But otherwise, its hard to see where the SEC gets enough $.
If UT stays in the B12 or goes with A&M to the B10, who can the P10 add to justify more than 12? The dirty south weakens the B12 significantly, but those schools still need a home and I don’t think the SEC and P10 can afford them.
LikeLike
From 1950 to about 1985, UF wanted no part of FSU being in the SEC. However, given their success in the 80s and a newer commitment to academics (relative, but still) by 1990 UF was actively pushing for FSU to be included.
However, by that point, the ACC invited FSU, FSU wanted the better academics, and I think kinda enjoyed the ability to say to Florida “Thanks, but no thanks”. (Which is incidentally why FSU would be far harder to pry away from the ACC then most people believe.)
So, the SEC invites South Carolina instead, and we’re where we are today.
LikeLike
That would make sense based on some things in the last month. The SEC isn’t going to take Utah, but they might have made a move for KS when the dominoes started to fall (such as my Tornado Alley Pod of NE/MO, KS, OU, and TCU.) KS vs Utah seems to be a wash, the latter boosts football ratings but KS would be a huge add for a basketball deficient conference. Get ’em now and that’s a bridge for MO, NE, or even aTm in the second stage. If TX goes to the B16 it is basically impossible to get to a P16 without KS.
Would be very foolish to conclude aTm isn’t interested in the P10 based on the AD’s comment about travel. Set up a P16 with a central division and aTm could be quite happy. I wouldn’t read much into his statements about enjoying playing TX as proof they can’t go to separate conferences. They all keep saying they prefer to stay in the B12 while behind the scenes several schools are frantically negotiating with other conferences. Now is not the time for naivete.
Adding CO and KS is targeting one or both Texas schools. And even if that fails, they still can add MO, Utah, and perhaps NE and ISU if going to 16 seems a must. If they take CO and KS, I’d be shocked if they weren’t able to end up with at least 14, adding Utah and one or more of MO/NE/aTm.
If the P10 bigwigs vote Friday to extend offers to CO and KS, we might know where TX and aTm are heading by the end of the month, possibly also NE and MO. I bet Dodds would prefer to reach an agreement with the B10+ or P10 within the next few weeks. May not happen, but I bet that’s the goal.
LikeLike
BTW, KS is about 600 miles from TX and aTm, Utah almost 1100. So not only would a CO-KS combo suggest the Texas schools are still targeted by the P10, it might lend credence to the rumor that TX was asking for a pod of Texas schools.
LikeLike
I know it breaks Loki’s rule, but why wouldn’t Rice be considered a better academic fit and travel partner for TX & aTm in the P-10? Not necessarily instead of KS but if the P-10 is looking to become the P-16. It gives TX one more game in-state each year.
LikeLike
Gumby – I’m not everyone realizes how tiny Rice’s enrollment is. There are high schools in Houston with more kids than Rice.
Rice is a great school with a great baseball team, but I just have a hard time thinking that any AQ conference is going to take a school with a combined enrollment of about 5,000.
LikeLike
Rice just graduated 740 undergrads and 760 grad students. I think I’ve mentioned, we don’t have as many living alumni as UT has students. One of the three smallest schools in D1A. And we haven’t pulled Houston since the Oilers arrived in 1960. Even UH outdraws us by double. It’s just not going to happen in this round. We’re more likely to go to D1AAA or D3 than end up in a AQ conference.
LikeLike
Well that explains it. I was not aware of how small their enrollment was. As I understand it, TX and aTm are going to pull all the TVs in the state for any conference they are in, so why not bring the best academic fit. I often see Tech or Baylor mentioned, probably due to the political wrangling of the 90’s, but can’t see them as being acceptable to the P-10 for various reasons.
LikeLike
Kansas to the PAC10 would blow up most assumptions, especially if it’s announced prior to the Big Ten’s expansion invites. May make a lot of sense for both the school and the conference on a lot of levels.
1. Colorado paired with Kansas makes a lot more sense as conference rivals than Colorado and Utah.
2. Kansas is a reasonable academic fit.
3. Kansas opens the Kansas City market for the PAC10 and establishes an advanced foothold in the Central time zone.
4. May help the PAC10 in trying to land Texas and/or Texas A&M.
5. It is really hard to picture the Big Ten inviting Kansas, even with 20 team conference expansion scenarios. Kansas always winds up as the fifth or sixth team in a “let’s destroy the Big XII to get to Texas” theory that would probably never play out in practice. There’s a lot easier and more tempting Big Ten target markets than the Great Plains, whereas the PAC10 really has limited alternatives at the moment (assuming it wants to keep its high academic standards).
LikeLike
Here’s a good article regarding expansion from a SEC perspective.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jun/02/sec-boss-slive-coy-on-talk-of-expansion/
LikeLike
Slive said, “It’s not unusual to have clauses in contracts if a league should get smaller or bigger.”
Would it be conceivable that some state’s sunshine laws would make that contract available to an open records request, given the number of state institutions it affects? Or would the contract be with the SEC only and therefore not subject to open records requests despite the membership of the SEC?
LikeLike
He makes a comment that there are confidentiality clauses. I would think that would preclude disclosure. In any event, I doubt there are hard numbers. There’s probably just some clause about giving the parties the option of re-negotiating in the event of changes in the conference membership.
LikeLike
He mentions the confidentiality clauses in the article I posted above, not in this article. Not much different in the two articles-just 2 different reporters listening to the same thing.
LikeLike
I’m fairly certain that the conferences probably aren’t affected by those laws, but I’d defer to anyone else who actually knows.
LikeLike
If the P10 goes to 16 first, that could help convince ND to join the B10+. ND says they may have no choice but to join a conference if there is a big paradigm shift. Since the P10 getting to 16 is the most unlikely option, if they do then it should scare the spit out of the Irish. Could play this way:
P10 adds CO and KS. The scramble officially starts. TX and aTm reach agreement with the B10+ and P12, and assure Texas legislators that they are in agreement on these moves. P12 announces the addition of aTm and Utah. Admit they may go to 16. B10+ announces addition of TX and Vandy. Admit they may go to 16. SEC announces they are assessing their options, and 16 is on the table. Heavy rumors about FSU, Mia, GT, VA, and MD shake the ACC. Multiple leaks that the B13 is targeting VA, MD, and Rut.
At this point the P16 is closed off, the B12 is dying as a first level conference, the SEC is going to 16, and the B10+ is about to fill up. If the ACC also goes to 16, do they pull up the drawbridge when the BCS ends? Not sure all that is enough to get them in a conference, but it is a heck of a lot more likely than it is in the current situation as I type this.
LikeLike
But it won’t happen all staggered like that.
Conferences will strike and be content with the expansion that results and then wait. No one’s going to set up a multi-step strategy at this point unless they really have something locked down…
There’s too many moving parts to make a multi-prong strategy and hope everything works out.
That’s why the Big Ten is going nowhere unless it know for sure that Texas and Notre Dame are either on or off the ship.
Things will be absolutely clear when the conferences expand this time around because there’s way too much at stake this time for people to hope that a school falls to them as a result of taking other schools.
This isn’t like the expansion in the early 90s, there are no other independents other than Notre Dame on the table, and we’re looking at a total break up of the Big 12 if the plates shift.
Everything’s different this time because the superconferences are actually in sight and the chips are all in a row due to the SEC being at 12, the Big Ten at 11 with a network, whereas the mere idea was just a dream of Deloss Dodds in the early 90s (and others of course).
LikeLike
OK, then consider all that happens behind close doors. It could happen a thousand different ways. The point being that if the P10 appears that they are going to reach 16 before the B10+ fills out, ND might interpret all that as the paradigm shifting, and shifting big enough where they made need to join a conference.
You sure seem certain about virtually every aspect of expansion. “This will, this won’t.” Not sure why…
LikeLike
Because I’m just making generalizations for the most part.
And the conferences are actually acting responsible with respect to expansion unlike the early 90s. Things seem to be far more centralized in terms of the decision making process, whereas things in the 90s looked like they were out of control.
Also, things are much more orderly in that the pieces seem to be in a much more tiered fashion in terms of the level of control that teams have over expansion.
LikeLike
It has been mentioned in prior posts but is sometimes lost due to it being Pac 10 news but……the Pac may NEED to move 1st IF it is going to expand. They need their lineup in place by the time they hit the network TV negotiating table early next year.
The Big Ten doesn’t NEED to do anything until it either A) wants to, or B) locks down UT or ND.
I personally believe that the Pac will create a TV network – nobody in the EST watches us that much but there are a whole lotta people in CA/AZ/WA/OR and alums spread out all over (and the lack of coverage sucks).
IF it can add markets like Denver and KC (w/ more to come?) – 2 things come into play….1) Pac, as mentioned, needs them committed ASAP to get P10Network logistics up and running as well as get their lineup in line for new TV deal with Nat’l networks, and 2) Do the B12 defectors want to give their 2 year notice, which would need to be announced by July (I think?)
LikeLike
People keep talking about the end of the Big XII if this team or those teams leave. I don’t think it will happen for several reasons. Even if Colorado and Utah go to the PAC 10 (KU will probably have to stay with KSU, just like OU with OSU) and Texas, A&M, and possibly Nebraska go to the B10+, they can and will add schools to maintain their BCS status.
If you take the remaining 8 or 9 schools, and add TCU, Houston, and possibly UTEP to maintain the Texas market, BYU, Louisville, and Cincinnati would be obvious choices. Colorado State, New Mexico, and Boise State will probably round out the likely options. 16 Teams from that group would still have a good footprint and be a fairly competitive, tier 2 conference, but still BCS, better than the current Big East by quite a bit.
Why would those teams join? They would get a much better TV contract than they currently have (if they even have one) and automatic BCS status. Why would some of the old Big XII teams remain? It would give them a chance to either maintain or step up their status in the conference pecking order, and frankly, they may not have any other options. The new TV contract, even after losing some of their big hitters, with the new additions would be at least as good if not somewhat improved over the current contract, and the distribution formula would probably be reworked.
It is less obvious, but also a political reality that Tech and, to a lessor extent, Houston need to be left in a conference that will not damage their Tier 1 aspirations. This will also be part of the negotiations for Texas.
LikeLike
It is less obvious, but also a political reality that Tech and, to a lessor extent, Houston need to be left in a conference that will not damage their Tier 1 aspirations. This will also be part of the negotiations for Texas.
No.
LikeLike
Maybe.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be easy for Texas and A&M to just say “we couldn’t miss the boat (Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC) since the conference was collapsing around us”?
That can’t happen if Texas/A&M want to move first, but as soon as a school leaves the Big Ten, they can use that kind of argument to say they have to have a seat when the music stops…
LikeLike
Oops, Big 12…
LikeLike
Political reality may have been overstating the case, but definitely a political concern. Pres. Powers has mentioned the desire for something good for both schools. One of the major appeals of the PAC 10/Western Alliance is that Tech can go with us.
LikeLike
Who are both schools? UT & A&M or A&M & Tech?
If they continue to schedule Tech ooc on a regular basis, I don’t see it being a significant political issue.
UH has no political clout. Neither A&M or Texas schedule them. And they already are in a conference with Rice who was the 2nd AAU school in Texas, so I don’t think it impacts Tier 1 efforts.
I don’t know if it has been mentioned anywhere, but about a month ago, the OU AD was quoted as saying OU couldn’t go anywhere unless OSU had a good home.
LikeLike
Think for a second, Old Tascosa. A Big 10 with UM, OSU, Texas, ND, PSU, Nebraska, and 10 strong others. Compared with a Big 12 with OU and fifteen decent others.
If this expansion thing “goes big” like it may, then wholesale changes will be coming to major college athletics as we know it. The new Big 10 won’t be interested in sharing ANYTHING with a lesser conferences who can’t pull their weight. I could see the big four conferences (Big 10, SEC, ACC, PAC10) pulling away from the BCS. The Big 12 might be “okay” but they won’t be anywhere NEAR the league of the big four.
LikeLike
Maybe this is baseless hope, but the timing of a potential Pac 10 expansion vote and the arrival of the Big 12 presidents to KC is interesting. If, as TO said, there could be some fireworks tomorrow and on Friday, it may involve CU and KU to the Pac 10.
LikeLike
I love a third-hand rumor as much as the next realignment nerd – believe me, I refresh this site with shocking regularity – but maybe we should tap the brakes a little on the KU-to-P10 train. The original source was a message board reference to an ESPN talking head panel; even if the reference was accurate, experience tells me that the “analysis” on these panels, with the possible exception of Herbstreit, is likely several steps beneath what you’d get from the average Frank the Tank commenter. Lew Perkins’s increasingly public anxiety over keeping the B12 together wouldn’t make sense if he knew that the Pac-10 Coast Guard was on its way with a Jayhawk-shaped life preserver. Either (1) it’s a world-class head fake (for what reason?), (2) KU is absolutely not interested in the Pac-10 under any circumstances (unlikely), or (3) he doesn’t have any reason to think the Pac-10 is interested in KU. Doesn’t mean that KU won’t end up there, but it would seem to be huge geographic stretch for a good-but-not-great academic school that doesn’t bring much to the table football-wise.
LikeLike
It’s just interesting to see another somewhat plausible wrinkle.
I mean in terms of stature, there really isn’t much of a difference between Kansas and Utah. Geographically though, Utah seems to be the choice if Colorado needs a partner of course, so I don’t think we’re under the illusion that Kansas has the pole position.
Plus, it’s way more interesting to consider Colorado/Kansas because that really sets things in motion in the Big 12 in the way that a lot of us would want to see.
LikeLike
Zeke – Colorado shares its eastern border with Kansas and its western border with Utah. Boulder to Salt Lake is a 525 mile car ride according to Mapquest, while Lawrence is 585 miles away. Salt Lake and Kansas City both have good airports. If Utah is chosen, none of the existing Pac 10 schools is taking a bus to SLC anyway, but if Kansas is chosen, Kansas City would be an additional 1000 miles for each flight. SLC is a bigger market than Kansas City, but Kansas is basketball royalty, and football has never been better.
Academically, Utah has a higher ranking, but Kansas is a member of AAU.
I’d give a slight lean to Kansas over Utah. As an added bonus, KU and CU to the Pac 10 starts conference Armageddon.
LikeLike
Yeah; I do see where Kansas could have the edge as you put it, but it’s close enough that we won’t really know until it happens.
I don’t think any of us would be shocked by Colorado/Kansas or Colorado/Utah. Either one can be justified by whatever arguments the Pac-10 will end up making if it does end up choosing to expand sometime in the near future.
And yea, if it is Colorado/Kansas, I don’t see how the Big 12 survives. Oklahoma would immediately start setting up escape options and Nebraska/Missouri/Texas/A&M would be talking to the SEC/Pac-10/Big Ten to figure out their final destinations.
LikeLike
I’ve had a feeling that KU has been undervalued in most realignment scenarios out there. I’m not sure how much credence I give this specific rumor, but it does make some sense.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t Nebraska be preferable to Kansas? If so, and KU is the rumor anyway, does that mean Nebraska is spoken for?
LikeLike
@jcfreder – Nebraska is as spoken for as you can get at this point. As I’ve stated earlier, Nebraska is the most likely school to join the Big Ten out of anyone.
LikeLike
@Frank – You think Nebraska is so locked into the BIg Ten now that they wouldn’t listen if the Pac-10 came calling or does the Pac-10 not want to step on the Big Ten’s toes? If Nebraska is already locked in, then the thing I can see delaying going forward is Delany trying grab Texas or ND.
LikeLike
Scott C, I think what Frank is implying is that even if the Pac-10 approached Nebraska, Nebraska may have assurances from Delany if they contacted him about any talks with the Pac-10.
None of us knows whats going on behind the scenes, but if Kansas does get any contacts from the Pac-10, then the Pac-10 would probably also contact Nebraska.
I think Nebraska though would prefer the Big Ten though for obvious reasons and would use that as a way of getting more of a commitment for an invitation.
If Delany wants Nebraska (which he probably does in some form of expansion), then he’d make sure they know that they’ll get an invite for sure as a way of getting them to not jump at the Pac-10.
LikeLike
The drive isn’t too far. I can attest to the KU fan infestation that occurs whenever the Bball team comes to Boulder. Almost always a near sellout, though sadly you’d be hard pressed to know which team was the home team.
That said, wasn’t KU’s AD Perkins the AD at UConn when the ACC raid happened? I seriously doubt he wants to take that ride again. They’re further away and the market may not be quite as big, but you do get KU basketball and surprisingly one of the best funded ADs in the country. Plus they are an AAU school and Utah is not (yet, they’re working on it).
Just look at some of the interviews Perkins has given over the last couple of days, he is seriously worried. I wonder if some of this might be KU seeing the writing on the wall and reaching out to the PAC and saying why not us instead of Utah. Honestly they need to be pro-active. If the whole “Western Alliance” thing actually happens it behooves them to have jumped early and already be in the PAC when it starts negotiating with TX in earnest in order to head off TX trying to get TTech in instead.
LikeLike
@SuperD I agree with what you are saying about Perkins admissions about being “seriously, seriously worried” and not want to be “left behind” so to speak in a conference raid again BUT he has seemed to be one of Beebe’s and the Big 12’s biggest advocates through the media so I’m not sure I give this rumor a lot of credit. If he knew he had a pending invite, why would he go out of his way to hype the B12 and Beebe?
Don’t get me wrong, I like the argument for them jumping to the P10 (along with others) but not sure I buy the rumor…..yet.
LikeLike
One more thing, I like the line of thinking KS may take – the whole jump the shark theory. get there 1st so you are not fighting for the last spot later (in the UT fighting to bring TT scenario).
Perkins and Chancellor/President have some decisions to make….IF the rumor is true
LikeLike
To be fair, Perkins has said that he thinks the Big 12 is the best place for KU and that he’d like to remain there. He never said that he wouldn’t jump if his hand was forced. If the writing is on the wall, he’s going to do what’s best for his University.
LikeLike
If Big 12 comes apart, eith the Pac 10 or Big 10 is going to welcome Kansas with open arms. That basketball program will create a lot of high-profile content for somebody’s network. And the AAU designation provides academic credibility, important to both of those conferences. KU in coimbination with more academically-heavyweight institutions is a more than respectable expansion package.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing that makes me uncomfortable…I read (from a link posted here) some Pac10 folks make mention of “revolutionary” moves the Pac10 was making. Also (from posts past) that TAMU was listening to the Pac10 when they came calling (Texas not so much).
IMO, making a conference channel isn’t revolutionary (Big10 got that), adding 2 teams to get a conference championship isn’t either (SEC FTW), but that being said, no AQ conference has ever gone above that 12 team level…
If the Pac10 were to take TAMU, Kansas, Colorado, & Utah they’d be the first 14 team AQ conference. This would add solid population base (especially in Texas), solid programs, and equally solid academics to mollify the Stanford’s of the world.
Big10 would pick up Nebraska, Texas, Mizzou + 2 eastern schools.
The remnants of the Big12 would either get picked up by the SEC or IMO more likely join with the MWC. Together the two conferences should have enough to maintain BCS eligibility and perhaps even garner AQ status.
Again, unlikely, but reasonable enough I wonder if it might not just happen.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the MWC would love to see the Big XII get pulled apart. Even if they lose Utah to the Pac-10, possible additions of Texas Tech, K-State, Baylor, or Iowa State could help the overall depth of the conference.
LikeLike
I hadn’t heard of the possible PAC 10 expansion vote yet.
Our sports department interviewed Barry Alverez last night. Had some generic comments with a few nuggets. Here are the nuggets….
Barry Alverez on expansion – “Our commissioner is looking into it, our President’s will meet next week, I think he’ll present a possible proposal to them and then whatever they decide, we have a great league as it is. If we decide to expand I’m all for it, I’ve heard a number of different scenarios and I think they’ll all work.”
FWIW
LikeLike
The Pac 10 expansion vote rumor came from the comments Cal´s AD made on Monday.
Pac 10 meeting is on Sunday.
LikeLike
Whoops… Alvarez. sp sux
LikeLike
Breaking News: First base ump Jim Joyce just robbed the Archduke Ferdinand of a perfect game. MLB instant replay domino toppled.
No good reason not to automate balls/strikes while we’re at it. Would remove a huge gambling/fixing risk, and make the game 100 times better.
LikeLike
Just awful.
Awful umpiring breaking out all over. Tonight’s travesty is one night after my Nats clearly lost a game on a blown call:
http://www.federalbaseball.com/2010/6/1/1497105/game-53-he-went#38822356
(Short story: if the pitch illustrated above had properly been called a strike, it would have been strike three and the game would have been over. However, it was inexplicably called a checked swing, and the Astros won on the very next pitch.)
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – Oh man, that was a Hugh Hollins-esque gaffe. I was watching the Blackhawks-Flyers game and just saw the highlight on SportsCenter. I’ve gotten into arguments with one of my friends that’s a baseball traditionalist that was opposed to just the replays even for homeruns, saying that “it’s part of the game” if an ump makes a wrong call. I’ve just never bought that logic – mistakes made by umpires and referees should never be part of the game. Now, I wouldn’t want balls and strikes to be reviewed, but the bright line calls likes outs and foul balls ought to be subject to video replay.
LikeLike
Agreed, balls and strikes should never be reviewed. Instead that should be automated so there is never variance, favoritism, or corruption.
LikeLike
the early rivals 250 just came out. now, i don’t put all that much stock in these lists. i almost see them as measures of hoopla more than measures of actual quality, but right now it’s about all we have.
a good deal has been said about declining numbers of good prospects in various parts of the country, so i broke the list down by states and then by conference home states to look at that. most of you guys are with it enough to not take this info that seriously, but here it is:
FL 40
TX 35
CA 26
GA 15
OH 13
LA 12
NC 8
AL 7
MI 7
PA 7
SC 7
VA 7
AZ 6
IL 6
NJ 6
MD 5
MS 5
WA 5
IN 3
MO 3
OK 3
OR 3
AR 2
DC 2
IA 2
KS 2
MA 2
TN 2
UT 2
CO 1
DE 1
KY 1
NM 1
NV 1
NY 1
WI 1
now, the conferences hot in the realignment news:
big ten states
OH 13
MI 7
PA 7
IL 6
IN 3
IA 2
WI 1
39 total
26 total other than top state
big 12 states
TX 35
MO 3
OK 3
IA 2
KS 2
CO 1
46 total
11 total other than top state
pac-10 states
CA 26
AZ 6
WA 5
OR 3
40 total
14 total other than top state
sec states
FL 40
GA 15
LA 12
AL 7
SC 7
MS 5
AR 2
TN 2
KY 1
91 total
51 total other than top state
obviously no school recruits exclusively from its home state or even exclusively from its conference home states, but this just give a faint hint regarding the relative strengths of the home bases for the conferences.
LikeLike
I know the numbers are so low that any fluctuation year to year is going to make for drastic differences, but Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey have nice numbers up there.
LikeLike
zeek – Those numbers are not as good as my Louisiana. 25th in population but 6th in top recruits.
LSU should get 10 of the 12.
We are very highly ranked in food, fun, football, college baseball, and man-made disasters.
LikeLike
Oily coating makes players harder to tackle?
LikeLike
USAToday has a tool with which you can break down the NFL draft by home state of the players.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/draft-history-graphic.htm
2006-9 NFL draft (1011 players)
CA 136
TX 118
FL 99
OH 57
GA 49
VA 44
LA 43
AL 34
NC 32
SC 28
MI 27
PA, NJ 23
MD, NY, IL 22
TN 16
OK, IN 14
OR, AR 13
MO, WI 12
AZ 10
CO, KY 9
CT, MN 8
MA 7
WA, NE 6
KS 4
LikeLike
nice utility. thanks.
interesting to compare these numbers to the recruiting lists numbers by states. certainly ads credence to the belief that the recruiting lists have a lot of hot air.
LikeLike
by the way, i realize the time frame is different, but i suspect the relative level of talent in the states doesn’t change all that much from year to year. my guess is that the recruiting lists have a lot more to do with entertainment dollars than useful information and that political and market considerations drive a lot of what goes on there.
LikeLike
Interesting…
PA and NJ have the same…
MD, NY, Ill are the same, one below PA/NJ…
LikeLike
Your right, these player ratings are not always accurate but to just play along. New York has 1 and New Jersey has 6. Just wondering where Syracuse or Rutgers are going to get their players to be a player in the B10.
LikeLike
shhh . . . don’t tell oklahoma or nebraska about this problem.
LikeLike
With New Jersey having 7 NFL first round draft picks in 2009 and 4 in 2010, don’t worry about the talent available to Rutgers. Their mission is keeping the more of the highest level recruits from leaving the state.
Syracuse, on the other hand, does not have near the recruiting base in upstate NY. In fact, they used to recruit NJ heavily. Their decision to fire Paul Pasqualoni for “only” going 8-3 every year (and subsequent struggles under Robinson) removed them as a major player in NJ recruiting and has made their recovery much more difficult.
LikeLike
In addition, 25% of each year’s recruiting class comes from Florida. The “State of Rutgers” recruiting focus is NJ, PA, MD/DE, NY. And Florida. Plenty of talent.
LikeLike
same breakdown for today’s espn 150:
FL 40
TX 20
GA 18
CA 11
LA 7
AL 5
NC 5
OH 5
AZ 4
SC 4
VA 4
AR 3
MD 3
NJ 3
IL 2
MI 2
MS 2
OK 2
PA 2
WA 2
IN 1
KS 1
KY 1
NM 1
NY 1
TN 1
big ten states
OH 5
IL 2
MI 2
PA 2
IN 1
12 total
7 total other than top state
big 12 states
TX 20
OK 2
KS 1
23 total
3 total other than top state
pac-10 states
CA 11
AZ 4
WA 2
17 total
6 total other than top state
sec states
FL 40
GA 18
LA 7
AL 5
SC 4
AR 3
MS 2
KY 1
TN 1
81 total
41 total other than top state
LikeLike
they’re really not bothering to scout California.
LikeLike
…or anywhere outside of Florida.
LikeLike
we’ve certainly gotten far afield from the forgotten blog post that started this record-setting (for frank) series of responses. we’re up to 1320 right now. i think a lively discussion of what to do with north korea or that runaway oil well could probably float a thou and a half pretty easy.
LikeLike
another tidbit: the attorney for the aruba native involved in the disappearance of natalee holloway says the young man has a target on his back because of that experience.
i’m sure he is right. that man will probably be under suspicion every time a young lady is found dead in his hotel room the rest of his life.
LikeLike
Just checked the Colorado website and found this tidbit:
http://www.cubuffs.com//ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=204954425
From Mike Bohn, AD –
“We’re trying to do the best we can to monitor all the movement around the country,” he told KOA-Radio Wednesday afternoon. “Right now, we’re committed to keeping the (Big 12) together, but there’s so much speculation and backroom conversations going on, it’s a dicey mood around Kansas City this week. If the Big 12 doesn’t stay in its current form, the television contracts and revenue will be diminished. But our preference really is that things stay the way they are in the current form.”
When host Dave Logan (CU ’76) asked if Missouri and/or Nebraska were to join the Big 10, and if CU was tied to what they do, Bohn responded, “That would be accurate. If they move to the Big 10, which then creates additional movement around the country, to include potential expansion by the Pac-10, then that could create a new opportunity for us. I don’t believe we’re tied to a league movement with Missouri and Nebraska, but we would be tied to the fact that league has now changed and could create new challenges for us.”
That’s more info than most of the quotes from AD’s I’ve seen. Problem is, and I think this applies to several of the public schools in expansion talks, any invite would need to be cost neutral or an immediate money maker for anyone switching conferences. Anything that will cost money, even if only short term, could have a very long, ugly and political fight as schools debate whether to accept any bid.
LikeLike
You can probably read that as “Hell yes we’d like to move to the PAC 10, but MU/NU would really be doing us a solid if they would go ahead and announce first so we’d have a chance to get out of here without that huge financial penalty around our neck if everyone else is heading for the exits.”
From everything I’ve seen and heard out of CU we would really prefer not to be the first team to break the seal. That said I don’t think we can afford to sit around and wait this time if an offer comes, things are just too unsettled. My guess the PAC 10 wouldn’t be happy with us saying “we’ll come if the Big 12 dissolves,” they’re probably looking for a more positive commitment than that, especially in lieu of the fact that we turned them down the first time.
That does raise an interesting question though. I wonder how the Big 12 bylaws address voting rights for members that announce an intention to leave. If it really looks like things are breaking up what happens with conference revenue if more teams are leaving than staying? Could the teams with likely safe havens (UT, TAMU, OU, KU, MO, NU, CU) vote to eliminate the penalty for breaching members, though they may be one vote short unless Tech or OSU is getting to ride UT/OU’s coat tails.
LikeLike
Yeah, that seems to be the right analysis for Colorado.
But they’d probably also know that the Pac-10 will need them to join sometime this year in order to be a part of the Pac-10 negotiations for its TV contracts and so it can shop a championship game as well.
On the other hand, the Big Ten looks far more likely now to stick to its original timeline and expand sometime between Dec. 2010-May 2011 (but before April 2011 when the Big 12 has indicated it would like to know where everyone stands).
I’m always skeptical of an expansion during the football year since it would totally distract from the football season, which is when the media spotlight is the largest.
If the Big Ten does not act this summer, then most likely the Big Ten will expand sometime in late Jan. or Feb. 2011 or around there if it does stick to expansion because that’s the best time of year to reveal this kind of earth shattering news other than during the summer.
LikeLike
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texas/7034096.html
Could Ags, Horns go separate ways?
In the same league?
“That Lone Star Showdown trophy is pretty important to both schools,” he said, deftly ducking the question like it was a 99 mph John Stilson fastball…
LikeLike
What’s really interesting about this is that it would fit into a scenario that PSUGuy put up yesterday.
A&M, Colorado, Kansas, Utah to the Pac-10. That would actually fit the bill as “revolutionizing college sports” because it would be the first BCS conference to 14 teams. Also, it is extremely likely that all 4 of those schools would pass the unanimous vote requirement.
LikeLike
The writer of that column, Brent Zwerneman has deep ties to A&M. If he is floating out the possibility A&M and Texas might go to different conferences, there is very likely a reason behind it. As I have commented on this blog multiple times, there is a faction of A&M decision makers that prefer this option and are working to make it happen. However, if the two go along different paths it will the B10 / SEC.
LikeLike
A&M to the Pac 10 seems out of the question, per Byrne´s complaints about travel time.
The Big 10 then seems to make sense – and I think that´s why everyone on here has run with it. The prospect of increased revenue and increased academic prestige, along with the easier logistics in maintaining the UT rivalry (assuming UT to the Big 10) seem to tilt the scale to the Big 10.
We´ve seen no smoke regarding this idea, however, and from public comments, it sounds like aTm might welcome the chance to separate itself from UT´s shadow – and the Southern culture and football tradition of the SEC give them that opportunity.
If aTm does go SEC, that opens up at least one extra spot in the Big 10. If we´re sticking with Frank´s latest rumor, maybe Nebraska takes the place of aTm (which may have been Delany´s preference all along).
The other possibility is that aTm and Vandy are both out, and with Maryland and UVa defecting from the ACC it paves the way for Duke and UNC. Or we could even see Maryland, UVa, GTech and Miami.
If all these options are on the table, Texas and Delany may have to weigh the academic and demographic benefits of a 4-team ACC expansion vs. the geographical balance, cohesion, football prestige, etc of Vandy and Nebraska.
As for my preference, I think it´s a tough call. Which of these the three scenarios is the best outcome:
1) UT, Maryland, UVa, Duke, UNC
2) UT, Maryland, UVa, GTech, Miami
3) UT, Maryland, UVA, Nebraska, Vandy
LikeLike
#2 is least likely — Miami is not an AAU member, is a fairly small private institution, and is more or less a one- or two-trick pony (football and baseball) with less of a fan base than people realize.
Substitute Rutgers for Vanderbilt in #3 and you have a winner.
If Vandy has to be included in #3, I sense Big Ten presidents would rather go with scenario #1, bringing in two really good athletic departments (other than in football) and highly-rated schools in UNC and Duke that would make UMd and UVa feel more at home and lock up the ACC region for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agree on Miami. Not sure I really get all the love. Miami is kind of notorious for fair weather fans, and they couldn’t even sell out the Orange Bowl (74k seats) in their best years this decade.
In 2001 (their NC year), they averaged 46k fans. In 2002, after they crushed Nebraska for the NC — and was running a media love frenzy, had a loaded team, and big winning streak — they still only averaged 69k per game. Miami has had some great teams over the last three decades, and you’re telling me they can’t sell out an average-sized stadium? In 06, admittedly a bad year for them (7-6), their attendance average (41.9k) was less than UNC (~48.8k, went 3-9 in 06), Illinois (43k, 2-10), UTEP (42.4k, 5-7), and only averaged 200 more per game than Stanford (41.7k, 1-11). They averaged 52.7k between 2000-07. That included two NC runs and a couple other top 10ish finishes.
I have a real hard time with that if we’re seriously considering them as an expansion candidate. Randy Shannon makes a lot of good arguments in the article I found, but I still have problems with it. Miami feels like, even when they’re great, they’re still the greatest team no one cares about.
Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/acc/2008-11-12-miami-attendance_N.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334171/2006-National-College-Football-Attendance-NCAA
LikeLike
Agree on Miami. Not sure I really get all the love.
Location, location, location.
LikeLike
Miami is an interesting case. You’re right about their fair-weather support. But they seem to carry an outsized reputation nationally, with all the great pros out of “the U” and the swaggering reputation. Even though Miami is a good school, all together they are in the right conference now, and are not really a good fit with the Big 10. If the Big 10 adds a private university, it is going to be from the ranks of the Dukes and Vandys, way up the ARWU & US News rankings. I’m convinced Syracuse doesn’t fit this profile, and if an exception is to be carved out it will be carved out for Notre Dame and Notre Dame only.
LikeLike
@Playoffs:
I hear you regarding location. But if that’s the case, now it seems we’re looking at them as the equivalent of a Rutgers, only without the large public university aspect and further away (but in a better football recruiting hotbed and a better football brand overall). I’m not “in love” with Rutgers, so I’m not sure how I’ll ever be “in love” with Miami using that rational.
Then again, in full disclosure, as an OSU fan it’s hard to be completely neutral on the Florida schools. So maybe it’s just my bias talking.
LikeLike
#3, but substitute Rutgers for UVA
LikeLike
While the AD might be happy to go to the SEC while UT goes to the Big 10, it would be a long term blow to the academic reputation. The administrators wouldn’t want to be the Texas school with the much lower ranked academic peers.
Now if UT goes to the Pac 10 (keeping its Longhorn Network), it might free up an A&M move to the Big 10 or SEC. A move to the SEC would still be a big step down for academics (compared to the Pac 10), but not quite as much.
LikeLike
I have been of the opinion (hope?) all along that I think the Pac is priming itself for an agressive move and a network. Those four schools help with conference network inventory, pass the academic smell test, and add markets advantageous to both a conference network footprint AND a new strong nat’l network deal.
Not to get too speculative (although that may be par for the course), but IF a scenario of aTm CO KS and Utah go to Pac, I think it would probably be the 1st move in a 2 step process to 16. I don’t know how you divide ANY 14 team conference in the Pac without a zipper – due to the geographical pairs in the existing Pac. Which leads me to believe that both aTm and KS need a partner as they don’t make a great pair together (assuming Utah pairs w/ CO). IF Texas won’t be the first to move, as Dodds stated, then this constitutes the others move 1st reality. Would aTm already being committed sway politicians to lean on Texas to go as well (similar to the theories posted here before about the B10 inviting aTm 1st to hook UT)? And if the B10 really doesn’t want Mizz – but Mizz just needs to see it (in the way of others getting B10 invites, but not them) before they belive it – well, then you have your Border war partner.
If not, well then – I still think aTm and KS would need a better partner/rival eventually. Of course, nothing can happen and I will have wasted 7 months of my life following expansion news!
LikeLike
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/02/football/doc4c06f371e706b052151928.txt
The only notable excerpt, why 4×16 pulling away from the NCAA probably ain’t gonna happen:
…Which is why Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman is skeptical of my “doomsday scenario.” He told me recently that rational analysis probably would preclude the formation of “superconferences” with their own governing system.
By abandoning the NCAA, superconferences would in effect deprive smaller schools the revenue stream they currently enjoy, “and one suspects they might urge Congress to consider such issues as antitrust or looking at various tax exemptions,” says Perlman, a member of the Big 12 board of directors and chairman of the NCAA Division I board of directors.
LikeLike
what is most interesting here is the use of the unmentionable poison pill: scuttling tax exemptions. i think that means some people are getting very nervous and are hinting they’ll bring down the whole house of cards if they start losing control.
those guys don’t like that issue to be on public lips. their willingness to show that card is very telling.
LikeLike
if old saddam were still with us, he’d be giggling his fool head off. there is no red adair in college football.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – I generally agree with Perlman on this. What will likely happen is that the actual number of BCS schools will expand (when the Big 12 and Big East add replacements), but the gaps in revenue and status between the BCS conferences themselves will get larger.
LikeLike
Agreed. And I don’t think the BCS or whatever replaces it will get below 5 affiliated conferences. Too many teams with too many politicians would get left out. Plus if you keep the 4 BCS bowls 5 works great: P16 & B16 to the Rose, and a host bowl for each of the other conferences.
LikeLike
Dropping to 64 gets you awfully close to only 50% of Division I. And the Presidents didn’t get to be President w/o being aware of politics (both w/i the NCAA and nationally). Can you imagine the challenges if both Hatch (UT) and Robert Byrd (WV) were in states that were left out? Still its hard to figure out what happens to the BE schools if they lose 2 teams.
LikeLike
Shatel’s piece in the Omaha World-Herald today:
http://omaha.com/article/20100602/SPORTS/706029813#shatel-osborne-nebraska-look-more-and-more-like-outsiders-in-big-12
It, imo, pretty adequately sums up the feelings of many Nebraskans toward the Big 12 through its formation and evolution. Though not factual, Nebraskans feel as if the Big 8 did the Texas schools a favor by expanding, giving them a home after they blew their own conference up. I — and I’m sure many others — thought that the Big 8 expanded, not that the Big 12 was a brand new conference.
LikeLike
(biting my tongue)
LikeLike
Hey, at least I’m willing to admit that my perceptions about the Big 12’s formation don’t line up with history.
However, I think Nebraska’s relationships with its old Big 8 brethren have been sufficiently poisoned to this point (and any camaraderie with the Texas schools was short-lived) that I don’t know if Nebraskans want to be in the Big 12 much anymore.
Tom Osborne has been a Cassandra about the Big 12 would affect Nebraska from its inception — prediciting tragedy, not being believed, and being proven correct.
LikeLike
“Tragedy”? Really?!?
LikeLike
Here I lie,
in a lost and lonely part of town.
Held in time,
in a world of tears I slowly drown.
Going home.
I just can’t take it all alone.
I really should be holding you, holding you,
loving you, loving you.
Tragedy.
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Aaah.
Tragedy.
When you lose control and you got no soul.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Aaaaaaaah.
Night and day
there’s a burning down inside of me.
Burning love,
with a yearning that won’t let me be.
Down I go
and I just can’t take it all alone.
I really should be holding you, holding you,
loving you, loving you.
Tragedy.
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Oh. Tragedy.
When you lose control and you got no soul.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Aaaaaaaaah.
Tragedy.
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Oh. Tragedy.
When you lose control and you got no soul.
It’s tragedy.
When the morning cries and you don’t know why.
It’s hard to bear,
with no-one to love you,
you’re going nowhere.
Aaaaaaaaah.
LikeLike
Compare Nebraska’s power, influence, and acheivement circa 1995 to now.
Put differently, how would you feel about the Big 12 if you were going through the tail end of the Akers, McWilliams and Mackovic eras now? If partial qualifiers were allowed? If all the power in the conference were north of Wichita?
What’s gone right for Nebraska since the Big 12 was formed?
LikeLike
“What’s gone right for Nebraska since the Big 12 was formed”
The first problem for Nebraska is that they got new competition from the schools that were added. The second problem is that new resources allowed the other schools in the conference (like Missouri and Kansas) to upgrade their facilities, coaches, and recruiting efforts.
Suddenly, Nebraska went from a conference where a lot of other schools could catch it in an off year.
Nebraska hasn’t struggled because the Big 12 is an evil institution (as their fans like to portray). They’ve struggled because it’s a more competitive conference.
And to say they’ve ‘struggled’ at all is an overstatement; they’ve done pretty well.
LikeLike
Compare Nebraska’s power, influence, and acheivement circa 1995 to now.
Still, “tragedy”? That’s what constitutes being tragic in NEbraska?
LikeLike
Actually, what went wrong was severalfold:
Tom Osborne allegedly promised Frank Solich the big chair as a reward for not taking the HC job at Minnesota in 1992. That prevented Bill Byrne from hiring a replacement, and the first name on his list was … Mack Brown. Even if they’d have hired internally, Turner Gill would have been a *much* better choice.
Dollar Bill Byrne’s pursuit of the Sears trophy continued, and failed to reinvest in the football program, allowing Nebraska’s competitive advantages to erode.
We hired Steve Pederson, which everyone though was a good idea — until he decided he needed to reinvent the football program in his own image. His missteps I won’t recount.
It’s no coincedence that the best years in Kansas and Iowa State history happened while we were Elmer Fudding it up.
At least Oklahoma had probation as an excuse for the way they screwed pooch in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Ours was self-inflicted.
But people seek easy answers to complicated problems, and it’s far easier for Nebraska fandom at large to point fingers at the Big 12 than to point the thumb. External villany is more comfortable than internal accountability.
LikeLike
Was Route 66 a tragedy? I know UCLA fans that still snicker about that.
And I think you’re focusing too much on the “tragedy” aspect of the Cassandra allusion; I meant to focus more on the “prophetic” and “not believed” aspects. IIRC, Osborne mentioned that the southern programs were sleeping giants in the early years of the conference, and he was certainly right on that front.
LikeLike
Rout 66 was far from tragic. It was one of the best days in program history, considering what resulted in its aftermath.
LikeLike
Well, perhaps someday Nebraska fans will be able to look back at last year’s Big 12 title game and smile, the way we can look at the loss to FSU in the Orange Bowl following the 1993 season.
But that day isn’t today, and it won’t be tomorrow either.
LikeLike
Let’s not go off the deep end painting Nebraska fans, AD, whatever) as resenting TX & BXII in a conspiracy to screw the poor Cornhuskers and run the conference” etc etc.
I think that represents the extreme end of some Nebraska feelings. Others simply yearn for the old Big 8 days and epic Thanksgiving games vs Oklahoma. Plenty of fans are reasonably happy with the BXII and desire no change at all except to win more championships, as Osbourne stated.
I think the more typical attitude is similar to what Shatel’s column said. Nebraskans never felt much of a connection with Texas, A&M, TT, Baylor from the start, even when TX was nothing special, and are even less interested in being in a conference since its taken on a Texas tilt, compared to the old Big 8.
Compound that with the BXII Texas shift roughly coinciding with Nebraska’s worst period in 50 years and the new realities of conference realignment, and it makes sense that there is real–but by no means universal–support by Nebraska fans, media, & officials to look elsewhere.
LikeLike
As a Kansas fan, here’s my take:
The Big 8 teams feel it was expansion, the SWC teams feel it was a merger. The Big 8 teams think they saved the SWC teams from a dying conference. The SWC teams think they saved the Big 8 from fly-over state irrelevance.
The truth is, both sides had a lot to gain and both sides improved their overall standings in the world of athletics. It hasn’t been a perfect partnership, but it’s a young conference. I think that there are a lot of good years left to this conference if they hold tight.
LikeLike
…There, several Big Ten media and officials asked me the same questions that came up on Wednesday: Does Nebraska have a problem with the Big 12?
I explained the power shift to Texas, the perception/reality of Texas running the league and the location of the football championship game. The Big Ten types all replied, “So what? What’s the big deal?”
Sounds like NE’s B10+ cultural fit will be the same as what it is leaving: 11-1…
LikeLike
I suspect equal revenue sharing would soothe whatever hurt feelings there might be.
LikeLike
Nebraska has never had a problem with unequal revenue sharing!
LikeLike
Why do people continue to believe this? Nebraska votes with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M to block equal revenue sharing. The system benefits Nebraska.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – From an outsider’s perspective, I never really saw the big deal with a lot of the “soft” issues that a lot of Nebraska has brought up. Holding the conference championship game in Jerry World makes sense to me and Dallas is the largest market within the Big XII, which makes it a natural to house the conference headquarters.
Now, I can understand how Nebraska fans that lived through the 1990s conference realignment can feel jipped in general because the Huskers were at the absolute zenith of their power then. If Nebraska had joined the Big Ten back then, that would’ve been perceived as massive of a move at that time as Texas or Notre Dame joining the Big Ten would be perceived today. The rise of Texas coincided with a steady diminishment of Nebraska as a national power, so there’s kind of a “correlation = causation” line of thinking there. I personally don’t think that’s reality, but that correlation seems to blow up the feelings of every seemingly minor move that’s perceived to be Texas-centric.
I find the standard complaints of Missouri fans to be fairly weak. They seem to be centered on the TV revenue distribution and bowl selection procedures of the Big XII. When you take a step back, though, it’s basically an admission that (1) national TV networks don’t want to broadcast Missouri games and (2) bowls don’t want Missouri since their fans are perceived to not travel well. That’s not exactly a stellar pitch to the Big Ten or any other conference.
LikeLike
I completely agree, Frank. However, the number, nature, and outcome of Nebraska’s conflicts with Texas, on and off the field, tend to exacerbate how Nebraskans feel about the conference as a whole, and Texas specifically.
1996: Roll Left. Dammit.
1998: Nebraska’s 47-game home win streak snapped by Texas.
1999: Nebraska’s one loss, keeping them out of a probable national title game? Texas.
2002: Unranked Nebraska losed by 3 at home.
2003: Nebraska gets housed 31-7.
2006: Nebraska fumbles after picking up a third down which would have enabled them to run out the clock. Texas kicks a field goal to win with 23 seconds left.
2007: Nebraska forgets how to defend the zone read, and Jamaal Charles racks up 216 yards and 3 TDs in the 4th quarter alone. Texas by 3.
2009: Texas gets a second put back on the clock after time expired to kick a field goal.
Nebraska’s got one stinking win over Texas since the conference was formed. One. And has three level-one kick-in-the-groin losses along the way. We’re too freaking proud to feel good about being the Washington Generals to their Globetrotters.
LikeLike
Well, if Texas and Nebraska join the Big Ten, they’ll probably end up in the same division/pod/whatever so they can play every year. Sounds to me like you boys have a nice rivalry going from the beginning. 🙂
LikeLike
@Frank – Osborne’s comments yesterday put those “soft” issues in perspective. It’s better for Nebraska to have the title game/conference office/whatever close, but it’s not a problem if it isn’t. It’s easy for fans to understand and rationalize why Nebraska wants to move due to the “soft” issues more than it is explain the fundamental problems Nebraska faces in the Big 12. Nebraska’s problems really have nothing to do with Texas so much as how landscape has changed in the past 15 years. It used to be all Nebraska needed to run (and fund) a nationally competitive program was to sell out its stadium and collect bowl checks. Nebraska’s fans and their support were its competitive advantage. However, today it’s all about markets and TV money. Nebraska can still draw great ratings (thanks to its fan base) but doesn’t have the market. If Nebraska stays in the Big 12 where each school is allowed to start and profit from its own network, Nebraska will inevitably fall behind. The draw to the Big Ten is that they share everything. Nebraska’s market won’t be a disadvantage in the Big Ten as it would be in the Big 12. This will enable Nebraska to be competitive in the new TV money dominated College Football landscape.
LikeLike
I’d really be curious as to what happens in Osborne’s fantasy scenario where they don’t join with the Texas schools.
In real life, the first thing that would probably happen would be that Colorado would have accepted their Pac 10 offer. The Big 7, already weak economically, would have gotten weaker.
If we assume the Big 10 and Pac 10 continued to defer entry of the big Texas schools, they might have taken an offer to the SEC, or even some ACC combination, which only had 8 schools at the time.
If not, they would have formed a new conference that would have included BYU and some programs from the then Big 7. I think Oklahoma would have accepted that invite easily once Colorado left. I’m not sure if they would have invited more Big 7 schools (its possible they could have tried an Eastern division that included independent schools from the East Coast like Virginia Tech and Florida State), but it would have been lousy for any Big 7 school that didn’t get to go.
The best scenario for Nebraska probably would have been if UT and A&M were quickly accepted by another conference, and everyone but Colorado was left stranded in the Big 7. They would have probably expanded with BYU, some Texas schools, and maybe a few others. Nebraska and Oklahoma would have been the big names in that division, but the national media wouldn’t have been interested in any game from that conference that wasn’t Nebraska vs. Oklahoma, leaving the conference very weak.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. As an outsider, it appears to me that the Big 8 needed Texas/A&M to provide stability and safe haven as much as anything else.
The problem for the old Big 8 was that footprint was rapidly becoming more important than just pure national branding in the early 90s and that’s accelerated to the point of today.
Texas/A&M saved the old Big 8 from flyover status as others have stated.
The same thing will happen if Texas/A&M and presumably Colorado aren’t there in the Big 12. It may remain a BCS conference in name but in terms of TV $ it will be the same as the Big East, an afterthought.
LikeLike
My point about footprint applies more to this past decade, but in the 90s it was obvious that population footprint was going to be a problem for the Big 8 eventually.
LikeLike
No B12 network?
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13040/notes-quotes-and-a-big-12-network
…”Before I got this role, when I was in the chief operating officer role, we looked carefully at doing that before we did our last television deal,” Beebe said. “Part of it was along the same lines of what the SEC concluded, which is that it would too much disrupt–really what you need with a network is you need no distribution of programming from any other source. Everybody’s compelled to have to take the network. And so, just like I think the SEC concluded–and maybe the ACC, I don’t know–we don’t want to pull that back from our institutions. We want to allow other programming and other games to be distributed. And at the time, it was a good deal from ABC and ESPN, so that’s what we and our members chose to do.”
So, that’s that. By “other programming,” Beebe means university-produced content either provided by subscription or free on the school’s website, or possibly pay-per-view options that schools like Missouri have employed in the past…
LikeLike
And THIS is why every other school not name Texas or Oklahoma is thinking they may be better off elsewhere. I personally think this is a bigger issue then the whole revenue split thing. What this says is our member institutions care more about their own short term gains then the growth of the conference as a whole. Those schools for which their own network doesn’t make sense will just have to deal with the fact that they will never get full value for the conferences athletic product because some schools refuse to make their entire inventory available while the schools that can make have their own network/programming leave them in the dust.
LikeLike
Ha! Do I really want to join a conference whose bowl time is afraid of Illinois St?
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/11165/northwestern-says-no-to-sunday-game
…A Northwestern official told ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg that Fitzgerald’s reasoning was that he didn’t want to create a short week for his team on the opening weekend and have to travel back on Sunday night. Northwestern has Illinois State at home that following weekend, while Vanderbilt has LSU at home….
LikeLike
time = team (for those in Rio Linda)
LikeLike
Wow, that’s inexplicable. To throw away a chance at the national spotlight for a Northwestern-Vandy game is fairly shortsighted. And to use Illinois State as a reason is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Fitzgerald is a big traditionalist. He’s the only BigTen coach I’ve seen quotes from so far that’s outright said he didn’t want to expand. Then again, it’s Northwestern. Maybe he just realizes adding Texas/A&M/Nebraska/ND/whoever makes getting to a bowl game a whole lot harder for his school.
As for this.. I dunno. The fact he was supposedly okay with Thursday or Friday kind of rules out the tradition argument.
LikeLike
Illinois State is the kind of game that can be moved. I think its a rationalization on Fitzgerald’s part, and a short-sighted one at that. Northwestern-Vandy should be a showcase for two schools that are trying to do things the right way.
LikeLike
As an Illinois fan I have no dog in the NE/TX fight, I simply take these NE feelings as further evidence of the fact that they are gone gone gone to the B10.
LikeLike
They’ve been talking that way since 1996. Nothing new here. There was probably a whole lot more in the 90s when the North was dominating the South in football. Once Osborne retired and Nebraska slipped, it reduced a little.
IMO a lot of it is driven by Osborne. He is a saint in Nebraska and has been whining since the start. I suspect his change of tone yesterday was because Pearlman told him to bite his tongue.
However, unless the B12 can show it can generate a lot more money in its next contract, I don’t think there’s a B12 North school that wouldn’t accept a B10 invitation. It is all about the money (and the academic prestige makes it a little easier to forget tradition).
LikeLike
Nebraska fans have been whining since 1996. Nothing new here. Actually there’s a little less than there was in the 90s when the North dominated the South in fb. The tone’s a little different too. Then they were upset that the 4 worthless beggar schools from Texas
were invited to their club. Now its that they are greedy.
IMO a lot is driven by Osborne who has been whining from the start. He retired, NU football took a dive and the whining receded a little. His change in tone yesterday, I suspect, was driven by Pearlman telling him to bite his tongue. You don’t see any of those negative comments out of Pearlman.
Equal revenue sharing is a red herring. NU is very much for the current formula and always benefits from it. Mizzou breaks even. The issue is that the B10 makes a lot more. And any B12 North school will accept a B10 invitation unless the B12 can show that it can generate a lot more in its next TV contracts. Its all, “Show me the money!”
LikeLike
if if if the big ten calls for them, yes.
LikeLike
And by the way the Kansas to P10 thing? Interesting that my son who lives in KC and grew up in Illinois has always said that KC feels a lot more Western than midwestern. So with all the speculation going on right now I think that’s as good a reason as any to believe KU to P10.
LikeLike
I grew up in the Midwest and lived around KC for five years. I wouldn’t categorize it as Western. Most folks around there think they’re in the Midwest– I had a series of at length arguments when I stepped on campus as a freshman at KU.
I’d categorize KC as an industrial rooted city (railroads, distribution, cement, telecommunications and manufacturing), with a general Midwestern feel. There is a sprinkling of that Oklahoma/Texas Southwest feel and an emerging tech/new business feel as well. There was a lot of recent development to gentrify certain areas and revitalize the downtown area with big time developers until the recent housing collapse.
I’d categorize that area as ‘Great Plains’.
LikeLike
Yeah, It’s really how you categorize “Midwestern.” The eastern Midwest side is definitely different than the western side. I think “Great Plains” would be an adequate term.
LikeLike
In the Big 10 states “midwest” is defined only as the old Northwest Territories. Most of the rest of the country defines midwest more broadly and includes the Great Plains states. Midwestern State University is actually in Texas. I do agree with you Scott, there is a difference between KS/NE/OK/MO and the B10 states.
LikeLike
Having grown up in Columbus, I always scratched my head when people referred to me as a midwesterner. I’ve gotten that a lot in California and Washington, but I just never saw Columbus that way. I’m sure others will disagree though.
LikeLike
@Manifesto:
I’d call you a Midwesterner.
This is similar to the discussions we’ve had before, when those from the outside see Texas as “southern,” but we inside Texas don’t agree.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone in California considers Kansas as “western.” Since it is the PAC-10 that has to let Kansas in and not the other way around, I don’t think Kansas’ opinion counts much.
LikeLike
Dunno if this is posted before, but here’s some money quotes from Dodds about Colorado and Texas.
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15214930
“We’re not going to go first,” Dodds said. “We can go places, but we’re not. We’re not — unless somebody else leaves. We’re not going to lead that train.”
Texas, boasting the biggest athletic department budget in the country and one of the biggest football draws, is a huge piece to any realignment puzzle. There has been speculation the Big Ten will try to lure the Longhorns, then have other Big 12 members follow.
Dodds said he thinks the only way Colorado would leave the Big 12 is if other members bolt first.
“If the Big 12 lost members, I think Colorado would look strongly at the Pac-10,” Dodds said. “I just don’t see Colorado leaving the Big 12. I just think they’re better off here.”
Obviously Colorado is going to make its own determinations about where it goes, but it is interesting to see what Dodds thinks of it shaking down.
And more importantly, Dodds seems to make that case that Texas may move right after a single team leaves the conference.
LikeLike
@zeek – Dodds is becoming more and more open about this issue. The fact that he even suggested that CU would look to the Pac-10 if others started leaving is telling.
LikeLike
Yeah, Dodds’ willingness to talk about the process and where schools are looking indicates a lot about where Texas believes this is all going. His strong defense of Nebraska and Missouri was totally unexpected (from my point of view), and it did seem to serve as notice that Texas expects every Big 12 school to look out for their own interests first and foremost before looking out for the Big 12.
When I analyze his scenario though, he almost expects the Big Ten to make its move before the Pac-10, or at least that’s what he’s implying. That would tend to blow up the timetables though in a sense because the Pac-10 needs its teams to be invited sometime this year in all likelihood in order to be prepared for their contract negotiations, etc.
But a lot of us don’t think the Big Ten moves either until the 12-18 month timetable (and more likely in early 2011 as a way of not upending the football season), or until it has a commitment from Texas/Notre Dame to join after initial invites, so it will be interesting to see where things go in the next few weeks.
Dodds though has totally shifted the process and provided substantial cover to schools to enter into negotiations with other conferences.
Also, I have to believe that he played a role in Beebe seemingly walking back any kind of hard and immediate deadline for Big 12 commitments other than to talk about how he would like to know ASAP but must know by April 2011.
LikeLike
For the record, Henderson is not a very beloved sports writer by Buff fans as he’s an Oregon guy that is not known for being a big fan of the Buffs. One of his most notable pieces was a non-story “story” about Buff player legal issues citing incidents that happened a couple of years earlier…that just happened to run right before signing day…while we were in a dogfight with Oregon to sign a 4* WR. Of course the manager of the Post’s copy desk is also one of the founders of the Huserpedia site…so yeah lots of local media love for the Buffs, lol.
That said it is a weird story, since you would think those are the type of quotes you’d be expecting to see from Beebe, not Dodds. Its nice of Dodds to give his assessment, but I’m not sure he’s got Colorado’s best interests at heart.
Colorado is probably the school that has the most to gain (well non-monetarily, since I’m sure NU/MU would like that Big 10 payday) and the least to lose by a move. We’re already a geographic outlier, so our travel costs are going to suck regardless of where we are, and traveling to Seattle might actually be cheaper then College Station. The alumni presence, recruiting benefits, and academics all point to the PAC being a better fit. The only real downsides are the loss of the old Big 8 rivalries, but since MU and NU look like they already have one foot out the door I don’t really see much in the way of negatives other then the financial penalty to leaving (assuming the PAC can upgrade their TV deal).
This would be so much easier if the Big 10 would go ahead and invite Mizzou already. They’re actually eager to say “eff you” to the Big 12 and be the first to leave.
LikeLike
It seems to me as if everyone is trying their hardest to not be the school that is the first one off the Big 12’s shuttle van or plane or whatever point it’s gotten to… That said, your points are pretty much why Colorado would be willing to be the first one out if they were the first one to get an invite.
And yeah, I think Dodds was making those statements about Colorado from the point of view of the Texas AD and as a current Big 12 supporter as opposed to a Colorado AD/alum/fan, so it is worth taking them with a grain of salt.
But considering Texas’ place in all of these expansion scenarios, it is a very interesting assessment of the situation regardless of the point of view.
LikeLike
LikeLike
During a formal dinner party at the home of Señor Edmundo Nobile and his wife, Lucia, the servants unaccountably leave their posts until only the major-domo is left. After dinner the guests adjourn to the music room, where one of the women, Blanca, plays a piano sonata. Later, instead of leaving, the guests remove their jackets, loosen their gowns, and settle down for the night.
By morning it is apparent that, for some inexplicable reason, they are trapped in the room. Unable to leave, the guests consume what little water and food is left from the previous night’s party. Days pass, and their plight intensifies; they become quarrelsome, hostile, and hysterical – only Dr. Carlos Conde, applying logic and reason, manages to keep his cool and guide the guests through the ordeal. One of the guests, the elderly Sergio Russell, dies, and his body is placed in a large cupboard. Béatriz and Eduardo, a young couple about to be married, lock themselves in a closet and commit suicide.
Eventually, several sheep and a bear break loose from their bonds and find their way to the room; the guests take in the sheep and proceed to slaughter and roast them on fires made from floorboards and broken furniture. Dr. Conde reveals to Nobile that one of his patients, Leonora, is dying from cancer and accepts a secret supply of morphine from the host to keep her fit. The supply of drugs is however stolen by Francis and Juana, an incestuous brother and sister. Ana, a crazed guest and a practitioner of witchcraft, invokes the demons of hell while lapsing into feverish hallucinations.
Eventually, Raúl suggests that Nobile is responsible for their predicament and that he must be sacrificed. Only Dr. Conde and the noble Colonel Alvaro oppose the angry mob claiming Nobile’s blood. As Nobile offers to take his own life, a young, foreign guest, Letitia (nicknamed “La Valkiria”) sees that they are all in the same positions as when their plight began. Obeying her instructions, the group starts reconstructing their conversation and movements from the night of the party and discover that they are then free to leave the room. Outside the manor, the guests are greeted by the local police and the servants that had left the house on the night of the party.
To give thanks for their salvation, the guests attend a funeral mass at the cathedral. When the service is over, the churchgoers along with the clergy are also trapped. It is not entirely clear though, whether those that were trapped in the house before are now trapped again. They seem to have disappeared. The situation in the church is followed by a riot on the streets and the military step in to brutally clamp down on the rioters. The last scene shows a pack of sheep entering the church in a row, accompanied by the sound of gunshots.
LikeLike
Uh, let me take a shot at this.
Exterminating Angel = the Big 12 meetings
Nobile = Beebe
Conde = DeLoss Dodds
Alvaro = aTm
Leonora = Texas Tech/Kent Hance
Raul = Dr. Tom
Letitia = Jim Delany or Larry Scott
Francis & Juana = David Boren (OU) & T. Boone Pickens (OSU)
Ana = Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon
LikeLike
Beatriz & Eduardo = KU & K-State
The sheep = Iowa State
The bear = Baylor
Sergio Russell = also Baylor or Iowa State
Clara = Mike Slive
LikeLike
So you’re saying Northwestern will soon have a quarterback named Buñuel?
(Perhaps followed by a Dali…)
LikeLike
my understanding is that select a&m students will play the sheep.
LikeLike
maybe this is more fitting:
LikeLike
Luis Bunuel in the Big 12. I love it!
LikeLike
I’m in Denver, and an OU grad.
I had some similiar thoughts on this article. Everyone seemed to be toeing the company line, of “We ❤ the Big 12!" and "We won't go first".
Then I thought about Nebraska, and Missouri, and they both seem more than willing to be the first to leave.
I get the feeling that UT will use others leaving as justification and for political ammo on why they have to save themselves, and why they can't worry about Tech, or A&M as they jump in the lifeboat.
It seems to me everyone right now is looking at each other playing a big staring contest, waiting for who's the first to blink.
LikeLike
i think you are right, daniel. i think this is one very tense game of chicken right now.
LikeLike
Yeah, but maybe the Big Ten isn’t as enthralled with Missouri as Tigers fans would like to think. For all intents and purposes, it may be perceived as the Pittsburgh of the Big 12, certainly not in the Texas/Nebr/ND class and arguably less desirable to the Big Ten than A&M, Rutgers and Maryland.
LikeLike
Missouri is the ‘urban myth’ of expansion talk.
It is the one school that is constantly being mentioned and yet it’s the one school that has ZERO empirical evidence to back up its prominence in this discussion.
Can anyone give me one example of Missouri being menioned by an Big Ten Big Whig as a possibility?
LikeLike
I hate to get too wild in “schemes” about politics and such…but considering the imminence of the PAC10 announcement, this seems phony to me. Colorado, all along, has been the school MOST likely to break the seal! Everyone knew this June deadline was coming for the PAC10…and Colorado was likely to be #1 choice (if Texas/aTm weren’t coming).
This comment COULD be intended to set up the “shock” value when it happens this month. Then, Dodds and Texas can feign outrage and confusion. In the end though, they’ll be happy because it frees them to leave the sinking ship under stronger political/public acceptance.
LikeLike
I tend to agree about Colorado breaking the seal.
And yes, you are right that these statements taken together imply that Texas would put its plan into action (whatever the plan is whether it’s Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC with other teams) as soon as the seal of the Big 12 is broken.
LikeLike
Yeah, this is not Dodds’ first rodeo. Looking at some of the stuff he’s put out there recently does sort of look like he’s setting some teams up to take the Arkansas fall for him again.
LikeLike
I think Tx will sit through the first round of expansion and survey matters 3-4 years down the road.
Don’t see a downside for them in talking this approach. For example, if the Big 10 added RU, Neb, and Mo/Pitt, TX could watch for a couple of years and see what effect that would have on revenues. In the meantime, they can see what becomes of SEC/ACC/Pac 10 expansion/reallignment, or further explore the Longhorn network approach.
I think this is what Dodds has in mind when he talks about “finishing” expansion.
LikeLike
Students of Game Theory could have a field day with this expansion talk. I’m not sure who has the most control, but it is clear that UT and the B10 are in the driver’s seat – for now. Will UT sit this round of expansion out? The B10 needs to play enough chips to draw UT out to join now, but they can’t go all in in the event that UT simply calls their bluff. I don’t see any scenario where the B10 goes to 14 schools without UT or ND. And if that spot is open, the maybe neither school joins now knowing that the spot will always be there. UT is the ultimate prize, but the B10 cannot make it appear that they catered to UT to get them – even if UT is able to dictate certain terms. They are a proud institution as well, with some proud members. UM, OSU, and PSU will not want to hear any talk of how UT saved B10 football. I’m sure they would love to be able to say they gave UT a chance to be a part of the grand conference.
Not to trivialize past historical events, but there has to be some geopolitical case studies that we can gleam from. Two great powers in a stand off where they need a smaller power to take action to give them both political cover. A fascinating topic indeed.
And agree with HH – we need a new piece Frank – if only to start new discussions.
LikeLike
First, I’m not sure how Texas could claim “saving” Big Ten football when the Big Ten conference is already the richest conference and, with its new business model in place, is just beginning to pull away from the pack.
The bottom line is that while Texas’ athletic department is rich, there is an opportunity in front of you. If you want even more money for your athletic department, if your school wants to affiliate itself with more academic institutions, and if it wants the opportunity to improve its research levels (by potentially hundreds of millions) by joining the CIC, then great. Sounds like a win. Get your best terms and hop on board. If not, well, there are other institutions that would be more than happy to do so.
Second, I find all this ‘let someone else go first’ is a bunch of BS. It doesn’t speak much for a president of a major university if your decisions are dictated by what, Missouri or Nebraska is going to do.
If you’re the president of a major university, you’re not paid to sit there looking around. You’re paid to make decisions that are right for your university. Do your job. Step up to the plate, make your choices and take whatever fall out there is like a man.
LikeLike
From the Texas standpoint, they wouldn’t want the Tech and Baylor alums (some of whom are in the legislature) to be bitter. From the other schools standpoint, its just not wanting to be the bad guy. In the ACC expansion, somehow the last school out, BC got painted as the bad guy.
LikeLike
I meant saving only from a fan’s argument, football perspective. The argument being (one that I don’t agree with) that the Big 10 is not as good a football conference as it was in the past. It was merely to address the fan perspective on the B10 as a football conference.
While stepping up to the plate first sounds good in theory, it has the potential for backlash. If it is perceived that UT is abandoning its other Texas schools, that could be bad.
However, if UT really wants to join, I think the current economic situation gives schools a lot of reason to say it is joining the B10 because it is in the school’s financial best interest and the public’s best interest to maximize its revenues from a sport’s perspective and research perspective. In this case, the B10’s academic and research benefits give a lot of political cover.
That being said, sports is very political. Just look at Congress getting involved in the MLB steroid issue or the BCS. Sports ignite a lot of passion so politics will be involved.
LikeLike
“We’re not going to go first,” Dodds said. “We can go places, but we’re not. We’re not — unless somebody else leaves.
That is Dodds grabbing MO’s fiddle like Charlie Daniels, then eating Colorado’s bread sticks.
LikeLike
LOL. Love it.
LikeLike
…and stiffing NU with the bill.
LikeLike
My favorite Dodds quote of the last few days:
“We did not start this. If we need to finish it, we’ll finish it.”
LikeLike
Meant as a reply to zeek and Frank above.
LikeLike
If there was any doubt that Texas will be in control of the expansion scenarios from here on out, Dodds has put them to rest with his statements over the past week.
My guess is that the Texas brass has signaled to him a willingness to move if anyone else leaves and now he’s providing cover to everyone else to look for exit scenarios.
LikeLike
Exactly. A trial-balloon, Hindenberg combo.
LikeLike
Ubben’s updates:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13043/am-travel-troubles-calculated-risks
A&M’s AD has some more quotes about travel costs.
Beebe rattles off some selling points of the league staying together (big surprise, none of them involve hard cash or a Big 12 network).
Beebe also corrects/back tracks on the April, 2011 deadline.
LikeLike
Notice that Byrne is always pointing to Pac-10 locations when he talks about the cost of travel.
LikeLike
very interesting, af. thanks for pointing it out. might be telling, huh?
LikeLike
Yeah, what’s surprised me is how consistent he’s been.
Not once has he mentioned Big Ten locations as being far away (that I can recall), which is somewhat surprising. I don’t really know if there’s anything there, but Big Ten locations are only a little closer than the Pac-10 locations.
I know the two timezone difference amplifies that concern, but it is interesting that he hasn’t thrown the Big Ten into his discussion on travel being a big cost.
LikeLike
Only the two Arizona schools are closer to College Station than Penn St., the furthest Big Ten School from aTm. And you’ve got 6 Pac 10 schools (Stanford, Cal, the Oregons and Washingtons) that are all substantially further than Penn St.
And then there’s the time zone thing. It’s a huge issue for scheduling games. All of the Pac 10 schools are on (essentially) Pacific Time for the beginning of football season since Arizona doesn’t observe DST. Assuming the Pac 10 adds Mountain Zone Colorado, the Pac 10 would have to add 5 Central Time zone teams to even begin to piece together a national TV schedule. Even then it would be a mess. And with the Pac 10’s unanimous voting requirement, I don’t see how they can add 6 teams.
LikeLike
Just one man’s opinion, but now that we seem to be reaching way out of the box… I say drop Vandy for South Florida. Then you’ve got Texas and DC squarely in your footprint, and a very solid foot in the door in Florida. USF has been doing thigs right as they build their program and brand, how much better would they do in this super Big10 scenario? They could easily surpass at least two of the three big Florida schools in a couple years. (Some might argue they already have passed FSU.) And never forget the recruiting advantages for all Big10 schools in getting to play in Florida every couple of years.
LikeLike
South Florida makes no sense academically for the Big Ten; it’s a municipal university, a Sunbelt equivalent of Cincinnati or Louisville. If the Big Ten were to take the Florida route, it would probably go with FSU were it an AAU member.
However, I could well see USF used as a way to restock the Big 12 if some of its teams leave. That conference has long recruited Florida talent, and the Big 12 would be a step up from the Big East.
LikeLike
That’s fair, I don’t know much about USF’s academics. But what little I do know said they were on the rise from an academic and research standpoint as well as athletics. But it sounds like they’re quite a ways from being Big10 caliber. Thanks.
LikeLike
I have a general question for the Aggie fans, I know this has been talked about before, but has anything changed from the early 90s or is the SEC still the preferred conference for A&M?
More specifically, A&M became an AAU member in 2001. Does the university’s pursuit of AAU membership indicate any kind of change in the thinking about even considering the Big Ten versus the SEC?
Perhaps A&M tends to treat conferences as more or less vehicles for sports as say the University of Florida does (which is why it wouldn’t be interested), so perhaps it’s just looking for the best landing spot as a university in terms of its athletic department.
And of course having Arkansas and possibly LSU really helps in terms of cultural fit.
But at the same time, A&M seems like a much better fit for the Big Ten this time around than in the early 90s as it is much more recognized in terms of prestige (see AAU) and has robust research funding.
And in terms of cultural fit, why go to a different place than Texas? I can see the willingness to want to get into a different conference from Texas in terms of establishing a more unique brand, but I think that would be easily outweighed by the synergy of having their rivalries in the same conference.
LikeLike
I definitely can’t speak for most Aggies, since I live out of state and don’t follow school message boards (I’ve found this realignment talk fascinating in a way I never find recruiting interesting), but I think most fans who see a conference as only about athletics would prefer the SEC. There are natural connections to the SEC West. (The school used to play Arkansas and LSU every year; Bear Bryant had a short but memorable coaching stint at A&M.)
I think taking everything in account for the University means they have to take a spot in one of the better academic leagues, with Big 10 being a better fit. I have no idea what percentage of former students or fans would agree with me, however.
LikeLike
If U of TEXAS is hesitant to jump right away I think the Big Ten should take Nebraska and Texas A&M regardless. Not only is Texas A&M a worthy addition to the conference (that will only appreciate/gain in stature over time) but it might also act as the nudge UT needs to join the Big Ten as well.
LikeLike
I agree that most former students at A&M have great affection for the SEC West and the rivalries from years past. However, I agree with the premise above that the university is quite different than 95/96 when we last flirted with the SEC. TAMU is now far more focused on developing its research capabilites and being a flagship university. Since this is a move for the next 50 years, hopefully, I would like to see TAMU move with Texas into the Big10
LikeLike
you one smart aggie.
LikeLike
Not an Aggie, but live in Texas. I think if there was ever a time for UT and A&M to split it is now, especially if A&M could end up in the SEC. I think in the long run, going to the P10 would be a detriment, particularly if OU ends up in SEC. But that is pure speculation. Because A&M has fallen so far in football these days with the obvious rise of UT, they may want to escape the obvious connection. If they were in separate conferences, even if A&M were not as good as UT, they could claim they play in a better conference. This may make the rivalry even better. Although hard to see UT playing A&M and OU each year if only UT is in the B10. Sooner or later the little brother wants to get out of big brother’s shadow. In the 90’s it wasn’t as important as A&M was arguably better. Now that is clearly not the case.
LikeLike
Frank,
You should take a look at the war room on Orangebloods. Very interesting reading if true.
LikeLike
I have a feeling it relates to this story:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
LikeLike
@GCS – That’s exactly what it is.
LikeLike
Can someone explain how TTech, Oklahoma, and OSU are going to get unanimous votes in the Pac-10?
LikeLike
USC and the rest telling Stanford/Cal to hold their noses and vote yes or else? They’ve done it before.
LikeLike
Cal alum here.
The scenario has lots of appeal because even though the 6 Big 12 schools are in the same conference, they would be in the other division. In fact, you could argue to Stanford that we are somewhat “rolling back” the last Pac 10 expansion (that some say Stanford didn’t want) by moving the Arizona schools to the another division.
LikeLike
beautiful, cal. you have lined out exactly why i don’t want texas going that direction.
what do i owe you?
LikeLike
So let me get this straight…the Pac10 would rather invite Ok State than Nebraska? You already have the two big schools in the state…and you want Texas Tech to boot?
IMO, I buy the move to 16, just not with all these teams.
An Oklahoma may be “choked down” because of its football, but I can’t find any reason Ok State or TT gets a nod.
LikeLike
Would Stanford hold its nose and vote “yes” on TT, OU, and OSU?
LikeLike
>>
Chip [Brown] is in Austin and is talking on his afternoon ESPN show “The Bottom Line” right now. He claims he just got a call from the Pac10 commissioner who is preparing a press statement right now. He also claims Bill Burn at TA&M has openly stated he is pursuing a move to the SEC. He also reports a leak from Oklahoma that they are exploring a move to the SEC as well. Seems everyone is running.
<<
http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showthread.php?2370-Unsportsmanlike-Conduct-Huge-news-coming&p=56089&viewfull=1#post56089
LikeLike
For those that are not members – can you give us the jist of what the rumor is?
LikeLike
per the report Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado are about to get Pac-10 invitations.
LikeLike
@shockthenation – Whoa!
For those that don’t have access, the report is that the Pac-10 is planning to invite half of the Big 12: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado.
The report seems to really downplay the willingness of Texas to go to the Big Ten and almost completely discounts the SEC being a player for Texas (although it suggested that A&M and OU would like the SEC).
It also indicated that Nebraska might not get a Big Ten invite but Missouri would, which is something that Chip Brown at Orangebloods has indicated before.
FWIW, I’m not surprised that the Pac-10 would want to do this, although I’m not as sure that it takes the same stance as the Big Ten (who isn’t going to invite anyone unless it knows that it’s going to get a “Yes” answer), so I don’t know if the Pac-10 thinks that it’s going to get all yes answers. Also, I’ve received information that appears to be the exact opposite regarding (1) Texas interest in the Big Ten and SEC (specifically that the Pac-10 would never provide enough revenue) and (2) the desirability of Nebraska to the Big Ten compared to Missouri. Indications on my end are, at least from the Big Ten perspective, that the Northwestern message board rumor is spot-on in terms of who the conference is targeting.
LikeLike
Halfway through the article they speculate about what might happen if A&M and Oklahoma splinter off.
Does anyone here really think that they’re going to give unconditional invites to OSU and Texas Tech and take them on with just Colorado and Texas but without Oklahoma and A&M. Would they invite them all as a package and say if anyone says no, we revise it?
This seems too much of a scattershot approach. It’s one thing to invite 6 schools if you’re willing to take every single one of the six alone, but are they willing to take TTech and OSU without A&M and Oklahoma?
And what if Texas says no? Are they going to take the other 5 without Texas?
LikeLike
Interesting. And the P16 with CA and TX would have definite value. As of yet, however, the P10 hasn’t shown that. They earn less than the B12.
I would prefer this to a B10+1+5 (nothing against B10, but Texas is not a midwestern state-great plains-yes, western-yes, southern-yes, midwestern-no), but I think the administration would prefer the B10. And geographically the B10 makes more sense. This would seem to be the fallback scenario if the b10 raids and fills up w 16 teams and the b12 TV talks don’t go well.
When he says that UT and A&M might not play in any sports if A&M went to the SEC, he really hurts his credibility.
With the iffiness of P10 TV revenues and the not playing comment, I put this in the category with Pittsburg to the B10.
LikeLike
As a Texan who has lived in Ohio for 23 years, Texas (and A&M) to the B10 doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. Despite earlier comments about independent-minded Aggies–and unless the political landscape has radically changed–I don’t see the TX legislature letting them be separated. I don’t have a great feel for some of the teams from the East/South (Texans do NOT consider themselves Southerners), but the addition of only UT, A&M and Nebraska makes the B10 really strong without becoming unwieldy, and ND can go screw themselves.
LikeLike
Mizzou Chancellor:
“We’re not shutting our ears to anything.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h0l02EwlsU0l-GBdHEWnrJ5dYYJgD9G3V7U00
Friday’s meeting of the Presidents should be interesting.
LikeLike
Rivals running with it:
6 from Big 12 to Pac 10
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
LikeLike
I cannot fathom a situation where Stanford wouldn’t veto admission to TTU (a Tier 3 school). Maybe I’m wrong but I was under the impression that the PAC10 fancied itself an elite academic conference. This move while adding three AAU schools would remove quite a bit of luster as well.
LikeLike
Extremely hard to believe OK St, at a minimum. Adds no footprint, but might fit with the rumor that Texas was asking for several nearby schools for travel reasons, and pandering to aTm in that regard. But would also bring a meddling Daddy Warbucks with the potential to buy players to Stillwater. Seems like KS or Utah would be better substitutes, even with KS’ pending scandal (cough, USC, cough.) Tech I could see as a nose holder to lure TX.
LikeLike
Few things would be funnier than having those offers extended, OU, OK St, and TTech accepting, while TX and aTm decline. Doh!
LikeLike
My guess is a booster got a snippet of a negotiating proposal and ran with it, possibly embellishing it.
LikeLike
pn!, that’s a question i have. if they roll out the toilet paper for the six schools, do all six have to accept for it to be valid? else, they set themselves up to be saddled with the lesser draws, let’s say.
LikeLike
The Pac10 is used to the Daddy Warbucks routine, ie. Phil Knight and Oregon.
LikeLike
I was thinking TX would prefer to keep as much of that crap out of its next conference as possible, hence the B10+ option.
Maybe not that big a deal. Perhaps realignment, like politics is still somewhat local.
BTW, responding to below, academically TTech is a better school than OK St.
LikeLike
Having Tech in the fold creates another game in the state of Texas. It also gives them a freebie win most years. More games in Texas + easier road to the championship = happy Texas.
LikeLike
Switch Kansas for Tech and it seems like a better match and more likely. Tech? OU and OSU are stretches, but if OU goes with OSU and the PAC Network gets the OU-Texas game maybe.
LikeLike
Stanford voted for ASU, so it’s certainly not unprecedented.
LikeLike
I can see the appeal from a markets standpoint and the revenue would be really nice if the projections are close to being accurate. However, as a Colorado guy this is like being told you won the lottery and finding out the prize is the Leg Lamp from “A Christmas Story”.
We’re going to the PAC 10! But the bulk of our roadies are going to continue to be in Lubbuck, Norman, Stillwater, and College Station…are you kidding me? I really hope we at least get a annual guaranteed Cali roadie though that’s probably not feasible.
I’m happy we aren’t going to left to languish in the MWC, but this is not our dream scenario (now we may know why KU’s AD was so obviously nervous). I’m realistic enough to realize the road to getting Colorado back to competitiveness is not likely to involve essentially moving us to the Big 12 South where we continue to get crushed in spending. Plus this leaves us with no rival and no travel partner. At the very least I’d prefer KU and Utah (if NU is hell bent on the Big 10) to Tech and OSU, though realistically that is probably the price the PAC has to pay get the Texas schools and Oklahoma.
LikeLike
@ SuperD. I agree – CO dream scenario is Pac going to 12 with them and one other (or 14 with a zipper conference). Anything with 16 alienates them from CA – which is their major selling point for jumping the B12 ship in the 1st place.
LikeLike
In this scenario, Colorado’s travel partner would likely be Texas Tech.
I’m sure part of the appeal for A&M would be relatively few west coast trips as part of the Pac-16’s “Interior” division…five ex-Big 12 rivals plus Arizona and ASU. And including Tech in the package makes it more palatable to the Texas legislature (sorry, Baylor, you’ve lost your clout).
But I could see why Colorado would want Utah in this expansion…without Kansas in your conference, somebody has to bring in their own fans to at least one basketball game in Boulder each year (since CU fans never do).
LikeLike
I can see a scenarion where the Pac wants to move to 16 but I can’t really see it with those 6 schools…especially if aTm and OK are looking to actively pursue SEC
LikeLike
The Pac 10 play makes sense to both parties. Adding a large block of Big 12 teams eliminates any exit penalties and also sets them up for a new contract in 2010/2011 rather than 2016.
Academics aside, the Pac 10 can’t afford to not take some risks– especially if they whiff at Texas.
LikeLike
“If A&M opted to head to the SEC and Texas opted to go elsewhere, there is a very good chance Texas would no longer play the Aggies in any sports.”
I read this as a threat by Dodds (using his mouthpiece) to try and force A&M to go along with Texas.
I don’t think this will work though. I won’t be the same but A&M vs. LSU on Thanksgiving Day is fine with me. I like deep fried turkeys, just fine.
LikeLike
AggieFrank – the LSU/A&M rivalry was absolutely great in the 80s when both teams were in the Top 10. I really liked a big game like that to open the season, but if its Thanksgiving, that’s fine. I’ll gladly fry a turkey in my crawfish pot for you, cook a turducken in my cajun microwave for you, and then watch my Tigers drag your Aggies up and down the field for 3 hours. It’s got to be a night game in Tiger Stadium though.
LikeLike
Ramifications if true and accepted:
1. The Pac-10 gets to go back to being a Pac-8, to some degree. One wonders how ASU and UofA will feel about their access to either Northern or Southern California being reduced.
2. This is potentially “seismic” enough to make Swarwick consider joining a conference.
3. Delaney can pick up Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas for pennies on the dollar if he wants them. Are those schools, plus Notre Dame and Rutgers enough?
4. Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State are screwed. That’s not news. but it’s still true.
LikeLike
Am I the only one that looks at the 6 Big12 schools to the Pac10 and thinks, “didn’t we just see this drama play out with the Big8/SWC merger?” To be honest, does Texas even want this sort of merger again?
LikeLike
I don’t know if UT wants to be in this conference. However, if the schools actually join, it would be much more stable than the Big 12. The Big 12 is 2 divisions, but 1 division has all the population, all the recruiting grounds, and most of the football powers.
This new conference would also have much less dead weight in terms of population.
LikeLike
Excellent points regarding distribution of recruiting grounds, population, and football power. I’m really uneasy with this kind of a proposal, but I concede that it’s has more strength taken in this context.
LikeLike
As to 1, I am not a Pac-10 fan, but it is set up nicely. Each of the 8 teams in the Eastern Half would certainly get two games against the West… one against a CA team and one against a NW team. So much opportunity for symmetry.
I also think that Kansas is a better fit than Texas Tech. You get Colorado/Kansas paired up; Texas schools, Oklahoma schools.
As to 2, I say “no.” If anything, it makes the Pac-10 closer to the SEC and Big 10. Meanwhile, the ACC remains a better fit for Notre Dame if it decides to jump.
As to 3, the Big 10 should be looking at pennies on the dollar for everyone except Texas right now. They hold all the cards. They should negotiate everyone down to the bare minimum. Rutgers? Fine… you get 1/5th of a membership for 5 years… then 1/2…. for the next five. Take it or leave it. Missouri? Ditto. Nebraska? We’ll let you start at 1/2. Just because we’re nice.
As to 4, yep.
LikeLike
It seems hard to believe that the Pac-10 would want to saddle itself with Texas Tech and Okla. St. Why not Kansas and Nebraska? (Remember that the source for this story thinks Nebraska is far from a sure bet to get a Big 10 invite.)
And what would the backup plan be if A&M and Oklahoma go to the SEC? Are Kansas and Nebraska invited then? Is Utah still in the mix?
LikeLike
I don’t put much, if any, faith in an article by Chip Brown as the guy is pretty much a mouthpiece for UT. However, I think this one has legs since I’ve always heard this is the fall back plan for A&M if it can’t land in the SEC.
It also fits together with the Brent Zwerneman article today.
Buckle up…
LikeLike
FWIW off ESPN
“Christian Childress (Dallas, TX)
Rivals just let out story stating Pac 10 is set to invite OU, OSU, TTU, UT, CU and A&M all to Pac 10 creating a 16 team conference with 8 in each division. Have you heard anything on this?
Ted Miller (3:30 PM)
no….and I don’t think that’s going to happen. As I wrote early: Larry Scott told me today that no major news would come out of the meetings this weekend. Sounds like someone was just speculating.”
LikeLike
If you spend enough time on this blog, it´s becomes pretty easy to separate the BS from the rumors that have some truth.
Off the top of my head, this is what we´ve seen so far (feel free to add to this):
BS:
1) Pitt to the Big 10
2) Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers given invites
3) 6 Big 12 teams to the Pac 10
Degrees of truth:
1) Northwestern message board rumor
2) Much of the information Frank´s posted
3) Andy Katz rumor – Southern strategy
LikeLike
michael, what is the northwestern message board rumor?
LikeLike
Invite Texas/Notre Dame and allow them each to play 7 games in conference with a guaranteed rivalry.
LikeLike
texas and notre dame would play each other seven times!
that’s crazy. what a best of seven?
no. no. not serious. thanks for the explanation.
LikeLike
Pretty sure a Nebraska invite was in there as well. Unfortunately not long after it went up, all the original posts were deleted by the author. A Michigan St. board had posted a story saying that Delany was furious about that particular rumor (out of all the stuff floating around), so it’s had some traction in the eyes of people on here for a while.
I’m skeptical of the 7 game part, at least as a permanent thing. A protected rivalry I’m totally fine with though. I think they should just add A&M as well so Texas doesn’t need to use an OOC slot.
Texas+TA&M+Neb+ND+(Rutgers or MD) would be awesome. Might be a pipe dream though.
LikeLike
Yeah, the only truth to this is that the Pac-10 wants to make a hard run at Texas. (All 4 wannabe superconferences are aiming at Texas).
In any case, unless Texas says yes beforehand, there is no way Stanford or Cal will agree to Oklahoma/OSU/TTech.
The writer makes it seem as if they’re going to just invite these 6 schools and whoever comes will be welcome with open arms.
Yeah right, and what happens if Texas/A&M say no?
Then the Pac-10 ends up with 3 schools they don’t want along with Colorado.
This scenario is as far out there as they come.
LikeLike
It seems people tend to give credence to a rumor based mainly on whether it’s something that they hope takes place.
Separating whether this speculation was right or, more precisely, was partially right, won’t be possible until something actually happens. Until then, it’s a colossal crapshoot with eveything best taken with a dose of skepticism.
LikeLike
Interestingly, the media seems to be running with this one. A bunch of papers are quoting rivals. With all the quiet since the NU,UM,RU,ND rumour, I thought they had gotten skeptical.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, this just in:
Bud Selig is still a spineless dumba$$.
LikeLike
If the story is true, (and I’m not sure it will prove to be), my first thoughts are that while I’d love for the Big Ten to have Texas, A) I can see the logic if Texas really wants to be in a conference with those other schools. The Big Ten wouldn’t offer them. B) I think there is a benefit to the Big Ten to having the Pac-10 stronger. C) Pretty much the only choice the Pac-10 had to expand to 16 involved the Texas schools. Hence, I’d wonder if the Big Ten and the Pac-10 would be working in concert in some way. Leaving behind Nebraska, for instance, allows both conference to strengthen their football, and the Big Ten still has very good canddiate schools towards the east that would be better academic fits and enhance demographics nicely (Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, e.g.)
LikeLike
A couple thoughts:
Adding Texas to California for one conference is going to be a crazy conference for recruiting football talent. Assuming all six joined anyway, so the SEC wouldn’t get their hands into Texas with A&M/Oklahoma.
If Texas/A&M/Oklahoma are added to the Pac10, and there’s a CCG, USC’s road just got a lot tougher. Does this affect the ND-USC in any way? Possibly not — I mean, USC has played top OOC schools while maintaining their ND game. But if you’re basically going to get one of those three *every* year in conference in the CCG, plus maybe during conference play? That just seems like it would somewhat limit their OOC wiggle room if they keep the ND game yearly. Maybe FLP has some insight on this.
LikeLike
Good Question.
I’ve always been under the impression that ND is still the #2 rivalry at USC behind UCLA. I think the ND games is something that USC would want to keep, but I can’t say with certainty that USC would be as interested in keeping it as ND is.
LikeLike
The Big 10 will be stronger with a an improved Pac 10 and since they are partners in the RB they need to work together.
LikeLike
David Matter has the money quote of the afternoon:
‘Unless the school officials are tuned into their smart phones or laptops during their meetings, some are likely to get blindsided by the report in a few short hours. (Should we all yell “SURPRISE!” when they walk out of their meeting room?)’
http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/2010/jun/03/report-pac-10-eyes-half-of-big-12/
LikeLike
If you aren’t following EveryDayShouldBeSaturday’s Orson Swindle on Twitter (edsbs), you’re missing out:
LikeLike
Wow. I remember Paterno saying something to effect during the Penn State spring game coverage that “the Pac-10’s gonna do something” or something to that effect, and thinking he was daft. Maybe Joe knew something then?
Let the games begin. If this rumor is true, I’m happy with it, and it ought to get the Big Ten off the dime.
LikeLike
I think Chip Brown is being used like a low-level state department diplomat to spread misinformation in an effort to grease the wheels necessary to create the destabilizing conditions necessary to make all this conference realignment happen. (Could ask the same about Frank – ha)
LikeLike
So basically, Dodds rolled him out to scare the Big Ten into making a move?
LikeLike
Or to keep the rest of the Big 12 in line…i.e. agree to hang together or this is your alternative…
Honestly this “solution” is pretty unpalatable to to EVERYBODY except the TX schools that are going to vote the way TX wants them to anyway.
LikeLike
Boy it sure is interesting that this is coming out right when the NCAA is about ready to report its USC findings.
LikeLike
@Gopher Funny – that was my thought as well. Pac trying to get in the news for something groundbreaking vs a member school’s sanctions. Still think its a good ploy from a conference pov, but it needs to come out right AFTER the SC sanction news – not before.
LikeLike
well, the way this is headed, if this story is true, i may finally get to see whether texas’ stated desire to move up among the great universities of the land has any sand in it.
if we are happy to more or less shift the big 12 south and colorado to a junkyard division with the ariz schools, then i’ll know to laugh the next time i hear it.
so, one way or other i get to learn something major here. that’s good.
LikeLike
The other nice piece of this is that it happened right when the Big 12 presidents/chancellors are meeting. I’m interested to see what Bill Powers has to say about all of this.
LikeLike
indeed. i hope they get wind of it before they adjourn.
LikeLike
You mean, join a conference with Cal, Stanford and UCLA? Sound like great universities to me.
LikeLike
But dragging TT, Ok, & Ok State along with?
LikeLike
Holy smokes! I turned on ESPN2 to see if they are covering this (nope) and they have some talk panel with Kevin Blackistone. Sheesh, that guy is the biggest fraud since Skip Bayless. Bitter, clueless, and sports is only a pretext for him to write about his political views.
LikeLike
Leave for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose…
LikeLike
Serves you right for leaving.
LikeLike
The Big 12 meetings just wrapped up for today. Quotes should be forthcoming.
LikeLike
you know, i’m not sure what they can say since it is just rumor at this point.
LikeLike
That won’t stop the reporters from hounding them on this issue. I’d love to hear Beebe’s take on this:
LikeLike
hah. yes.
LikeLike
My guess is that this is a Texas leak to pressure the B10+ for a final agreement and basically an ultimatum for ND. If ND says no, TX’s interest in a B16 may plummet, especially if a desperate P10 is willing to make such a big concession as adding the B12 south minus Baylor. Without ND I can’t see a B16 being worth it for TX to be a frontier outpost. Also important to smoke out aTm’s true intentions right now while the B10+ is still on the table.
LikeLike
BTW, watching that clip of Jose Canseco walking to the courthouse, it seems clear that his wife got a Bedazzler for Christmas…
LikeLike
To elaborate upon this, I wonder if Dodds and Byrne might be playing some sort of “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Byrne playing the roll of bad cop (with his negative comments about Pac 10 travel), in order to get a more desired final result on the table.
LikeLike
Having thought about it, I can see why Texas would really like this scenario.
If the Pac-10 was really willing to give this much to Texas, essentially maintaining the Big 12 South with Colorado/Arizona/ASU in for Baylor, I don’t see how Texas/A&M wouldn’t consider it as one of the best offers on the table.
The only thing I’m skeptical about is that the Pac-10 presidents have all signed off on this, although the comments about revolutionary dealings from Cal may signal that.
LikeLike
And as much of a Big 10 fan as I’ve been, I like this the more I think about it as well. I share your skepticism, but I think there’s at least some fire here. In case no one has mentioned it, Chip Brown covered UT for the Dallas Morning News for years before moving to Orangebloods/Rivals. He’s a legit reporter.
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s no doubt in my mind that this offer is legit as being floated by the Pac-10 commissioner or someone close to his office.
The only issue I’ve had with it is whether the Pac-10 would put this kind of offer on the table.
But if they do, it means that they have to have Texas in order to expand and are willing to essentially give Texas its own half of the conference in order to make it happen. It means they’re willing to take on OSU and TTech as well as Oklahoma which would probably join ASU among the weakest academically in the conference.
I really don’t see how the Big Ten can counter that kind of offer because AAU membership is almost a requirement for the Big Ten.
Unless Notre Dame is willing to join, Texas would probably rather be a part of a Pac-16 with this set up rather than a southwest outpost even with A&M in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Traitor. 🙂
I will say this. If this rumor is true, and it happens and all six schools accept, Delany just got himself outmaneuvered by the Pac10. I’ll love Nebraska in the Big10 should they join, but it feels like Delany’s hubris might’ve cost him some big fish.
While he’d never admit it, his need to make a public announcement that they were looking at maybe perhaps exploring expansion in a year to year and half away will probably turn out to be a huge misstep on his part. If they needed 1-1.5 years to just explore the idea, they should have really kept it out of the public eye.
LikeLike
Yeah Manifesto, although the Big Ten could still pull it out in the end if Notre Dame is coming along.
I think this offer from the Pac-10 is a way of Dodds saying to the Big Ten and the SEC that he’s got the Pac-10 giving him whatever he wants and its time for them to show their hands.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would love Texas. But they don’t need Texas. There are a lot of candidates with which the Big Ten can prosper. In fact, a stronger Pac-10 is actually good for the Big Ten. However, I hope for the Pac-10’s sake that they don’t turn over the keys to the store to Texas. If that’s what it takes to get Texas, the Big Ten is better off without it.
LikeLike
Oh one other thing Manifesto: I expect a tussle over Oklahoma courtesy of the SEC and probably A&M as well.
Even if Texas says its not interested in the SEC, this Pac-16 scenario seems to be dependent on 5 teams in Texas/Oklahoma, so A&M/Oklahoma are as important to signing on as Texas is.
LikeLike
I’m loathe to think that now we’re talking about BigTen’s conference expansion hinging, once again, on ND deciding to join. Honestly it feels like you’re just saying “good luck in the Pac10, Texas”. If this report is true, Delany probably pooped himself a little bit when he heard. There’s no way the BigTen would offer anything even close to this. They’re not that desperate… and make no mistake, this is a desperation move imo.
But, then again, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I wonder if ND really feels it’d be better off with Texas and Company in the Pac10 versus joining Texas in the BigTen. Maybe they’ll decide that this kind of offer is cataclysmic enough to finally jump on a boat.
I was looking forward to those OSU-Texas rematches too. I guess I’ll just have to hope we meet in the Rose Bowl. Given how Texas fans were apparently treated in Columbus in 2005, perhaps a nice neutral venue is a good thing.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how KS isn’t getting the offer over TT or OSU. If it is strictly bowing to UT’s demands….I am very leery of that.
On one hand it may gaurantee you UT and all the spoils that may come with it (large pop base for conference network and for a new nat’l TV deal, etc) but (from a Pac pov) you don’t give the keys to the conference to the newest member so to speak.
I like the idea of UT to the Pac but I don’t like it if they now become the sole hammer (from a decsion making angle) of the league.
Though I can’t imagins Scott or the CA schools would allow it….would they?
LikeLike
I don’t see it as a “desperation” move by the Pac 10. It’s a move that the Pac 10 can do, but the Big 10 couldn’t, because of the geographic and, to a lesser extent, cultural realities at play here.
LikeLike
Manifesto, I think a Pac-16 would probably be enough to force Notre Dame to talk to the Big Ten if they felt that the Big Ten and SEC were preparing to go up to 16.
My thought on ND is that they will join a conference before there’s 4 16 team conferences…
LikeLike
OK St might also be a concession to OU, which is looking at the SEC, rather than to TX.
LikeLike
hopkins beat me to it. not a desperation move at all. given where the pac-10 is located, if it feels compelled to go to 16, they are going to have to take in schools some of the membership would prefer not. if they partition the low ones in a separate division, then the old guard can feel like they are pristine again.
damn, this thread is unwieldy.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
I call it a desperation move for this reason. Of the five teams that aren’t Texas, which could you see getting into the Pac10 alone without the lure of Texas?
Colorado? Yep.
Texas A&M? Maybe, but we’ve been joking about cultural clashes for months now, and nowhere else is that more real than A&M versus Cal/Stanford. But maybe this would pass the smell test.
Oklahoma? Highly doubtful. Great football tradition, but could you see them getting admitted on their own?
TTech? Maybe when they reach Tier 1, but not now (even if the Stanford band + TTech Zorros would make for a memorable halftime).
Oklahoma St? No way.
So it feels like you’re accepting a bunch of schools you normally wouldn’t be very interested in, in the hopes of landing the one you really want.
Moreover, in my mind, it feels like you’re creating another Big8/SWC situation where original Pac10 members will feel differently against the former Big12 members, potentially fueled in part by being in divisions that almost separate the two perfectly.
If Texas and the rest take it, then I don’t fault them. That’s a hell of an offer. If they’re using it as a lure for the BigTen to come up with something better, they’ll probably be out of luck. BigTen wants Texas, but I don’t think it would sell its soul for them. The Pac10 is saying here, “I will do anything you want, just stay the night.”
LikeLike
Exactly my problem with 16. Its hard to avoid creating 2 separate conferences. Quads help, but I’m doubtful quads work in reality. It didn’t in the WAC.
LikeLike
“My guess is that this is a Texas leak to pressure the B10+ for a final agreement and basically an ultimatum for ND”
I don’t think Texas would want any leak to show Texas Tech getting a good landing spot. If nobody expects Texas Tech to get a good spot, they can go ahead and accept a spot in the Big 10 without them. Right now, if UT accepts a Big 10 invite without TT, you could imagine a few legislators wanting to inquire if this offer was real.
So if this is an ultimatum, I think it could only be an ultimatum for the Big 10 to accept Texas Tech. Since I don’t think they believe the Big 10 would accept that, I think this is either false or something they wanted to keep out of the press.
LikeLike
Lots of talk on the Aggie boards about this one. An insider (manages the Premium Content on TexAgs.com) with very strong connections to the AD is stating the offer is real and has been on the table for the past week. He isn’t sure if it will be formalized this weekend as Chip Davis is reporting but he is confirming the invite for those 6 teams to the Pac-10 is legitimate.
The other big news bouncing around the rumor mill is A&M is not interested in the proposal as it stands today. The reason? Texas and the LSN. A&M wants all the “Tier II and III” content to be owned and distributed by the conference via a Pac16 network. If Texas won’t agree to it and insists on owning and distributing their content via the LSN, OU and A&M will not accept the Pac-16 invite and will instead accept an invite to the SEC.
Very interesting.
LikeLike
Ah yes, the blackmail scenario I proposed a few months ago as how Texas might be basically forced by aTm and OU into joining the SEC. Does TX really want to play both OOC? Hence they might have to tag along eastward.
Or maybe not. Sounds like dropping aTm is on the table if the Ags are trying to sink a likely highly profitable cable venture that they were stupid enough to turn down when TX offered them a partnership in it. Or perhaps the channel issue is just an excuse for going to the SEC.
High stakes poker. Gotta admit, that’s a good play by the Ags.
LikeLike
You are 100% dead on.
LikeLike
Meaning AggieFrank, you are dead on.
LikeLike
How much money is there really available in a Pac10-BXII South merger? I’m sure a lot, but aren’t you really only getting half the country. The power of the B10 is that their alumni go everywhere and are passionate. I’m not sure I can say the same about the Pac 10. Maybe they are passionate, but I don’t see a lot of watch parties here in Houston for them. You certainly do for the B10. I just don’t see such a merger generating anywhere near the dollars of the B10. This is why I’m certain there is nothing to this potential merger, other than leaked misinformation.
What if there really was a conspiracy in place between the P10, B10, SEC, and ACC so that the following schools shake out like this:
B10 gets UT/Neb/Rut – now at 14
P10 gets Mizzou/Kan/Co/TT – now at 14
SEC gets OU/A&M – now at 14
ACC gets Syr/Uconn – now at 14
ND gets screwed, the Big 4 power conferences control the BCS and the Bowl System. For basketball, the expand the ACC/B10 challenge to the Big 4 challenge rotating each year.
LikeLike
The power of the B10 is that their alumni go everywhere and are passionate. I’m not sure I can say the same about the Pac 10. Maybe they are passionate, but I don’t see a lot of watch parties here in Houston for them.
I would say that has more to do with the decades-long migration out of the Midwest and into the Sun belt.
LikeLike
I can’t envision P14 with TT. They add three AAU schools and Lubbock? I would see Utah or even Iowa State as more likely in that scenario.
LikeLike
Texas Tech is making a serious effort to get to tier 1. They can qualify for a fund established by the legislature this year. They are probably a couple decades away, but they are moving in the right direction. So I can see the P10 accepting them-not on their own-but in order to get UT.
LikeLike
“What if there really was a conspiracy in place between the P10, B10, SEC, and ACC so that the following schools shake out like this:
B10 gets UT/Neb/Rut – now at 14
P10 gets Mizzou/Kan/Co/TT – now at 14
SEC gets OU/A&M – now at 14
ACC gets Syr/Uconn – now at 14”
I think everybody is looking out for himself. Mergers and alliances are NOT part of the current landscape. This “massive expansion” phase is so tenuous that looking out for number 1 is a full-time job these days.
The time for “alliances” and figuring out how to make money as a collective unit (i.e. destroying the BCS, defecting from NCAA, etc.) will come later.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, could I propose a new blog post now, given the new rumor on the table, even if your post were only, for now, a mere regurgitation of what’s out there? 1500+ comments is getting unwieldy. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree Hopkins…. I thought there was a 1,000 post limit, ok maybe I hoped there was a 1,000 post limit.
It appears there will be some type of major movement soon. Will it be the seismic shift or a few conference adjustments?
PAC 16 – BIG 16 SEC16 I like it!
LikeLike
CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT ARMAGEDDON HAS BEGUN!!!! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!
LikeLike
OMG!!!! RUN!!!! It is time for CON-RE-GEDDON! LOL
I guess it is Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State that are hiding in the basement.
LikeLike
I don’t like 16. However I do like the idea of 5 major 14 team conferences. But allyoucanleavebehind with 4 @ 14 is leaving behind too many schools to be politically viable. Too many angry politicians.
LikeLike
I agree. A new post would help immensely. It’s becoming very difficult to follow new posts.
LikeLike
I should have something up tonight – keep tight!
LikeLike
Have you thought about putting ads on your blog? You do a lot of good work and deserve to be compensated for it.
LikeLike
If he went that route, he’d probably have to migrate to his own server. He’d then have to contend with fluctuating bandwidth cost, maintaing a new site that would probably be best served by a CMS like Drupal which he’d need someone to design, and then he’d have to contend with advertising click through rates, etc. It’s all probably more hassle then it’s worth to a lawyer that’s balancing work, family, and what little time he has to blog.
That being said, I’d offer my knowledge of Drupal and site design if that was a route he wanted to take.
LikeLike
@Scott C – I was under the impression that somthing like Google Ads could be added with out much hassle. I have never done it, so I don’t know.
LikeLike
It’s not the hassle of adding the ads, it’s the hassle of making sure you’re generating enough income to cover the server costs. I have no idea how much bandwidth this site uses, so it’s hard to tell. If he’s using <1000 GB/month, hosting would only be around $5.00 a month, not including domain registration. If that's the case, it'd probably be worth it, but my knowledge of revenue generating web ads is limited. While I do web design for my company, it's all tailored for the use of our independent reps and our home office employees.
LikeLike
On second thought, he probably could export his WordPress blog into either a Drupal or WordPress blog or hosted on his own server. I just read an article on lifehacker.com that shows the DreamHost was rated #1 by their readers. Apparently they offer reasonably priced server space with unlimited bandwidth. So, I guess in retrospect, it’s not a bad idea.
LikeLike
I am sure Ro-Tel will sponsor you.
LikeLike
Have a flash video of this at every log-in:
LikeLike
Re new blog post (Hopkins Horn)
The new title could be “Confusion-complication-speculation unlimited”
LikeLike
1) The threat by Deloss Dodds that Texas will never play A&M again in anything is very real. It is a threat that has been carried out twice against Arkansas (after it bolted the SWC for the SEC) and Houston (after it unilaterally moved a football game from the Astrodome to their new on-campus field and screwed about 20,000 Longhorn fans out of tickets in the process).
In both cases, it had serious consequences for the sufferer of the boycott. Arkansas lost its only real rival and its visibility in Texas was reduced to virtually nil (reducing both its television draw and its ability to recruit Texas athletes). Houston lost a regular and important source of revenue for its cash-strapped athletic department.
AggieFrank and I will probably disagree on the effects such an embargo would have on A&M. I would note that last year A&M only sold out one home game (i.e., Thanksgiving against Texas), required a donation to the 12th Man Foundation as a prerequisite to getting tickets to that game, and still lost $16M and needed a loan from the university’s general fund. But aside from all that dollars-and-cents talk, I just think it would be funny to have Aggies singing their fight song, which is entirely devoted to their hatred for The University of Texas, when they never play the Longhorns in anything.
2) I continue to think that the Big Ten is a better choice for Texas. But it’s tough not to find this very attractive. It keeps our existing rivalries with Oklahoma and A&M intact while providing an expanded revenue pot.
3) If the first program on the new Pac 10 Network isn’t a replay of the 2006 Rose Bowl Game, it would be an absolute crime.
4) Regardless of how this turns out, Deloss Dodds has played this masterfully to this point. He has held Texas out of the fray until now, all the while expressing our undying loyalty to the Big 12. So none of the Big 12 schools that are left behind can accuse us of being perfidious, and nobody in our new conference can have cause to question our committment to the conference. At the same time, he’s managed to send just enough signals to three different conferences to force them to take action immediately and on terms that will probably end up being very favorable to Texas, whether it be this offer, the Northwestern Scenario, or some other deal.
LikeLike
Yeah, this offer is so favorable to Texas that it seems almost out of desperation; they’re going to essentially give Texas a scenario that the Big Ten won’t (TTech/Oklahoma/OSU).
I just don’t see how the Big Ten can match it without Notre Dame on the table, since I don’t see Delany inviting TTech/OSU.
And if Texas can keep the LSN on top of that, I don’t think anyone will be able to come close to matching it.
If Cal and Stanford do end up signing on to something like this (which is the main question in my mind), then it’s as good as a done deal in my mind.
And even if TTech/Oklahoma/OSU is dilutive, the Pac-16 would still end as an academic upgrade for Texas, so they’d be getting everything they want to out of expansion.
LikeLike
no academic upgrade whatever.
we would be partitioned away from the nosebleed guys in what would amount to a junior division. a cal guy a few moments ago explained that they could sell stanford on it by doing this. even gets rid of the ariz schools for them.
accepting this essentially signals we accept our lot in life as long as the dollars look good.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree the impact would be real, but I don’t think the threat is. A&M and UT are beneficial to each other. They are also both very powerful in the legislature. Neither Arkansas or UH have much influence in the legislature and neither series benefitted Texas. I also don’t think UT needs A&M to go with them (OU & A&M both going elsewhere is a different story). UT is going to do what is in their interests.
The Arkansas series, while perhaps the 2nd biggest rivalry in the 70s, was fading a little and didn’t benefit Texas. It just helped Arkansas get Texas recruits.
UT gets the same benefit from playing Rice as playing UH. And UH did it to themselves by Cougar highing the whole thing. For those who aren’t familiar, UT expected to play in a pro stadium with 60-70k seats (as they do with Rice) and UH played in their smaller (34k) on-campus stadium. On top of that they put in 10-15k temporary bleachers where the UT fans were supposed to sit. Texas fans were nervous about the safety but UH admin ignored their concerns. The city went in and condemned the stands a couple days before the game. UH offered the UT fans closed circuit at full price. Needless to say they all got refunds.
LikeLike
I agree the threat is real, but with one caveat. At the end of all the negotiations, bluffing, and bluster, the Thanksgiving football game will continue uninterrupted. They might not meet for years in any other sport, but cooler heads will keep that tradition. No matter how made we get, enough donors will never allow us to drop that game.
LikeLike
My god, I just had a vision of the Corps goose-stepping though Berkeley. This conference could get ugly.
LikeLike
Can you imagine the first halftime show when A&M meets Stanford?
LikeLike
Well, they had to use unmarked vans to get the Rice MOB out of Kyle Field one year. I can’t imagine the Trees being any more careful with the Aggies.
LikeLike
Think they would try to beat up the USC cheerleaders if they accidently stepped on the field like they tried with SMU?
Or was SMU the ones they went after with the sword?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Someone needs to photoshop the infamous USC cheerleader into that photo.
LikeLike
I heart the MOB.
LikeLike
That’s the biggest remaining cultural difference between the Aggies and us. We love the MOB. They try to kill them.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe cancels 6 p.m. press conference per Dave Matter
LikeLike
Very interesting. The plot thickens.
LikeLike
ESPN’s Joe Schad just tweeted that, too. Something afoot.
LikeLike
Oddly enough if this rumor is true it would kill the MWC. Texas, aTm, OU, oSu, TTU and Colorado leave for the PAC. Missouri and Nebraska leave for the BigTen. The remaining four members, KU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor, stay in the conference and retain the name and AQ bid. They then invite all nine members of the MWC plus Boise State. They accept to get the AQ nod. We suddenly have one fewer conference but ten more BCS teams.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the BCS AQ works that way. I can see KU, KSU and Baylor joining the MWC, and then the MWC would get an AQ bid
LikeLike
Sooooo, what’s can the B10+ offer, now that the P10 appears to have pretty much capitulated to TX’s demands? Can’t see the B10+ agreeing to take TT, OU, or OSU, so travel and the outlier factor is going to be rough. Perhaps allowing the LSN is the price, along with getting ND inside and whatever that takes (their own channel/TV agreements?) TX alone to the B16 but keeping its LSN, while aTm escapes their shadow and gets a B12 South division of the P16 to itself might be a workable outcome that pleases both schools.
LikeLike
I don’t particularly think the Big Ten needs to make a counteroffer until it’s established that Oklahoma and A&M are going to go along with this expansion scenario.
Right now it seems as if Texas would be the most interested in this scenario, but a part of me still sees Oklahoma being more interested in the SEC than the Pac-10 and there’s a possibility there for A&M as well.
Either of those things happen and this Pac-16 scenario is on the rocks and can be trumped by a better offer.
After all, I don’t see the Pac-10 taking on OSU without Oklahoma, etc. There’s way too many moving pieces. Even if Dodds has initially approved of this kind of offer, we still have to wait and see if everyone else is on board.
The only possible counteroffer that could really trump the Pac-16 would be an offer with Notre Dame and a protected ND-Texas rivalry. That looks to be very unlikely unless ND is scared by this Pac-16 scenario and how it would affect USC-ND and whether the Big Ten/SEC/ACC all jump to 16 after raiding the Big East.
I don’t think the Big Ten is going to offer to take on TTech or OSU or Oklahoma like the Pac-10 may if it really sees Texas as being necessary. The Big Ten would probably just be willing to watch Texas go in that scenario.
LikeLike
the problem for ou going to the sec, even with a&m, is that most of their away games would be away from the fertile recruiting grounds of texas. no guarantee whatever that recruiting in sec country would be good for them since they would be even farther afield than arkansas in a place that is not at all southern and might not seem very comfortable to southern kids. especially if texas took umbrage and ended the dallas series.
LikeLike
Why would OU need to recruit in “SEC country”?
OU has recruited from the state of Texas forever, and that goes back to when OU was in the Big 8…and the Big 6…and the Missouri Valley…..there is no reason to think that OU won’t continue to do what they have done for 100 years.
LikeLike
Agreed. I don’t think recruiting is an issue for Oklahoma in Texas.
Plus, this is different from A&M going to the SEC.
That’s what we need to fundamentally understand. Oklahoma in the SEC doesn’t give the SEC 4 away games in Texas.
A&M in the SEC gives the SEC 4 away games in Texas.
Thus, A&M is actually dangerous in a different conference because it opens the conference to SEC recruiting other than Oklahoma.
Oklahoma in the SEC doesn’t open the SEC to recruiting in Texas.
LikeLike
@zeek. I think OU in the SEC does open up texas and especially the North Texas/DFW metro-plex to SEC recruiting. As Norman is a short 3 hour drive from momma in Dallas.
OU has a huge presence in Texas. There are a lot more jobs in Texas than in Oklahoma..where do you think most of the OU grads end up?
LikeLike
Sure, but I don’t think it’s as bad as having 4 games smack dab in the middle of Texas.
I mean I guess it would open it as much as Arkansas/LSU do, but still, I don’t think that’s that bad.
Oklahoma for sure wouldn’t miss a step in recruiting in Texas even without Texas/A&M on its schedule, but I think A&M would open up Texas way more.
LikeLike
so did arkansas.
you go into that environment and have your head handed to you a couple of times and the water begins to dry up in texas. especially if your highly successful presence in dallas is discontinued. playing a&m or tech in dallas wouldn’t draw anything like the attention now focused on that game.
texas could schedule a series with nd, say, in its place and go right on.
i’m guessing, of course. hoo nose.
LikeLike
@ Redhawk
Beyond OU grads, there’s simply a lot of movement between the two neighboring states. Hell, there’s a lot of migration between points further north and Texas. A lot of those folks keep their lifelong loyalties, and some fraction of those spawn good athletes. Texas should and will always outrecruit OU in Texas, but they’ll never shut them out.
LikeLike
i don’t all of them. i mean the ones they have to have to stay with the best of the sec.
their problem is if they go and have a couple of usc-type games it will really hurt recruiting in texas, particularly if the kids won’t get to play in state very much and get dragged all over the south.
LikeLike
@glenn – There is no way that the Red River Rivalry will be discontinued. It’d be anarchy in both states.
LikeLike
I am very skeptical of this latest rumor. There has been so little noise from the Pac10 side, including absolutely zero response to the Pac10-BigXII Western Alliance trial balloon. The hubbub and chaos has all been in Big XII country and now the Pac10 will somehow come in to save things?
The biggest rumor from the Pac10 came from Cal’s chancellor in another Rivals report.
“Birgeneau confirmed that the chancellors and presidents of the Pac-10 member schools will be holding a conference meeting on June 6 in San Francisco, and said that he would be “surprised if something did not happen that revolutionized college athletics.”
Birgeneau said that expansion is a real possibility in the near future, and that the Pac-10 is seriously considering “a couple of schools, at least one of which meets the academic standards of the rest of the Pac-10.”
The Chancellor cited the fact that Illinois makes $13 million per year alone from its participation in the Big Ten Network, a “model we’re really looking to, going forward.”
How does a “a couple schools… ” escalate to this latest rumor? It doesn’t.
Here was my guess at Pac10 plans when I heard this report and I think it makes a lot more sense.
1. Pac10 will announce plans for a Pac Ten Network (PTN) based on what is now a proven business model for the BTN.
2. The Pac10 will move to expand modestly. Add Colorado +1… you pick… Utah, Kansas. It doesn’t matter. The footprint expands east.
3. The new PTN will form an programming alliance with the BTN.
Given the long history of alliances between the Pac10 and Big10 it just makes more sense. Football Saturdays and basketball will transition from BTN live action to additional games “brought to you by our PTN partners”. Vice versa on the west coast. Additional live programming and advertising with less talking heads time is exactly what is being sought for the BTN in conference expansion plans. The same can be accomplished here because of the natural fit with different time zones, with far less carnage. Footprints for both conferences have now nearly covered the US map with a natural synergy. And don’t forget the PTN will have an easier time moving to basic cable because of the precedent set by the BTN. The BTN showed how to do it and it gets even easier for the PTN if the BTN can help fill the schedule with more live action..
When Birgeneau said that he would be “surprised if something did not happen that revolutionized college athletics.”, does that sound like he wanted to go thermonuclear on all college football west of the Mississippi?
Revolutionary would be if universities joined together to control their programming and made a challenge to the ESPN universe on a national scale.
And the natural next step would be for BigXII members to get their act together and be the next step in the alliance chain.
LikeLike
Pac picks up Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Mizzou (or one other school) and goes to 14. Start the PTN.
TAMU/Ok go to the SEC. They can sit at 14 and still call themselves the best football in college.
Remainder of Big12 go into MWC.
Texas, Nebraska (& Mizzou if other) go Big10 with 2 eastern schools.
BTN/PTN network truly cover the nation east to west with no overlapping tv markets. Get to call themselves the best paid conferences in college.
LikeLike
The question is whether the Pac-10 can expand without Texas.
If a scenario like this is actually floated, it means the Pac-10 has admitted that it is desperate enough for Texas that it is willing to add 3 more ASUs.
Perhaps it is that desperate if it crunched the numbers and decided that it doesn’t have enough depth in its own markets.
Colorado/Kansas/Mizzou/Utah is a non-starter.
Colorado + 1 of the other 3 is a possibility for a CCG.
But, there is no good expansion scenario for going above 12. Realizing that, the Pac-10 seems to be willing to throw out the academic standards and go with the Big 12 South – Baylor + Colorado.
We all talk about 16 team superconferences. But we need to understand that Texas is the only way the Pac-10 will ever get to 16.
You can’t go above 12 after Colorado + 1 because there are no markets in the west to justify it other than Texas + 3 more.
Thus, this Pac-16 actually makes sense because the Pac-10 has no realistic options beyond 12 schools other than Texas + 3 more and it is willing to give up everything to get it.
LikeLike
I guess that’s my main point. What if the Pac10 and Big10 both took the small steps to expand to 12. Imagine a PTN-BTN alliance is a done deal. Next the existing BigXII steps away from the ledge… sees a good thing and starts working together for once with whatever they have left. Stop the moaning and threats of Lone Star Networks etc. Hitch your wagon to the alliance. And down the road… Notre Dame looks up and nearly everybody they want to schedule is in this alliance. They can stay independent to eternity…. and the alliance will just buy their tv rights. The final goal has been reached and total chaos has been averted if only some egos can be held in check.
LikeLike
Faitfhful5k, the problem is everyone wants Texas.
And the Big Ten and SEC have alternatives to get to 16 without Texas. The Pac-10 doesn’t. Hence, it faces the dilemma that if Texas ever signs a deal elsewhere, it will never be able to keep up with a Big Ten and SEC contemplating 16 teams…
LikeLike
I certainly agree Texas would be a big prize. From the Big10 standpoint I always imagined Texas has been struggling to accept the “check your ego at the door” mentality that has led to the success of the BTN. Ohio State and Northwestern working on equal footing and sharing equal rewards must seem very alien to Texas. I guess I always thought the Pac10 would have a similar mindset. If this rumor has any truth from the Pac10 side of the fence I am clearly wrong.
In addition, I always thought any expansion moves would be far less disruptive than this proposal. In a mad rush to super-conferences there will be many teams pushed out of the BCS club. Orrin Hatch would then likely find many more supportive friends in Washington. I would’ve thought the last thing BCS schools need is to give the anti-trust crowd additional traction.
LikeLike
“I guess I always thought the Pac10 would have a similar mindset. I guess I always thought the Pac10 would have a similar mindset.”
Everything I’ve heard about the Pac 10 gave me the opposite impression. It’s held together because it’s the most valuable conference in the West and their schools are too far away to gain admission to the Eastern conferences.
“In a mad rush to super-conferences there will be many teams pushed out of the BCS club. Orrin Hatch would then likely find many more supportive friends in Washington.”
The remainders of the Big 12 will either quickly invite teams from non-qualifying conferences (at least one of BYU and Utah, from Orrin Hatch’s state, will be one of them), or the BCS will transfer the Big 12’s bid to the Mountain West Conference (with the understanding they take the remaining Big 12 schools with the possible exception of Baylor).
Either way, there will probably be more schools in the BCS system. The real difference in bowl money will come from the bowl games for the 2-10 teams from each conference. These will be much more valuable for the Pac 10, Big 10, and SEC.
LikeLike
>>
Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione also appeared before the media.
Asked directly if his school has been in contact with the Pac-10, he said: “Not yet.” He paused. “And hopefully I don’t have to.”
He was pressed more on the topic. No discussions at all with the Pac-10?
“I came here to talk about the Big 12 and that’s all we’re talking about. That’s all we’ve ever talked about,” Castiglione said.
<<
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/03/football/doc4c08364dc2966518783781.txt
LikeLike
holy hannah:
some money quotes in there!
Anyone who said they might not stay?
“We had a chance to express our thoughts,” Castiglione said.
And were you unified?
“Everybody expressed their thoughts,” he said again.
LikeLike
SEC meeting tomorrow regarding expansion.
Recall upthread where I speculated that a P16 first move might threaten enough dominoes that it could end up being the best chance at getting ND to move.
LikeLike
Were this to happen, where does the Big Ten go?
I think it makes Nebraska close to a cinch for membership, since it’s the only big-time football program left available (assuming Notre Dame won’t bite). Perhaps the Big Ten does to the ACC what the Pac-10-to-16 would do to the Big 12, taking in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. Good academics and all-around sports programs, and honestly, if you’re going to have a private institution in your conference, wouldn’t you rather have Duke than Vanderbilt?
The next dominoes to fall would be teams picked off by the SEC — Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Missouri and Kansas. New markets, better basketball (just as the Big Ten would benefit from UMd/UNC/Duke).
The three Big 12 members left behind (Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor)? Maybe they go to the Mountain West if the BCS agrees in return to give the conference an automatic berth. But if Boise State also goes there, that would make 13 members…so maybe only two go in (Baylor would likely be the odd team out, or another Big West team — Fresno State? — could even things out at 14).
The Big East football members could take in the six remaining ACC teams (or vice versa) for a 14-team conference — I think it might be a new conference under ACC auspices, as I doubt Clemson and Florida State want to be in a league run by basketball people.
We’re in for a bumpy ride, ladies and gentlemen.
LikeLike
Baylor would be a fit for the MWC and a travel partner for TCU which they have been wanting for some time.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten would take Nebraska and then just wait.
Surely the SEC would make a move to 16 and raid the ACC before the Big Ten would need to…; I mean I don’t see the SEC allowing the Pac-10 to go to 16 without making a move as well.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would be well-advised to pick out the five best schools it thinks it can get and invite them as soon as possible. To my mind, that’s going to be Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and UConn. Then if Texas and/or Notre Dame decide to jump on board, more schools are added in addition (pick from Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, Vanderbilt) and the conference goes to twenty. Belly up to the bar or you don’t get served… That’s my idea of “multi-phase expansion”. These schools are not going to sit around forever waiting for the Big Ten to decide, it’s a two-way street.
LikeLike
From the perspective of markets, academics, athletics and research, there’s no way the Big Ten presidents would select a foursome of Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers and Connecticut (which isn’t even an AAU member, a handicap only Notre Dame could overcome) to accompany Nebraska over Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke.
LikeLike
You say that as if all of these schools are lining up to join. I don’t think the Big Ten is going to get any of the ACC, especially the core members (NC, NC state, Duke, Virginia, Maryland).
LikeLike
An interesting interview with Steve Sipple of the Lincoln Journal Star on Omaha’s local sports talk show:
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4706174
An some interesting follow-up conversation:
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4706259
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4706260
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4706328
LikeLike
AND….the Official Denial:
Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott issued a statement late Thursday afternoon:
“We are aware of a story filed today by an Orangebloods.com columnist, speculating about possible expansion plans for the Pac-10 Conference. While many interesting scenarios have been suggested in numerous news reports, around the country, we remain focused on a thorough evaluation process that examines all of the options for increasing the value of the conference for our member institutions, our student athletes and our fans. We have not developed any definitive plans. We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term.”
Read more: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/03/bmurphy/latest_conference_expansion_rumor_%E2%80%94_pac10_invite_half_big_12#ixzz0ppy7H5qf
Hey…he had to make the denial.
LikeLike
Considering how big this rumor got in terms of media and basically destroying the end of the Big 12 meeting (see Beebe canceling presser), I’m not surprised.
But, this offer looks far more realistic than anyone in the Pac-10 is willing to admit.
As I stated above, the Pac-10 has no realistic options beyond 12 teams (Colorado + 1 whether it is Utah/Kansas/whoever) other than to go to Texas and make a deal.
If the Pac-10 determines at some point that it is desperate enough to make any deal possible to get to 16 to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC, then we may see them offer the best possible deal, which would look something like the Big South – Baylor + Colorado.
While this is an official denial, there’s no doubt that the Pac-10 has been talking with Texas and A&M and seeing what would need to be done to bring them in, hence this scenario getting leaked and running amok.
LikeLike
I think the rumor is credible as well. Barry Trammel of the Daily Oklahoman has been pitching a Pac-10/Big 12 merger for some time, and not just a TV deal.
Personally I thought he was nuts as I didn’t think OU would get past Stanford/Cal so, no way did I think Tech or OSU…..but the Pac-10 schools need cash, and they need the Texas TV markets…so desperation can make for strange bed fellows.
The part of the rumor that gives me pause, is that OU and A&M might not be “in”, but leaning towards the SEC. If they leave, I don’t see a reason for OSU, unless to have teams in the area for UT.
LikeLike
I think it will end up being contingent on all 6 schools joining.
I find it highly unrealistic that Stanford and Cal would sign onto a plan such as this without certainty that Texas/A&M/Oklahoma would all say yes.
Thus, this was a leak, I don’t think the deal is set yet, which is why there aren’t going to be invites until Oklahoma and A&M pledge to join.
I just don’t see how Stanford and Cal can justify this on just Texas/TTech/OSU/Colorado. Maybe they can, but it would looks fairly weak without A&M and Oklahoma.
And why wouldn’t they then substitute out OSU for Kansas and TTech for Utah, etc.
LikeLike
@zeek
I think if you put KU in place of OU or A&M it still looks good, but would it to KU knowing you are the 2nd choice?
@eapg: OU has been beating the Big 12 drum the hardest. As an OU grad, I think OU has benefited the most (or as much) out of the Big 12 of any of the schools.
They also stand to lose the most, as their options are limited. .
LikeLike
“I think if you put KU in place of OU or A&M it still looks good, but would it to KU knowing you are the 2nd choice?”
Well, what other offer would Kansas be waiting for? The Mountain West?
The only question would be whether they are permitted to leave Kansas behind.
LikeLike
“leave Kansas behind.”
err…”leave Kansas State behind”
Must be the long thread…I’m making typos everywhere…
LikeLike
If the Pac-10 rumor is credible, you have to question if Oklahoma is on board, since Castiglione has gone above and beyond the call of mumbling some promises of Big 12 fealty for the last couple of days. I doubt the Pac-10 has caught the SEC sleeping, since logic would dictate that the Oklahoma schools are natural targets.
LikeLike
I don’t think Oklahoma or anyone other than Texas (and naturally Colorado) are on board.
Right now I think all of the conferences are trying to strike a deal with Texas; especially the Pac-10.
The Pac-10 may not really even have talked much to Oklahoma/OSU/TTech, but assumes that Dodds can force them to come along if they strike a deal with Texas…
I don’t think the Pac-10 has caught anyone sleeping per se, Dodds probably told them he would only talk to them on his terms, and this Pac-16 is the result. I don’t think Oklahoma/OSU had that much of a say in it all. A&M probably did though…
LikeLike
@ zeek
That would be one hell of an assumption. The SEC is a known dollar quantity, the Pac 10 has to negotiate soon. You don’t know if a better deal can be brokered than what is already probably available with the SEC. Tech, obviously. They would be thrown a life preserver they didn’t expect. A&M, OU? Even OSU who could pin their hopes on going with OU in a package? Dodds is going to force them to accept his vision? Is permanent junior partnership in the LSN part of this wonderful deal? Is OU allowed to factor in the fact that, should this be a ploy to get a better deal from the Big Ten, the conventional wisdom holds that they can’t play anymore if the Big Ten gives Texas whatever it is they want, since they don’t meet the academic requirements? Which would make them a stooge for Deloss Dodds and Texas?
I know, I know, the words of the A&M fight song doom them to forever being the trailing dog, who can be threatened at leisure with ending a long rivalry. Something like that. A Pac-16 East is not significantly different as far as travel requirements as the SEC, something Byrne seems to think is important.
We’ll see, I guess, if Texas ends up forcing anything.
LikeLike
“I don’t think Oklahoma or anyone other than Texas (and naturally Colorado) are on board.”
If the Pac 10 has actually made this offer, the only schools who might say no are UT, A&M and OU.
Texas Tech and Oklahoma State would only get into a different conference if one of those 3 went to the SEC and made the SEC leave a spot open for them.
LikeLike
I think Oklahoma State is fine. I think Texas Tech is the tough one.
The Pac 10 has perfect pairings. Washington/Washington St…. Oregon/Oregon St…. Cal/Stanford… USC/UCLA… Arizona/Arizona St…. add in Texas/Texas A&M… and Oklahoma/Oklahoma St. Colorado and ? I just don’t see Texas Tech. Maybe I am wrong.
But Kansas seems like a better fit to me.
Either way, I think this would be a HUGE win for the Pac 10. And if the Big 10 just takes Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers… how odd would it be that the Big East would survive all of this?
LikeLike
This is about as non-denial as a denial can be. I read it as, yes we’ve floated it but haven’t made any definite decisions and haven’t gotten any definite answers. Note that the Orangeblood article said at the end that UT wanted to keep the B12 together. It didn’t imply any of this was a done deal.
LikeLike
http://ht.ly/1TPXV
Columbia Tribune
“A bizarre day at the Big 12 meetings just unofficially concluded in an elevator. Commissioner Dan Beebe and Texas President Bill Powers abruptly canceled a news conference that was originally scheduled for 5 p.m. and pushed back to 6 p.m. … then pushed back until Friday.”
“Also, the Pac-10 report is very credible. Put it this way, another news outlet will soon be confirming it based on a conversation with an athletic director from one of the targeted schools.”
LikeLike
“UPDATE, 7 p.m. The Boulder Daily Camera’s Kyle Ringo recently spoke with Colorado Athletic Director Mike Bohn, who said he and five other Big 12 schools have been led to believe they will be invited to the Pac-10.”
Oh boy.
LikeLike
http://www.buffzone.com/ci_15222068
“The longer that we were together in Kansas City it appeared that that rumor or speculation did have some validity to it,” Bohn said.”
Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn
And BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE
LikeLike
This is getting crazy. I never in my wildest dreams believed the Pac-10 would be the first to strike let alone that they would go after 6 teams. I can only wonder how they convinced Stanford to go along with this.
This makes me wonder if the Big Ten’s hand will be forced now. I’m sure the SEC will be moving forward.
LikeLike
Desperation is how this kind of deal gets done. They went to Stanford and told them that they would never go past 12 teams without Texas and whatever Texas wants (the Big 12 South – Baylor + Colorado).
The Pac-10 needs to catch up to the SEC and Big Ten. This kind of deal is how you pull that off; with just Colorado + 1, they’d still be far behind the Big Ten and SEC especially with both those leagues having nice schools nearby to add (Nebraska/Notre Dame/FSU/Clemson/WVU/VTech/UVA/Maryland/Miami).
The Pac-10 has no other option to going to 16 teams other than Texas, so it has to have Texas if it wants to be a “superconference” in the future.
LikeLike
I don’t know that their hand will be forced, because I’m not certain that’s the way Delany and the Big Ten P&Cs look at the world, but at the very least it should be a lively discussion on Sunday in Chicago. I’m sure Delany will lay out the scenarios to the P&Cs and it’s possible the process might accelerate or everyone might need to readdress where they stand on particular issues.
It is interesting that this rumor (if we can call it that now, since it seems to have some legs) came out of Austin just a few days before the Big Ten P&C meeting. It may simply be coincidence given that all these conference meetings seem to be occurring within days of each other, of it could have been leaked deliberately to get the Big Ten’s attention.
LikeLike
“I can only wonder how they convinced Stanford to go along with this.”
Well, money is really tight in California right now, and even Stanford has had to make athletic cuts.
The Pac 10 has been researching starting there own cable network, and they’ve been researching partnering with the Big 12 to increase the profitability and viability of that cable network.
Now, surely someone in the room saw how top-heavy the Big 12 is and made a remark, “Hey, we can have almost all of the population of the Big 12, almost all of the National names of the Big 12, and almost all of the football powers in the Big 12, while sharing the money with 6 less schools!”
Academics could still trump financial concerns, but it isn’t hard to see how some schools want to seize this opportunity.
I have no doubt they’d prefer to switch other schools for Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and maybe Oklahoma, but the centerpiece is UT, and if UT wants these schools they may let them in.
LikeLike
remind me. why does texas want these schools? maybe the state does, but why does ut want it?
LikeLike
“remind me. why does texas want these schools? maybe the state does, but why does ut want it?”
I think the athletic department probably wants OU and maybe OSU for travel and scheduling concerns, although I’m sure the Administrators would be happy to leave them behind.
The administrators might like to leave Texas Tech behind if politics would not enter into it. However, politics definitely could enter into it.
Also, if they want to see Tech continue to develop academically, they may want to throw them a bone and allow their athletic department to stay viable (at least as long as UT continues to make its money).
LikeLike
Because it can.
LikeLike
i guess that is what it would be. since i don’t have to do the scheduling and travel arranging, i can see why i wouldn’t be impressed with something that would impress the people who do it.
LikeLike
Larry Scott:
>>
“We are aware of a story filed today by an Orangebloods.com columnist, speculating about possible expansion plans for the Pac-10 Conference. While many interesting scenarios have been suggested in numerous news reports, around the country, we remain focused on a thorough evaluation process that examines all of the options for increasing the value of the Conference for our member institutions, our student athletes and our fans. We have not developed any definitive plans. We have not extended any invitations for expansion and we do not anticipate any such decisions in the near term.”
<<
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/pac10_commishs_statement.html
LikeLike
Holy Cow, this was posted an hour ago by Redhawk. I don’t know how I missed it. Sorry.
LikeLike
With 1600+ posts now, it’s pretty easy to miss one. 🙂
LikeLike
1st time poster here.
Um, so I’d be really interested to see the FOX projections fed to Stanford and Cal to make them hold their noses for a potential PAC-16.
If Texas/TAMU are off the table given Frank’s “dirty south” speculation, how likely do you all think are they replaced by Neb/Rutgers to go with MD/UVA/Vandy for a B16 TEN? In a way it kinda of makes things less complicated now.
LikeLike
I suppose that would make sense, but even though I’m hardly enamored of Missouri, it would probably work better in the Big Ten than Vanderbilt would. Especially as a western partner to Nebraska.
LikeLike
Man I wish Bohn would have just kept his mouth shut until this was a done deal…that’s a tough one to walk back if it blows up.
Ugh…I’m still trying to reconcile the fact that CU may be looking at an end of the season “rivalry” game with Texas Tech. Really wish there was some way to swap them for Nebraska, Utah, or Kansas in that order.
That said, if this comes to pass then the PAC 10 may have just done you Big 10 guys a solid if you really covet Notre Dame. This might be a big enough paradigm shift to convince them to they have to join a conference.
LikeLike
Heard that the Big 12 AD/presidents/chancellors have all been giving Nebraska and Missouri the cold shoulder this week inside and outside the meetings. Guess its kinda of a forget you guys for talking(more than likely going) to the Big 10 and starting this whole mess.
LikeLike
But everyone loves Texas, who’ve been talking to every conference with a pulse. Okay.
LikeLike
They might, if for no other reason Texas is the reason why these “inferior” schools get drug along to the “Pac Party”.
LikeLike
Good point. Hopefully us reprobates can comfort ourselves with more than doubling our athletic conference income and the academic and research upgrade in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The joke is I don’t see the PTN being as profitable as the BTN since a team like Texas will probably be holding out programming (LSN) and the other addition schools are going to have minimal markets.
That leaves the high population centers on the coast (which the Pac already has and thus will be diluting per school payouts for) and an increase in overall tv contract money (however with only 3 national programs whats that do to the per school payout?).
In the end though, I see a tv contract that will pay above the ACC level, but below the SEC (or Big10 when it gets renewed) and a network that makes less than the BTN.
LikeLike
Joke is it was always going to be the Pac10 that started the mess…not the Big10.
Remember when the announcement was first made? Most of the schools mentioned were BigEast teams.
It wasn’t until the Pac10 expansion came along and Colorado was almost guaranteed to be #11 that the Big12 started to topple.
Besides, everyone knew the Pac10 had to make its move first…they have a deadline for finalizing expansion much closer than the Big10’s due to the upcoming tv contract negotiations.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone begrudges them listening. Its the Missouri governor’s tactless comments about TT & OSU and Osborne’s whining. They act like they are anxious to get out.
Everyone else is simply saying they stay prepared. Motivations for all 12 may be the same, but 10 are doing things with a little more tact.
LikeLike
Indeed. Floating a rumor that if A&M doesn’t play ball, Texas will never put them on their schedule again is very tactful.
LikeLike
But who is floating it? And even if UT admin is, they aren’t denigrating the other institution.
LikeLike
Perhaps NE got wind of and leaked it. They’ve seemed to have a different attitude than the other schools this week, but appeared to be playing hot potato with CO for who would bolt first and get the blame for “Killing the B12.” Now this rumor conveniently shifts that to 6 other schools. Also may speed up the timeline for decisions and defections, perhaps providing a near mutual breakup before the June 30 deadline. NE wants to leave ASAP.
Who benefits most from this leak? Perhaps NE.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt Nebraska leaked this rumor to the Texas Rivals site.
LikeLike
That being said, I fully admit assuming NU has a spot in the Big 10, it is very very convenient
LikeLike
@ Nostradamus
No, really. The Orangebloods writer is leaking stuff for Nebraska now. Texas is the very model of tactfully threatening conference schools while not denigrating them.
LikeLike
Oh, by the way, the P16 deal isn’t final yet. If aTm kills the LSN for TX in a P16, the Longhorns may turn to the higher payout of the B16 to make that up. Say they bring ND, aTm, plus a Vandy or GT for ND and TX and an eastern school for ND and PSU (or maybe MD and VA instead.) 11+5=16, but with NE excluded.
IOW, there’s still one second left on the clock.
LikeLike
As a general rule, if it’s really important for you to also screw over someone in the process of gaining something for yourself, you may just end up screwing over yourself.
We’ll see. I know it’s a big item for you that Nebraska somehow gets left out of all this realignment talk.
LikeLike
Hold the phones everyone. CU AD is now saying
suzhalliburton
“CU AD is backing off his statement about Pac 10-Big 12 expansion story. It’s getting crazy here in Kansas City. 36 minutes ago via web”
Courtesy of twitter.
This is getting way way way out of control.
LikeLike
And an article accompanying: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/06/03/no_pac_10_expan.html
LikeLike
Also worth noting: “The athletic directors from A&M, Oklahoma and Tech said their schools have not been contacted by the Pac 10. Longhorns athletics director DeLoss Dodds had a plane to catch to Austin and deferred comment to school president Bill Powers.”
If those three say they haven’t been contacted by the Pac-10, then it sounds like this idea was mostly floated between Texas and the Pac-10 if at all…
LikeLike
“The athletic directors from A&M, Oklahoma and Tech said their schools have not been contacted by the Pac 10. Longhorns athletics director DeLoss Dodds had a plane to catch to Austin and deferred comment to school president Bill Powers.”
Shocking, I know.
LikeLike
The presidents meet tomorrow. Let’s see what they say.
LikeLike
Someone opened their mouth when they shouldn’t have…
LikeLike
I think Bohn is going to be a bit more careful the next time he discusses anything to do with a Pac-10 invitation and he’ll make sure he has one in his hand before saying anything…
LikeLike
Ha!
Does that mean the Big 10 came up with a counter-offer?
LikeLike
lol is all I can say.
At this point though, I think this Pac-10 rumor and CU’s AD have basically sent everyone scrambling.
I can’t even imagine what Beebe and Powers are going to say tomorrow, but it should be one hell of a press conference…
LikeLike
i’d like to be a phone line between austin and south bend about now. except might be a tad warm.
LikeLike
crap, thought i hit ‘reply’. this is getting hard to use or i’m getting clumsier. 50/50
LikeLike
Pingback: Ain’t No Party Like a West Coast Party… For Real « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
Re: A&M in the middle of re-alignment talks Reply
A&M and OU need to stand together to prevent Texas from getting it’s own network. No team in a conference should be allowed to have their own network and if some conference is willing to kiss tu’s butt and allow them to do it, A&M and OU should not join that conference and vow to never play Texas in any sports so long as they have their own network.
Would Texas be willing to lose their biggest rivals for their own network and a little more money? Byrne sure seems to be alluding to this. It’s a good threat so long as OU is in the same camp as he is. What good would a Texas network be if they only played crappy teams.
Posted by MEDIA GUY
This is a hot button issue. Texas really wants to be the first to have one. A&M does not want Texas to have one. I know. I have spent many, many hours discussing the topic with Bill in his office and with DeLoss and Chris in theirs. This is the hottest of hot button issues.
Tarp, their only chance to have a network is if the Big 12 continues to exist.
I should restate my previous post by stating if tu gets their own network, we are not going to be in the same conference.
A&M might not have any influence over it but we should not join a conference with them if they get their own network. Why in the hell would the PAC-10 agree to this? They’re not desperate. Like I said before, A&M and OU need to stand together on this. If Texas joins the PAC-10 and gets it’s own network, then A&M and OU need to bolt to the SEC and not play Texas anymore. And Texas fans can talk all they want about who cares about OU and A&M but losing those rivalries along with Arkansas years ago will leave them with nothing but a network and meaningless football games. They can end up like ND for all I care and schedule the service academies in their place.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
A&M & OU can and will pursue their own best interests here. Playing second fiddle to tu in the Pac 10 East while they get their own network and we get whatever time slot is left on channel 924 won’t fly with either program.
MEDIA GUY
That’s exactly what ESPN did — but they did it with a carrot…a big financial number and the contractual promise of significantly increased exposure on ESPN (which has immense non-financial value relative to the mediocre exposure the Big Ten gets on BTN or, worse, the abysmal exposure (and poor remuneration) the Pac-10 and the Big 12 get on FSN/CSN).
However, the SEC was able to negotiate for the contractual right to re-open the contract in the event of conference expansion. The SEC, essentially, got an option to put the contract back to ESPN. How you like dem apples?
As of right now, the A&M people are contemplating what is best, PAC-10 or SEC. This means, in my personal analysis, the first threshold question, is the Big 12 viable, has been answered no.
Also, Byrne seems to be the type where his words to the press usually provide no clue as to his true intention, but his travel usually does.
Here’s what mediaguy himself had to say on another thread:
“If I had to guess, I think A&M, UT and OU are all headed to the Pac-10 and the issue now is 3rd tier rights and what reverts to conference control. That’s what precipitated Bill’s comments.”
Tarp
LikeLike
New blog post is up!
LikeLike
Frank,
on Vandy..
study history..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Intercollegiate_Athletic_Association
the SIAA is the oldest conference, it became the southern, which became the SEC and ACC (the Big 10 is the oldest that is still in operation) which always assumes that the ACC and SEC do not exist. The point of all this is that VANDY founded the conference.. so it would be a HUGE deal for them to move to the Big 10.. Think of a founding member of the Big 10 that is still an active member moving to the SEC or Pac 10.. not saying it is impossible, but I would bet my hat it is long odds indeed.
on your comment of moving south.. it was a major reason for including kentucky in the Big 10 long term.. as they are adding corporate headquarters not losing them.. and with cheap coal and the new steel mills built along the ohio in the past 20 years [see also Nucor], the state of kentucky is not the state seen in tv movies.. between Cincinnati, Louisville, and Lexington.. you have growing markets and the majority of the state lives and works in this triangle .. the “hillbilly” image is outdated.. yes there are people living in the hills, but they are a minority, not a majority.
LikeLike
Plus it offers a chance for the Big Ten to get in on the ground floor in collegiate thoroughbred racing.
LikeLike
Pass on Vandy and UK…pass,pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, and pass again.
LikeLike
dd,
dunno about racing.. but their polo team just won the NC, plus they have a hockey team, and Rupp was converted so they can have ice – their hockey posters are the stuff of lore, and playing at midnight is cool atmosphere for college kids.
LikeLike
BREAKING NEWS (valid source):
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=143839427&mid=143839427&sid=901&style=2
Breaking: Big Ten Offers Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Notre Dame Reply
——————————————————————————–
Just spoke with my friend at the Big Ten. The offer to Missouri is contingent upon Texas joining. Will post more details as I hear
LikeLike
Nebraska, Maryland, Virginia, Texas, ND
LikeLike
if you take the top 5 geographically feasible public universities (as ranked by USNWR) that are not already B10 members, you get this:
University of Virginia – #2 public (tie with UCLA)
University of North Carolina – #5 public
College of William & Mary – #6 public
Georgia Tech – #7 public
University of Texas – #15 public (tied with Florida)
University of Maryland – #18 public (tied with tOSU)
So i did six since W&M is clearly not an option. One of the countries most elite and storied academic institutions to be sure, but not an athletic one. Though they did beat both UVA (football) and Maryland (basketball).
UNC won’t come without Duke. The next runner up then is Pitt – #20 public.
It almost seems like the big ten is trying to actually create a public ivy league for the east coast.
LikeLike